Archbishop Chaput urges end to capital punishment

[Ender]

the Church teaches that the DP can be imposed, so if this teaching has meaning, then even the most ardent anti-DP advocate must believe that the DP may be properly imposed.

so, when? apply hypothetical facts to the Church teaching and give an example of when the DP is proper.

I think this is the wrong debate to have. The Vatican disapproved of the execution of Saddam Hussein even though he would appear to be the perfect candidate given not simply his genocidal actions but the fact that he was held in a third world prison, guarded by those with divided loyalties, and his escape would have had enormous negative consequences. The phrase " very rare, if not practically non-existent" in practice has come to mean “under no circumstances.” I think it is more useful to point out that this limitation is a prudential opinion with which we may legitimately disagree.*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
Ender

 

[triumphguy]

so you have nothing concrete to add, other than “somewhere the Church tells us how to make it better”? tell me what this is because I’m dying to know. because I’ve explained, repeatedly, and cited an FBI source, that shows prison gang leadership is able to communicate with the outside using attorneys (who have the constitutional privilege of client-attorney communications), using minor convicts and their attorneys, codes in regular letters and by other means I’m not going to discuss. my experience: **I was approached, as defense counsel for someone in prison but having nothing to do with prison gangs, to pass on messages through my client. ** I refused, but I guarantee you that other lawyers don’t.

Westerby

(emphasis added)

whatever you do, just stop misrepresenting my argument – if you do nothing else, stop misrepresenting me. I said I didn’t pass on messages but that prison gangs use attorneys to pass messages through to the outside and that’s how they order killings, among other serious offenses. I’ve also explained how attempting to monitor confidential communications causes monumental problems and actually hasn’t worked either.

Westerby

I was just going by what you said:shrug:. I didn’t say you had passed on messages.

| hope you’re not typing this on your cell phone during a court case

Basically what you are saying is that there are bad men in prison and there are (some) bent lawyers.

OK…

Not a very strong argument for capital punishment - unless you include the lawyers

 

[Ender]

The opposing side is saying the current Church is mistaken…

No, the opposing side is saying the current opposition is prudential and while that position may or may not be mistaken it is not a question of the Church teaching erroneous doctrine. To charge the Church with doctrinal error is a much different allegation than disagreeing with an opinion.

You’ve also avoided saying that the past teachings are also prudential.

The traditional teaching is not prudential, it is doctrinal, and it has not changed.In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)

Are you saying the men of today are exhibiting misconduct?

Matters of opinion do not involve misconduct.

I wasn’t saying there was a misconduct, but a defining, or evolving of teaching through time.

I was trying to point out that a reversal of position cannot be considered evolutionary. It is repudiation, not evolution.

The support of capital punishment was not ‘doctrinal’ at any time, in that it could not be changed. If that were so, then our Pope would be in error more than in a prudential judgment.

Of course it was doctrinal. In 1210 Pope Innocent III required the Waldensians to sign a document recognizing their doctrinal errors before being readmitted to the Church. One of their errors was in opposing capital punishment. This was the doctrine they were forced to accept:
“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly”

I believe it’s man’s desire for vengeance, or retribution, that views a penal system as inadequate so as not to have the ability to protect the public through other means than capital punishment.

The Church teaches that retribution is the primary objective of punishment. Protecting the public is secondary.

This is because of the lack of addressing the innocents executed through a flaws legislation of capital punishment.

This is a valid but prudential concern that is not relevant to the discussion of the morality of capital punishment. This is why I have chosen not to address it.

I have asked, sincerely, what authoritative men of the Church today teach support for capital punishment? Some continue to search history to find snippets to support their view on capital punishment, while discounting current teachers as ‘mistaken’.

To dismiss 2000 years of teaching on this subject as mere historical snippets shows the extremes to which one has to go to support the position that there is something wrong with capital punishment. Vatican City itself had the death penalty on her books until 1969. Pius XII back in the 1950’s wrote fairly extensively on this subject and even the 1992 version of the Catechism expressed the traditional teaching. One cannot properly understand what the Church teaches by clinging to the opinions of the last 20 years and excluding the doctrines of the previous 2000.

I have said that I can see how men that seem to be on different sides of the issue through time could have possibly been correct, according to the times they lived in.

Morality does not change with time and place. What was moral in the past cannot be immoral today.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

I think this is the wrong debate to have. The Vatican disapproved of the execution of Saddam Hussein even though he would appear to be the perfect candidate given not simply his genocidal actions but the fact that he was held in a third world prison, guarded by those with divided loyalties, and his escape would have had enormous negative consequences. The phrase " very rare, if not practically non-existent" in practice has come to mean “under no circumstances.” I think it is more useful to point out that this limitation is a prudential opinion with which we may legitimately disagree.*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
Ender

As long as the CCC includes exceptions, then there is no blanket prohibition. If the Church changed her teaching on this issue I would obey. But what is in practice is not what is written, and until then, anyone opposing the DP must address specific factual reasons for and against as given by the CCC, and part of this debate is how to prevent convicted, DP-eligible criminals from continuing to direct murderous activity.

Saddam was executed before he could have done any additional injury, but I’m wondering how much carnage he would have actively directed from prison, and how much of the Vatican might have been willing to dismiss.

Westerby

 

[Ender]

Is that statement correct over statements made in more recent years?

Yes, Dulles’ statement is as true today as when he made it … all of eleven years ago. What you cited are more examples of opposition to the application of capital punishment but none of that represents a change of doctrine. Nor am I holding my breath waiting for that doctrine to ever change.If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

But what is in practice is not what is written, and until then, anyone opposing the DP must address specific factual reasons for and against as given by the CCC, and part of this debate is how to prevent convicted, DP-eligible criminals from continuing to direct murderous activity.

Section 2267 makes three separate assertions and we make take exception to any or all of them. Your specific concern is with the third claim which is that states can adequately protect the public from dangerous criminals by locking them up. I think your rejection of that claim is valid and it makes for an interesting conversation between people like yourself, who point to statistics and real life examples, and those who oppose you - who have to avoid that debate entirely as a rebuttal of your position would involve an argument over data … which is obviously neither a moral nor a theological concern.

Ender

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Section 2267 makes three separate assertions and we make take exception to any or all of them. Your specific concern is with the third claim which is that states can adequately protect the public from dangerous criminals by locking them up. I think your rejection of that claim is valid and it makes for an interesting conversation between people like yourself, who point to statistics and real life examples, and those who oppose you - who have to avoid that debate entirely as a rebuttal of your position would involve an argument over data … which is obviously neither a moral nor a theological concern.

Ender

I think we’ve covered all the grounds. let me close by stating that, regarding the death row population now, I say that the CCC would bar the vast majority of such pending executions by applying any of the 2267 rules.

Westerby

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, the opposing side is saying the current opposition is prudential and while that position may or may not be mistaken it is not a question of the Church teaching erroneous doctrine. To charge the Church with doctrinal error is a much different allegation than disagreeing with an opinion.
The traditional teaching is not prudential, it is doctrinal, and it has not changed.In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)
Matters of opinion do not involve misconduct.
I was trying to point out that a reversal of position cannot be considered evolutionary. It is repudiation, not evolution.
Of course it was doctrinal. In 1210 Pope Innocent III required the Waldensians to sign a document recognizing their doctrinal errors before being readmitted to the Church. One of their errors was in opposing capital punishment. This was the doctrine they were forced to accept:
“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly”
The Church teaches that retribution is the primary objective of punishment. Protecting the public is secondary.
This is a valid but prudential concern that is not relevant to the discussion of the morality of capital punishment. This is why I have chosen not to address it.
To dismiss 2000 years of teaching on this subject as mere historical snippets shows the extremes to which one has to go to support the position that there is something wrong with capital punishment. Vatican City itself had the death penalty on her books until 1969. Pius XII back in the 1950’s wrote fairly extensively on this subject and even the 1992 version of the Catechism expressed the traditional teaching. One cannot properly understand what the Church teaches by clinging to the opinions of the last 20 years and excluding the doctrines of the previous 2000.
Morality does not change with time and place. What was moral in the past cannot be immoral today.

Ender

You call it doctrinal and deny that present day men of the Church are not going against doctrine. It’s not ‘doctrinal’ in that it’s Dogma. We are not required to accept a past opinion on the death penalty, or does this only apply to things you view prudentially doctrinal?

Killing people is killing and denies a full right to life from conception to natural death. Christ taught no differently. There was no ‘lukewarm’ to His teachings.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The traditional teaching is not prudential, it is doctrinal, and it has not changed.
Ender

Because there is no change it’s doctrinal, but if it changes it’s prudential. How can prudential trumph doctrinal? Catholics were once forbidden to marry outside the faith, that changed. Penances were once taught to be public, that changed.

Christ never supported the death penalty, as evident with His teaching on ‘an eye for an eye’.
No one can produce any New Testament scripture to support the death penalty. No one can go back to the early Church fathers and find support. Support of capital punishment, was prudential to begin with as it was not an original teaching, using your logic.

 

[Ender]

You call it doctrinal and deny that present day men of the Church are not going against doctrine. It’s not ‘doctrinal’ in that it’s Dogma. We are not required to accept a past opinion on the death penalty, or does this only apply to things you view prudentially doctrinal?

I am not alone in calling the new position in the Catechism prudential; Cardinal Dulles said it and Cardinal Ratzinger implied it. The same is true of the traditional teaching of the Church: I am simply repeating what Cardinal Dulles said.

Killing people is killing and denies a full right to life from conception to natural death.

The Church has been quite clear about when one is justified in taking a human life. *“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)
Ender

 

[Ender]

How can prudential trump doctrinal?

It can’t.

Catholics were once forbidden to marry outside the faith, that changed. Penances were once taught to be public, that changed.

I never said other things cannot change.

Christ never supported the death penalty, as evident with His teaching on ‘an eye for an eye’.

The Church allows for the death penalty even today. Either she is wrong now and has been wrong for 2000 years … or you are mistaken.

No one can go back to the early Church fathers and find support.

Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment (Dulles)
*It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit *(Professor Stephen Long, Univ. of St. Thomas)

Support of capital punishment, was prudential to begin with as it was not an original teaching, using your logic.

It would seem logical to accept the words I actually used: the traditional teaching is doctrine; the current Catechism is prudential, and I have always insisted that it is an original teaching since, as I mentioned, St. Paul.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am not alone in calling the new position in the Catechism prudential; Cardinal Dulles said it and Cardinal Ratzinger implied it. The same is true of the traditional teaching of the Church: I am simply repeating what Cardinal Dulles said.

…and, you’re simply leaving out parts for some reason. Does Cardinal Dulles speak out in favor of the death penalty? We know the Pope does not and has praised those countries that have ended and called on others to end it.

We lose context when we seek only those things that seem to support our view.

The Church has been quite clear about when one is justified in taking a human life. *“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)
Ender

Yes, it’s quite clear and easily read in the CCC, that is our guide in today’s times.

See, it’s a pick and choose for some. You place one Pope over another, and one that served when security in the penal system was nothing compared to the security today’s system has.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Church allows for the death penalty even today. Either she is wrong now and has been wrong for 2000 years … or you are mistaken.
Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment (Dulles)
*It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit *(Professor Stephen Long, Univ. of St. Thomas)
It would seem logical to accept the words I actually used: the traditional teaching is doctrine; the current Catechism is prudential, and I have always insisted that it is an original teaching since, as I mentioned, St. Paul.

Ender

Show us this support that has existed for 2000 years.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m inviting anyone to help us stop the ‘cherry picking’ and provide some sources showing an authoritative man of the Church in current times that clearly speaks in support of capital punishment.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

I’m inviting anyone to help us stop the ‘cherry picking’ and provide some sources showing an authoritative man of the Church in current times that clearly speaks in support of capital punishment.

you’ve been quoted part of the CCC, which you will not accept as an authoritative statement of Church teaching, that permits the death penalty.

all I can do now is explain your errors, and hope you will not lead others astray.

Westerby

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

you’ve been quoted part of the CCC, which you will not accept as an authoritative statement of Church teaching, that permits the death penalty.

all I can do now is explain your errors, and hope you will not lead others astray.

Westerby

I have not rejected, as you continue to spin what I post. I have posted the qualifying statements in the CCC in which the death penalty may be applied.

The majority of your reasoning has been secular, in reference to ‘gangs’. We have provided scriptures and understandings of the fullness of what the CCC says. Do you think Archbishop Chaput is leading others astray?

 

[triumphguy]

you’ve been quoted part of the CCC, which you will not accept as an authoritative statement of Church teaching, that permits the death penalty.

all I can do now is explain your errors, and hope you will not lead others astray.

Westerby

He was quoted Pius X’s catechism.

 

[triumphguy]

Avery Dulles actually says:

The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four ends of punishment. It does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about salutary repentance. It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society against the criminal. Whether it serves to deter others from similar crimes is a disputed question, difficult to settle. Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt." Cardinal Avery Dulles, Catholicism and Capital punishment." First Things Archive April, 2001

He then says:

Thoughtful writers have contended that the death penalty, besides being unnecessary and often futile, can also be positively harmful. (Ibid., Op. Cit)

“the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the church… the pope and bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.” (Ibid., Op. Cit.)

Finally: “Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops.”

And the Pope and Bishops say what? Stop the executions already.

Ender, you can argue to until you’re blue in the face, but when the Pope speaks we should listen.

It seems all you want to do is not listen and prove why the Pope is wrong.

 

[jwinch2]

We have authoritative men of the Church teaching us today. Isn’t this Pope a Vicar of Christ, just as all the Popes were in the times they served?

There are no ex cathedra pronouncements referencing capital punishment. That’s true. How many other teachings have no such pronouncements yet are placed above opinion status?

Pope Benedict has personally stated that although he believes that the Death Penalty should be done away with, that Catholics can, in good conscience disagree. A good thread which discusses the issue can be found here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=621229&highlight=death+penalty

and here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=634848&highlight=death+penalty

The simple fact of the matter is that Church teaching for 2000 years has been that the Death Penalty can be used for purposes of punishment. The most recent catechism attempts to narrow that, as have the last two popes. However, they cannot bind Catholics to this position. As was noted in a previous thread on the subject:

Until 1870, the Papal States, over whom the Pope was ruler, executed criminals. It in fact, had a professional headsman in its employ (the method was beheading with the axe). Vatican City, the temporal holding of the Holy See, had the death penalty on its laws until 1969.

Personally, I would like to see the Death Penalty be far more rare than it is today, consistent with the teachings in the most recent CCC. However, if others disagree and hold to the teachings from the Tradition of the Church, they are free to do so without moral consequence and this is a valid position for them to take.

An article discussing Church history on the Death Penalty which is pretty informative can be found here:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8506

Peace,

 

[triumphguy]

And John Paul II did not just speak against Capital Punishment:

The Holy Father’s strong stance on the death penalty, like his call for mercy and protection of all human life, not only carries the weight of his ecclesial office, but it is backed up by his own personal witness.

When John Paul II was shot in 1981, he experienced the unjust suffering of a victim. Such an assassination attempt, especially on a high-profile person, can still result in a death sentence for the perpetrator. Yet the Holy Father chose not to seek vengeance or even what might be considered the maximal punishment under the law. Instead, the pope gave the world a tremendous witness of mercy when he forgave Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish Muslim who had tried to assassinate him. The pontiff even went to pray with him in his prison cell, and later successfully lobbied with the Italian government to grant him a pardon during the jubilee year of 2000.

The same pontiff had offered a similar gesture of mercy during his visit to St. Louis in 1999. On the first day of the pope’s visit to the city, Darrell Mease, a convicted killer, was sentenced to die by lethal injection. John Paul II pleaded with Gov. Mel Carnahan to stay the execution, and Mease’s sentence was commuted to life without parole.(40) While the state continued to execute its prisoners on death row following the papal visit, and this despite further requests by the Vatican to halt the death penalty regime in Missouri, the commutation granted by a government official to a death row prisoner attests to the moral force of the late pontiff’s advocacy for a culture of life.

In seeking to contribute to a civilization that promotes human dignity, the Catholic Church desires to strike a balance between the demands of justice and the need for the very acts of mercy that make it easier for people to practice compassion and justice. The Catholic moral tradition, as referenced in this presentation on capital punishment, shows an unambiguous preference to preserve life even when the order of justice is threatened and the safety of innocent life is at stake. While acknowledging the moral and legal prerogative of the state to execute criminals in strictly limited circumstances, the church pleads for restraint in the exercise of that prerogative.

The moral requirement to protect the innocent stands alongside the imperative to stem the cycle of violence that keeps individuals and communities enslaved to vengeance. As Mohandas Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8506