L
Baltimore: basilica illuminated in honor of death penalty repeal [CWN]
- Status
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Dranu,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said.
Rather than a re-formulation, dear friend, there appears to have been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent times. Mr. Keating (founder of Catholic Answers) has stated:
"The Catechism has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only one in the Catechism on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience".
(Karl Keating’s E Letter, 2nd. March 2004)
Therefore, it does seem perfectly reasonable to ask if the faithful are obligated to receive as standing magisterial teaching what is a prudential judgment, simply because it has become enshrined in our Catechism. Moreover, as sw 85 aptly puts it, “you cannot be obliged to believe what you are not told you are obliged to believe”. How can a prudential judgment bind the consciences of the faithful, notwithstanding that it has found its way into the current Catechism?
An excellent point was made, dear friend, by Avery Cardinal Dulles in 2004, regarding the argument reversing the traditional support of Holy Mother Church for the death penalty:
“The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium. Consistency with scripture and long-standing Catholic tradition is important for the grounding of many current teachings of the Catholic Church; for example, those regarding abortion, contraception, the permanence of marriage, and the ineligibility of women for priestly ordination. If the tradition on capital punishment had been reversed , serious questions would be raised regarding other doctrines…”
(‘Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty’ in Religion and the Death Penalty, E.C. Owens, J.D. Carlson & E.P. Elshtain, eds., (Cambridge, England: Eerdmans Publ., 2004, p. 26))
Hear, hear to those insightful remarks by the Cardinal - methinks that he makes a jolly good point that the abolitionists ought to carefully ponder.
It may not be fashionable to say this nowadays, dear friend, but crime is a theological issue and thus it is only within theology that evil, the deepest dimension of crime, can be properly addressed. This would have been obvious to previous generations of Catholics, as yet not influenced by a mawkish secular humanism. Contemporary Catholics must needs again re-focus upon evil when treating of the topic of crime generally if they are to have a correct perspective on capital punishment. Owing to Original Sin man is a fallen being disposed to wrongdoing of one sort or another, however criminals can and will reform, provided that they are given a reason and shown the way. That way is often the threat of imminent death, judicially imposed, for the crime of murder. Surely the death penalty can be seen as truly beneficial if it forces the convicted man to ponder deeply, perhaps for the first time in his wretched life, his eternal destiny and estrangement from God. Moreover, is it not at all possible that God also mandated the death penalty (Gen. 9: 6) for the benefit of the murderer, so as to bring him to a state of penitence by the immediate prospect of death and judgment? Does not facing the death penalty remind a murderer, in a way that incarceration for life simply cannot do, of the grim but inescapable truth that “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9: 27)?
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear LongingSoul,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Many people here in Britain, dear friend, also lament the abolition of the death penalty for murder and do not necessarily believe that it is inherently barbaric, having no place in a progressive country. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that in Britain the abolition of capital punishment offended every section of society, irrespective of age, gender, class or political sympathies. In 1964 opinion polls estimated public support for abolishing the rope to be no more than 23 per cent and by June 1966, after the five-year suspension had commenced, this had fallen to 18 per cent. Peter Hitchen’s verdict that the abolition of hanging was “a victory for the elite over the people’s”, is, I would say, jolly accurate. Sadly, as with many of the other permissive reforms of the Sixties, politicians were choosing to ignore the wishes of the electorate and altering the law in a way directly opposed to the opinions and feelings of the vast majority of the British people. The whole new climate of liberalism and cultural freedom certainly facilitated the passing of legislation to engender a more permissive society. Moreover, there was general and immoderate confidence in the power of ‘experts’ to usher in social change by ‘educating’ the public to adopt more supposedly enlightened opinions that chimed with the new liberal attitudes. Alas, they no longer cared that what they were proposing was at variance with the great Christian consciousness and plain common sense, itself inspired by Christian teaching over the centuries. We had a whole generation with a new explanation and they arrogantly thought that that explanation was superior to what had gone before and that only the ‘old guard’ would refuse to budge.
It is important for people to observe, dear friend, that whilst our Catechism strongly discourages the death penalty it does not overtly condemn it either. This it clearly could not do, since the constant teaching of the Church has always held that the death penalty is morally licit and that legitimate government, as “minister of God”, has the right to impose it (cf. Rom. 13: 4).
Moreover, dear friend, if the death penalty is a barbaric punishment that effectively dehumanizes its members by officially having them executed, then that surely amounts to an insulting affront to God who mandated capital punishment at the first (Gen 9: 6). Surely that is an ineluctable conclusion to which we are shut in.
Another major obstacle that the Catholic abolitionist must surmount is that if there has been no abrogation of man’s being in the image of God, then the rationale for the death penalty (Gen. 9: 6) must be as true today as it was in the days if Noah. It follows that while the detailed provisions of the criminal code of Israel are no longer binding upon the Church, the mandate of requiring the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing validity today. Legitimate distinctions are to be made between legislation given to the Jews as a theocratic state under Moses and the more universal revelation given to mankind through Noah. Noah stood at the head of a new human race after the Flood, and stipulations of the Noahic covenant, such as permission to eat meat and the promise of no further universal flood, applied not just to Noah and his family or to some limited ethnic group, but, in principle, to all mankind. It is because God Himself sanctioned the death penalty for the heinous crime of murder that it has always been part of the constant teaching of the Church throughout the ages.
Man, dear friend, notwithstanding his fallen estate, still retains the image of God and thus when violence in the form of murder is done to a man, it is in effect an outrage against God, hence the severity of the punishment. Just as an act of desecration to nations flag represents an attack on the nation itself, so an attack in man represents an attack on the divine majesty - it lays profane hands on that which is divine.
God bless, This will be my final post but I pray that viewers of this thread will carefully weigh the compelling arguments in favour of the death penalty and not allow themselves to be swayed by the maudlin sentimentality of secular humanism.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
E
Ender
Guest
We have been given free will which is often misused but that doesn’t alter the fact that free will is a good thing as God has endowed us with it. States have a moral right to employ capital punishment and the fact that that right is sometimes misused does not mean the right should be eliminated or that it is unjust.
I disagree with the arguments presented to support the position that capital punishment should be used only when it is necessary to protect society.
I believe his comments to be prudential judgment and such judgments, even when given by popes, are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
*"… the truth conferred by Revelation is a truth to be understood in the light of reason." *(Fides et Ratio, JPII)
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Actually the church herself has defended it and declared it a heresy to claim that its use was un-Christian.
If it may be used at all then it is clearly an exception to the fifth commandment. Besides, the church has always taught that it is an exception.*“Those who, endowed with the character of public authority, punish criminals by death, do not violate that commandment which says, Thou shalt not kill.” *St. Augustine
There is no doubt about his opposition to the use of capital punishment. That doesn’t resolve the two issues: 1) Is 2267 prudential, and (2) are the arguments it uses supportable? I have given to what seem to me to be very strong reasons why 2267 is prudential and why the justifications it provides are not supported by church doctrine.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This is a good point. I disagree with your interpretation but it’s good that you raised this issue. I think a lot of people would agree with you and this is probably one reason those who do have such a hard time making sense of my arguments. Clearly if all acts of justice (punishment) are contrary to human dignity then capital punishment of necessity must be the most contrary of all. This is why many people simply cannot accept that the primary objective of punishment is retribution. The church, it seems clear to me, sees this differently.But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people.* Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity** and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. *(JPII)
The point being made here is that it is an affront to a person’s dignity ***not ***to hold him accountable for his actions. We don’t believe animals can sin; their actions may be harmful or helpful but they are neither moral nor immoral. Not holding a person accountable for his deeds is to treat him as less than human. It is by his very punishment that his humanity is recognized and his human dignity upheld.
Yes they can and nothing is true simply because a Doctor, Father, or even a pope has said it. In this case, however, what they all said conforms with what pretty much everyone in the church prior to about 1960 had said. That is the Traditional teaching of the church.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
D
Dranu
Guest
Since the early Church fathers, that explicit outward union with the Church was unnecessary for salvation appeared to be held. Explicitly by clear formal teaching for those prior to Christ, and more by implication after Christ. A good analysis would be to look at ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT which I thought was well made and touches on the some of those clarifications that arose in the 1800s and early 1900s. It is fitting that would be the time to clarify such doctrine too since the West was dealing more and more with multiculturalism within its own borders. As for the statement in the Catechism there (846-848), I think it is fairly clear it is a matter of faith. The same is not so with 2267.
Another reason why I think JPII’s statements must be prudential is the Old Testament death penalties. If doctrine, it is simply a moral truth that the death penalty ought never be applied except for the safety of persons, yet many of the Old Testament death penalties clearly do not seem to contemplate this limitation. One may say, as with divorce, that it was permitted because of their hardness of heart, but I find that argument unpersuasive since it takes more the form of positive command than an allowance on certain conditions.
Again, with that said, I still do not think 2267 clearly contradicts prior Church teachings, it just seems to, and, on top of that, already appears prudential (though not with absolute clarity). If the Magisterium were to make it binding, I would not lose much sleep as I could see how it COULD fit in (though I might be forced to resign from my job).
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t what the first statement means but I believe the second to be absolutely false. Not only has it not always been “treated as an absolute last resort” but that you can’t find a single reference supporting such a claim. Also, I find the term “common good” used in this context to be a bit too vague.
If by protection you mean the physical prevention of future mayhem then this statement is simply wrong. In fact it has never been about that and if I quoted documents in their entirety we would never finish reading them. If you believe any of my citations are incomplete or taken out of context I’ll be happy to provide the full pages written before and after them.
Can you even try to make an argument in support of your assertions? I think you’ll find that the defense argument is going to fail for any number of reasons but you are welcome to make the attempt to support your claim.
I can provide any number of citations that demonstrate otherwise. How many will you require? Obviously you’ve rejected Augustine’s comment on this point.
Ender
K
Kevin12
Guest
People should give up on trying to convince ultra-Traditionalists that the wording of the CCC might indicate the abolition of the death penalty is a good thing. You must realize, friends, that there are people who are technically faithful to Rome who, if John Paul II, while still with us, had sat down next to them on the bus, the would probably move somewhere else. There’s just no point in discussing most things with some people. You’re better off praying for them, because words will never reach them.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
of course the CCC doesn’t say that abolition of the DP is a good thing, friend. It could have said it, but it doesn’t.
There’s no point in discussing this with most people. People who are willfully blind to the evil that comes from DP-eligible convicts who run narcotics gangs and continue terrorist activity from inside prison regardless of the best administrative procedures will always value the theoretical over the actual harm caused.
K
Kevin12
Guest
Indeed, because the Church does not embrace the Consequentialist approach to ethics you seem to be taking. Indeed, such an approach is a mainstay of those who support abortion, euthanasia, and a thousand other evils.
As to the CCC, as I am sure has been pointed out here, it says that the circumstances that would permit the death penalty in the contemporary world, friend, are almost non-existent.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
friend, “almost non-existent” is not the same as “barred”. this forum is full of specific examples of where the DP would be valid under the CCC.
I read the CCC and take it at its word, I’m not interested in how you interpret it personally.
even suggesting that I support abortion (I’ve put in hundreds of pro bono hours supporting the pro-life movement), euthanasia or even one other evil is grossly insulting.
K
Kevin12
Guest
I never suggested you supported abortion, but you are using the same logic in this instance as those who do. You seemed to suggest that it is legitimate to kill people for, as you said, “running narcotics gangs” from in prison, which as I see it is an endorsement of the Consequentialist position that the ends justify the means.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
I’ll accept your apology.
this isn’t a joke.
I’m not going to play word games with you, the CCC allows the DP in certain instances, whether you call this balancing test “consequentialist” or “Susan” doesn’t matter to me. that’s a high school level debate trick.
2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends, shows that prison gang leadership order murders and runs narcotics distribution from inside prison.
Lynn Stewart was an attorney who passed messages from the first WTC bomber to a terrorist gang causing more deaths in spite of extraordinary measures to prevent this from happening.
you pretend these things don’t happen or have no concern for future victims, and think that buzzwords like “Consequentialist” are supposed to have us shaking in our boots? really?
so again, why do you personally believe the CCC doesn’t say exactly what it says?
E
Ender
Guest
That assertion is based on two assumptions: that modern penal systems actually do effectively restrain recidivist murders and that the use of capital punishment causes more problems than it solves. Neither is a moral objection which is not surprising as the church has always recognized that states have a moral right to employ it.
As Fairwinds has pointed out, the claim that jailing criminals renders them harmless is quite debatable and in several known cases simply untrue. As to whether using capital punishment “sends the wrong message”, I find that claim suspect as well. The main point however is that the use of capital punishment is not now and has never been seen as immoral. Unhelpful perhaps but not immoral. Again, this is not surprising as the church has always recognized it as a just punishment for at least the crime of murder.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
And yet there are still some within the Church that see this as a contradiction.
The death penalty is addressed by the CCC in the same breath as war is addressed and I think for very sound reasons. The Old Testament finds God telling the wandering Israelites to conquer Canaan and make it their own also, but we don’t (hopefully) defend *conquest *as the primary end of war (anymore).
The way one contemplates the Old Testament has to be necessarily different to the way we contemplate the New. God had His plan for His ‘chosen people’ back then, but by virtue of adoption, Jesus shows we are all God’s chosen people. That distinction no longer existed after the resurrection. We necessarily have to regard each other differently. There is no longer a ‘them and us’ and the laws made within the old Covenant, which you could say had the primary end of ‘retribution’ or ‘conquest’ in establishing the sacred nature of mans life… now have a primary end of ‘common good’ (bearing in mind there is no ‘them and us’anymore ) in establishing the sacred nature of mans life. The concept of a ‘common good’ had no relevance in the Old Testament whatsoever.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I suppose my perspective on this thread is infused with curiousity more than argument. Where I have been raised, the death penalty was abolished in 1922 and that decision was very much influenced by the voice of the Catholic Church. I deeply believe that Bl. John Paul II will also be a Doctor of the Church in time and don’t feel wantonly pre-emptive in the least, by falling into line with his perspective on such issues as this one.
E
Ender
Guest
I have no idea where you’re from but I can be pretty sure whatever country it is the decision to abolish capital punishment wasn’t all that influenced by the Catholic church in 1922 since Vatican City didn’t abolish the punishment until 1969. Beyond that, Pius XII, whose reign didn’t end until 1958, wrote rather extensively on the propriety of capital punishment. Opposition to the death penalty within the church is very recent and does not go back more than 40 years or so.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I don’t agree that the way of doctrinal development begins with an official Vatican ‘press release’. It so happens that human experience at the ‘coal face’ leads the way and Pope John Paul II was a great example of this, having lived through communism in Poland and through nazi occupation during WW2. Human experience is really the only way that man and God communicate. There is no direct hotline between the Vatican press office and God in the way you seem to be suggesting.
I’m in Queensland, Australia and the death penalty was a gross abuse of human dignity 100 years ago in the environment of racial, religious and class inequality. It was abolished in 1922 for that very reason.
- Status