Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[TMC]

Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI permitted Catholics to disagree on the death penalty’s moral status but not on abortion or euthanasia.

I think our disagreement is principally about the status of the Church’s past teaching (if we even disagree there), and not on the Church’s current teaching (at least that is my hope).

So referring to Pope Benedict giving Catholics some leeway as to the morality of specific applications of the death penalty, do you agree that the Church’s current teaching no longer gives Catholics that leeway? If you do, I think we agree on the most important point - the Church’s current teaching.

 

[NSmith]

As things currently stand, I think that to maintain the use of the death penalty would be incompatible with the Church’s teaching, at least in the United States, which has the necessary penal infrastructure that JPII spoke of. I agree that there isn’t a massive practical difference between our views. I don’t think I 100% agree with the Vatican’s reasoning about the practical cruelty of capital punishment compared to imprisonment. Both are violations of rights. Both are affronts to human dignity. Both are contrary to the Gospel.
We permit them because of the necessities of Law, the need for Justice. The Vatican’s reasoning against the death penalty applies equally to all forms of criminal justice. I foresee that some further clarifications will take place, but perhaps not for some time.
That being said, my opinion has no bearing on the nature of the teaching, which is binding. it remains, however, dependent on the present circumstances.

 

[TMC]

That being said, my opinion has no bearing on the nature of the teaching, which is binding. it remains, however, dependent on the present circumstances.

OK. As a practical matter maybe our positions are very close. I do not see the teaching as dependent on the present circumstances, and certainly that is not found in the text of the teaching itself or in the Pope’s explanation of the teaching. But I understand that certainly some are taking it that way, and perhaps some clarification on that point will be forthcoming.

 

[Ender]

Clearly Thomas argues that protection justifies capital punishment.

The need for protection cannot justify capital punishment, otherwise we wouldn’t need to wait for a dangerous person to commit any crime, let alone a serious one, in order to justify executing him.

The novelty of new penal technology underpins the development of doctrine by St. JPII as argued earlier.

Eternal doctrine is not tied to technological developments.

the primary purpose of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offence.

Yes, and redressing the disorder of a past crime is not achieved by preventing a future one, therefore protection cannot be the primary objective of punishment. Since it is not primary it cannot be the deciding factor in determining what punishment is appropriate.

I grant the circular reference, but the authority of the Encyclical surpasses that of the authority of a catechism which has no intrinsic authority (Benedict XVI).

I don’t understand this. What circular reference? And it is the encyclical Evangelium Vitae that cites what is in the catechism regarding the primary objective of punishment. What are you referring to here?

 

[Rau]

Where have I said that.

Thanks for asking. Did you say the following:

I certainly agree that the Church used to teach that the death penalty was acceptable, but that teaching has changed, as other teachings have changed.

Well then, if you accept that CP was taught previously as acceptable (in right circumstances) then you must agree we were being taught it was (is) not intrinsically evil. [I’m assuming you know the theological meaning of intrinsically evil?]

Which brings us to the question of what the CCC means to teach at this point in time. Only one of the following statements can be line with that teaching:

1. That CP is intrinsically evil. Meaning, no matter what, for all time, in any circumstance, it is unacceptable. Just like abortion.

OR

1. That in the current circumstances, CP is unacceptable, inadmissible, an unthinkable affront to decency and should not be pursued.

You need to pick one. Pick Number 2 and I’m with you. Pick Number 1 then just must fess up and admit the Church taught error in the past and has now corrected that error.

 

[Ender]

As things currently stand, I think that to maintain the use of the death penalty would be incompatible with the Church’s teaching, at least in the United States, which has the necessary penal infrastructure that JPII spoke of.

Francis’ change abrogates JPII’s position that capital punishment could be justified. The need for protection has become an irrelevancy; that exception is no longer valid.

I don’t think I 100% agree with the Vatican’s reasoning about the practical cruelty of capital punishment compared to imprisonment. Both are violations of rights. Both are affronts to human dignity. Both are contrary to the Gospel.

Prison as well as capital punishment is cruel and contrary to the Gospels? This cannot be. The legitimacy of capital punishment is based on scripture, so unless the Gospels contradict scripture it cannot be that capital punishment is contrary to the Gospels.

That being said, my opinion has no bearing on the nature of the teaching, which is binding. it remains, however, dependent on the present circumstances.

If the teaching is prudential, as I understood you to say earlier, then it is not in fact binding. We have no moral obligation to assent to opinion.

 

[Rau]

If the teaching is prudential, as I understood you to say earlier, then it is not in fact binding. We have no moral obligation to assent to opinion.

That’s correct. The strength of language used, while falling short of declaring CP intrinsically evil, serves only to convey a view that the Pope (and recent Popes) hold their conviction most fervently that CP (by inference - “these days”) is a seriously questionable and poor choice of punishment.

 

[Anesti33]

Ender:

If the teaching is prudential, as I understood you to say earlier, then it is not in fact binding. We have no moral obligation to assent to opinion.

That’s correct. The strength of language used, while falling short of declaring CP intrinsically evil, serves only to convey a view that the Pope (and recent Popes) hold their conviction most fervently that CP (by inference - “these days”) is a seriously questionable and poor choice of punishment.

They are by no means alone. The whole USCCB has long railed against capital punishment. They have been united with the three Pontiffs on this issue.

 

[Rau]

They are by no means alone. The whole USCCB has long railed against capital punishment. They have been united with the three Pontiffs on this issue.

Indeed - Bishops generally. I agree also. Any many Popes may have held the view that CP was far too readily put to use and may well have felt it was also unnecessary, even inappropriate, in their time.

 

[Rau]

The Catechism (2267 ) states that the death penalty is permissible if “this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

What you are quoting precedes the changes made by Pope Francis and thus is not directly relevant to what is being debated on this thread.

See here: New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty – Rescriptum “ex Audentia SS.mi”

 

[Ender]

They are by no means alone. The whole USCCB has long railed against capital punishment. They have been united with the three Pontiffs on this issue.

The issue is not how many individuals share the same opinion, but whether the teaching is itself prudential or not.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

They are by no means alone. The whole USCCB has long railed against capital punishment. They have been united with the three Pontiffs on this issue.

The issue is not how many individuals share the same opinion, but whether the teaching is itself prudential or not.

If the opinion is held unanimously or as a majority consensus, then it has Magisterial implications.

 

[Rau]

If the opinion is held unanimously or as a majority consensus, then it has Magisterial implications.

What is the implication if a majority (or, all) the Bishops agree an opinion about what is good or not good in present circumstances?

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

If the opinion is held unanimously or as a majority consensus, then it has Magisterial implications.

What is the implication if a majority (or, all) the Bishops agree an opinion about what is good or not good in present circumstances?

Well that’s a very difficult question, if you are speaking of faith and morals. Because faith and morals do not change based on circumstances, time, or place.

 

[Ender]

If the opinion is held unanimously or as a majority consensus, then it has Magisterial implications.

First, no, it doesn’t. An opinion is still an opinion regardless of who believes it, and does not carry the weight of doctrine. It does not oblige our assent.

Second, there is no way for the bishops to be unanimous in their opinion on the matter because even the bishops don’t know exactly what Francis’ change means. At their annual meeting in 2018 the question was asked regarding that change: “What does ‘inadmissible’ mean?” The response was: “It is an eloquent ambiguity.” Personal opinions about ambiguous statements are just not that compelling.

 

[Rau]

Well that’s a very difficult question, if you are speaking of faith and morals. Because faith and morals do not change based on circumstances, time, or place.

That statement needs to be understood with great care if it is to lead to correct conclusions. The situation in which we find ourselves can be very relevant in making our choice of act moral or not moral. Our Intentions, the Act we choose, the balance of consequences need all to be assessed to judge whether we act morally. If the case is persuasive that CP causes more harm than good, but I pursue it anyway because it’s not intrinsically evil, I’ll stand condemned. Of course whether that “case” to which I referred is persuasive is a judgement and good people may come to differing conclusions.

 

[graciew]

Abolishing Capital Punishment.
No more DP.

Yes, unintended eventually( a massive earthquake?? )
TMC has provided the document already where the Pope explains it himself.
I have nothing else to add.

 

[Motherwit]

If the case is persuasive that CP causes more harm than good, but I pursue it anyway because it’s not intrinsically evil, I’ll stand condemned.

That’s a good way to put it.

 

[Anesti33]

Thankfully, for me this discussion is purely academic.

I am not in a position to establish, impart, or abolish the death penalty, legislatively or juridically.
None of the political candidates on my ballot even mention the death penalty as an issue. No politicians run on such a platform, and it doesn’t come up in campaigns.

So I can support or oppose until the cows come home, but my opinion on an Internet forum isn’t worth the pixels it’s rendered in.

I suppose I could be drafted to a jury deciding a capital case or a capital sentence. Then I will simply point out that nobody knows what my own Church teaches about the issue, and be excused.

 

[Motherwit]

Thankfully, for me this discussion is purely academic.

I am not in a position to establish, impart, or abolish the death penalty, legislatively or juridically.

That’s the case for everyone here I would suppose. And the Church doesn’t make civil laws. She addresses the philosophy or theorys behind them in the light of the Gospel and tradition. The last 4 popes have categorically reassured us that the movement in the world to abolish the death penalty is the result of “heightened moral awareness” about mans dignity. And she corrects theories that claim to be Catholic but aren’t.