Archbishop Chaput urges end to capital punishment

[triumphguy]

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

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.

Personally, I would like to see the Death Penalty be far more rare than it is today, consistent with the teachings in the 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.

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,

However, if Catholics focus on arguing for the death penalty rather than advocating for justice in society and seeking to change the conditions and cycles of poverty and violence then they have their priorities as Catholics seriously mixed up.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

However, if Catholics focus on arguing for the death penalty rather than advocating for justice in society and seeking to change the conditions and cycles of poverty and violence then they have their priorities as Catholics seriously mixed up.

either that or we’re able to see the world as more complex than a false “either / or” question.

Westerby

 

[jwinch2]

However, if Catholics focus on arguing for the death penalty rather than advocating for justice in society and seeking to change the conditions and cycles of poverty and violence then they have their priorities as Catholics seriously mixed up.

I’ve seen very few Catholics arguing for the Death Penalty. What I have seen, is Catholics arguing for the right for other Catholics to have that opinion, in that it is consistent with 2000 years of Church teaching. I have also seen many other Catholics who seem to want to ignore everything prior to the most recent Catechism, telling them that they are wrong.

As for the rest, you have set up a straw man argument. Any Catholic who did not embrace all of Catholic teaching would have their priorities out of place. Since Catholic Social doctrine states that we are to believe in helping the poor and working for a just society, albeit while having the right to differ on the best method of seeking those goals, any Catholic who rejected that would be setting themselves against the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve seen very few Catholics arguing for the Death Penalty. What I have seen, is Catholics arguing for the right for other Catholics to have that opinion in that it is consistent with 2000 of Church teaching. I have also seen many other Catholics who seem to want to ignore everything prior to the most recent Catechism, telling them that they are wrong.

I thought we were seeing people wanting the end of a possibly developing doctrine.

No one has said there is no exception for the death penalty; but, as the CCC says, it’s very rare if not nonexistent. So, how is that wrong?

 

[jwinch2]

I thought we were seeing people wanting the end of a possibly developing doctrine.

No one has said there is no exception for the death penalty; but, as the CCC says, it’s very rare if not nonexistent. So, how is that wrong?

Prior to Blessed JP2, Church teaching was that the Death Penalty was a valid option for the punishment of crime. A good discussion of this was presented in a previous thread:

From Fr. Michael, at All Experts.com

The teaching of the Church from the earliest centuries, as represented,
e.g., in the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 64, A. 2), and St. Alphonsus Liguori (all
Doctors of the Church), as well as in the Encyclical Casti Conubii of Pope
Pius XI, is that society has the authority to inflict punishments upon its
members, and even to deprive a criminal of his life, for the necessity of the
common good: (1) primarily, to vindicate the moral order and expiate the
crime, (2) secondarily, to defend itself, (3) to deter other would-be
offenders, and (4) to reform the criminal or deter future crime.

   Pope Pius XII, in an address ("Ce Premier Congress") on the moral

limits of medical research and treatment to the First International Congress
of Histopathology of the Nervous System, held in Rome on September 13, 1952,
contrasted the right to life with the benefit of life in the case of a justly
condemned criminal: "Even when there is question of a person condemned to
death, the state does not take away the right of the individual to life.
It is then reserved to the public authority to deprive the condemned person
of the benefit of life in expiation for his guilt, after he himself, by his
crime, has already deprived himself of his right to life. (Acta Apostolicae
Sedis XLIV (1952), p. 787)

   The dogmatic Council of Trent decreed:  "[well founded is] the right

and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of
penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases
of extreme gravity, the death penalty."

   It should be noted that to vindicate the moral order means not the

taking of vengeance upon the criminal, but imposing upon the criminal
some act or loss or suffering as a form of compensation to right the
balance of justice. Of such “vindictive” punishment, Pope Pius XII
stated: “It would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of
principle the function of vindictive punishment. While man is on earth,
such punishment both can and should help toward his eternal salvation,
provided he himself raises no obstacles to its salutary efficacy”
(Discourse of December 5, 1954, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLVI, p. 67).

   Given these purposes, an execution may take place if the following

conditions are met: (a) the guilt of the prisoner is certain; (b) the
crime is of major gravity; (c) the penalty is to be inflicted, after due
process, by state authority, not by private individuals or by lynching,
and (d) the prisoner is given the opportunity to make his peace with
God.

   Given these criteria, Catholics may differ in their prudential

judgments as to whether a particular society needs to employ capital
punishment for its own protection. To say that it is wrong per se or
never justified is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church.
A Catholicm may not add his prudential judgments to the list of Church
doctrines and enjoin them as obligatory. However, the state may always
choose to commute the deserved penalty.

   It should be noted that heinous criminals are not innocent persons

(like unborn children), but are objectively guilty in natural law of
grave crimes against the common weal. As Pope Pius XII explained it:
“Even in the question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the
state does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. It then falls
to the public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life
in expiation of his fault after he, by his crime, has already deprived
himself of his right to life.”

Having said all that, my personal approach is very consistent with what is in the current CCC. I believe that the Death Penalty should be very rare and with very strict judicial review built into the process.

 

[triumphguy]

either that or we’re able to see the world as more complex than a false “either / or” question.

Westerby

Whereas, I infer, the Popes and Bishops are incapable of that?

Maybe they want to make the world a better place, and not allow excuses to get in the way?

And maybe we should listen.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prior to Blessed JP2, Church teaching was that the Death Penalty was a valid option for the punishment of crime. It didn’t imply any sort of precondition of a criminal being a danger to others, etc. It simply stated that people could be put to death for purposes of punishment.

Having said all that, my personal approach is very consistent with what is in the current CCC. I believe that the Death Penalty should be very rare and with very strict judicial review built into the process.

As time as passed the authoritative men of the Church have had to define in more detail. Does this make them less correct than those of past times? I posted one post in this thread and conceded that all Popes could be correct, in reference to their statements according to the time era in which they served.

You are welcome to read back through and see that I have not stated there is no possibility of an acceptable execution; however, you can see some posters put a spin on what I said, some repeatedly even though I had brought their inaccuracies to their attention.

Those people have stated their right to disagree, while seemingly attempting to discount anyone’s opinion that disagrees with them.

I understand your approach, and agree with it. For myself, I believe, according to my faith formed conscience, that I cannot in good conscience support capital punishment and consider myself pro life.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

Whereas, I infer, the Popes and Bishops are incapable of that?

Maybe they want to make the world a better place, and not allow excuses to get in the way?

And maybe we should listen.

between you, the Popes and the Bishops, I infer one of you is incapable.

Westerby.

 

[triumphguy]

between you, the Popes and the Bishops, I infer one of you is incapable.

Westerby.

Perhaps you don’t know any of us then.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

between you, the Popes and the Bishops, I infer one of you is incapable.

Westerby.

Maybe that’s where some of our misunderstanding each other comes from. I agree with Archbishop Chaput and Popes John Paul and Benedict, yet it seems only my opinion is considered wrong???

 

[jwinch2]

Those people have stated their right to disagree, while seemingly attempting to discount anyone’s opinion that disagrees with them.

Then I suggest that they are wrong. One is certainly able to agree with the current position of the Holy Father, and the CCC. My point is simply that those who hold to the Traditional position of the Church are not wrong or immoral for doing so.

I understand your approach, and agree with it. For myself, I believe, according to my faith formed conscience, that I cannot in good conscience support capital punishment and consider myself pro life.

I can support it in a very limited fashion, in particular where innocent lives are at stake, with strong physical evidence (not eye witness, not hearsay, etc.) linking the accused to the crime, and strict judicial review… An example of where innocent lives are at stake could be a prison inmate that is a clear and present danger to staff or other inmates, who manages to continue to run his gang from inside prison walls, etc.

 

[Ender]

…and, you’re simply leaving out parts for some reason.

Cite what you think I’ve left out that is relevant.

Does Cardinal Dulles speak out in favor of the death penalty?

People don’t speak out in favor of unpleasant things. When is the last time you heard someone speak out in favor of amputations? What Dulles spoke out about what that the death penalty has always been recognized by the Church as a right of states to apply.

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

There is nothing at all prior to 1995 to support your position and very little after except the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae. I can cite the opinions of a half dozen popes, a half dozen catechisms, and a dozen Doctors and Fathers of the Church over the entire history of the Church. I have read those documents and there is nothing there to support what is in the Catechism. I should note that there is nothing in either the Catechism or EV that references any previous Church document. With all of the footnotes you’ll find elsewhere, those two documents (in the relevant sections) point only to … each other.

See, it’s a pick and choose for some.

Yes, this is exactly what you have done. You have not even attempted to address what the Church teaches elsewhere, you simply ignore it. Nor is this what I have done. I have attempted to make sense of everything that has been taught and the only way I have found that reconciles what was taught before with what is going on now is by accepting Cardinal Dulles’ explanation that the current teaching is prudential.

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.

The assertion that security is better today than in the distant past seems hard to justify. We know that killers even in maximum security prisons can still order murders and run their operations. How many crime bosses do you reckon continued to control their empires when serving in the galleys, imprisoned in an oubliette, or rotting away in an ancient mine? The claim of today’s enhanced security is not merely an opinion but one that seems rather inaccurate.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m inviting anyone to help us stop the ‘cherry picking’

If you consider citing 2000 years of Church teaching “cherry picking” then I guess you’ve got me. You are using meaningless slogans to dismiss my arguments without having to respond to them. When did citing the opinions of Augustine and Aquinas become 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 appear to believe that “speaking in support” of something means advocating it as in “let’s go execute someone!” The Church has spoken out, clearly and continually, that capital punishment is a right of states to impose for certain serious crimes. Doesn’t Cardinal Dulles qualify as an authoritative man of the Church in current times or are you now limiting discussion to only what has been said in the last year or two?

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

Ender, since you reference him, here is what Avery Dulles actually says:

Quote:

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 (to society). (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.”

 

[Ender]

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.

We may disagree on how extensively capital punishment ought to be used but there appears to be no significant difference in our understanding of this subject.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ender, since you reference him, here is what Avery Dulles actually says:

Quote:

He then says:

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.”

Thanks triumphguy. I grow tire of circular discussions; especially when one attempts to spin everything I say.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Cite what you think I’ve left out that is relevant.
People don’t speak out in favor of unpleasant things. When is the last time you heard someone speak out in favor of amputations? What Dulles spoke out about what that the death penalty has always been recognized by the Church as a right of states to apply.
There is nothing at all prior to 1995 to support your position and very little after except the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae. I can cite the opinions of a half dozen popes, a half dozen catechisms, and a dozen Doctors and Fathers of the Church over the entire history of the Church. I have read those documents and there is nothing there to support what is in the Catechism. I should note that there is nothing in either the Catechism or EV that references any previous Church document. With all of the footnotes you’ll find elsewhere, those two documents (in the relevant sections) point only to … each other.
Yes, this is exactly what you have done. You have not even attempted to address what the Church teaches elsewhere, you simply ignore it. Nor is this what I have done. I have attempted to make sense of everything that has been taught and the only way I have found that reconciles what was taught before with what is going on now is by accepting Cardinal Dulles’ explanation that the current teaching is prudential.
The assertion that security is better today than in the distant past seems hard to justify. We know that killers even in maximum security prisons can still order murders and run their operations. How many crime bosses do you reckon continued to control their empires when serving in the galleys, imprisoned in an oubliette, or rotting away in an ancient mine? The claim of today’s enhanced security is not merely an opinion but one that seems rather inaccurate.

Ender

See triumphguy’s post…it’s complete and includes the parts you left out for some reason.

I really don’t care how many Popes you use. It’s not a card game on who can produce the most. I said, doctrines develop and feel this is one of those issues, since I don’t want to say any Pope was wrong, especially the most recent shepherds over the Church, I’ll leave it to you to go back and read my posts if you want. That’s up to you.

I have also explained the CCC statement so anyone can understand what I said, and think a person interested in honest discussion could see we somewhat agree. I agree with Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict, and Archbishop Chaput. I don’t consider the CCC to be mistaken and am not sad for anything in it. That’s my personal belief, according to my faith formed conscience. That’s what we all have to follow, and it makes neither of us less a Catholic.

 

[triumphguy]

Thanks triumphguy. I grow tire of circular discussions; especially when one attempts to spin everything I say.

I agree.

If the pope suggested everyone should eat yogurt for breakfast I think everyone should listen, not try and prove him wrong.

As I’ve said many times in many threads Capital Punishment obscures justice in many many ways, without giving any benefits to society.

If you took all the money spent on the process for CP and spent it on prisons they would be a lot safer.

If Governments stopped pretending they were “tough on crime” just to get votes and tackled the roots of crime - poverty, illiteracy, racism there would be less crime.

1 in 10 men in some ethnic groups in the USA will spend time in jail. What’s up with that?

I’ve worked in prisons as a Catholic Chaplain, and I also have a law degree. Prison on the whole does not work. Relying on the death penalty to prove how tough on crime the system is just obscures the reality of its systemic failure.

As Catholics I believe we are called to tackle the tough jobs, not maintain the status quo.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If you consider citing 2000 years of Church teaching “cherry picking” then I guess you’ve got me. You are using meaningless slogans to dismiss my arguments without having to respond to them. When did citing the opinions of Augustine and Aquinas become cherry picking?
You appear to believe that “speaking in support” of something means advocating it as in “let’s go execute someone!” The Church has spoken out, clearly and continually, that capital punishment is a right of states to impose for certain serious crimes. Doesn’t Cardinal Dulles qualify as an authoritative man of the Church in current times or are you now limiting discussion to only what has been said in the last year or two?

Ender

There is support either way, and based on that support we have committed ourselves to the end solution we propose, in the eyes of the Lord. We are the state and our support to the secular politicians commit us even more.

The Church is speaking now and I am especially attentive to the authoritative men of the Church during my lifetime. I don’t discount any of the successors of Peter; however, as I’ve repeated multiple times, doctrines develop overtime. Some doctrines require more definition as times change. There’s plenty of evidence to those statements.

What I believe seems to be of no consequence to some. It’s been spun to insinuate that I am rejecting Church teaching, even though I’ve given clear explanations and flat out said I DO NOT REJECT CHURCH TEACHINGS… That’s a tactic I see often on these forums when you don’t agree totally with some.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

…
As I’ve said many times in many threads Capital Punishment obscures justice in many many ways, without giving any benefits to society.
…

and it took all of three minutes to prove you wrong, this time using the FBI report on the mexican prison gang la eMe, since executed drug lords who run prison gangs and outside narcotics distribution networks will be taken out of business, an obvious benefit to society unless, as is possible, you believe that contract killings are acceptable so long as no convict is hurt.

Westerby