Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[njlisa]

@Rau

I deleted my original post. Thanks for pointing out my error.

I have no problem with Bin Laden’s death. One way or another, he was a sworn enemy to the U.S. and many other countries. He and his followers committed acts of war. Maybe we can consider his death a military necessity.

I would support the execution of people who pose similar threats to a nation’s security.

 

[AlNg]

In the past, was it true that capital punishment was an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person? Or is it true only in modern times that capital punishment is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person?

 

[blackforest]

The question that has not been addressed adequately is “What justifies capital punishment?”

Actually this was addressed upthread, when we were discussing the practicality of self-defense. Self-defense, however, would not apply anymore due to the advent of maximum security prisons, and the possibility of staff negligence enabling an escape would not justify killing the convict.

 

[Motherwit]

In the past, was it true that capital punishment was an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person? Or is it true only in modern times that capital punishment is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person?

When we become aware that something is doing more harm than good in the light of better means, we are morally obliged to go for the good option. We are more aware now of how violence breeds violence and we are morally obliged to use a better option.

 

[AlNg]

We are more aware now of how violence breeds violence

So we are more aware now that capital punishment is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person, but we were not aware of that in the past? So capital punishment was always an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person, even in the past?

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

We are more aware now of how violence breeds violence

So we are more aware now that capital punishment is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person, but we were not aware of that in the past? So capital punishment was always an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person, even in the past?

Awareness does grow. Think about how in the past doctors only recourse to resolving a diseased uterus was a hysterectomy. That was the only way for the highest good to be served. Today doctors are aware of ways to treat the problem without having to take away this part of the woman. Her highest good is served by less brutal solutions. If a doctor decided “we did hysterectomies in the past so it is legitimate to do them today” he would be in serious breach of the ethic “do no harm”. Can you see how something that was the highest good in the past can become a wrong in the face of better ways that preserve the wholeness of the body?

 

[Motherwit]

Anesti33:

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.

I’d wager that the strong statements of the last 3 Popes addressing the abolition of the death penalty and its abolition in all other Judeo Christian countries, it would take an extremely holy saint to call that out.

 

[OnAJourney]

Personally in my opinion I don’t think so. I view the death penalty as a form of revenge after a court of law has already tried and convicted someone. We shouldn’t be seeking vengeance after a conviction. I don’t think it’s in keeping with turning the other cheek. That’s not to say no one should ever be punished, but I think the state murdering somebody after getting a conviction really goes against that message.

State sanctioned murder of its own citizens is just as immoral as abortion in my opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Thomas did not think so. I offered the Saint’s argument as evidence to counter the claim that such arguments did not exist prior to St. JPII’s development of the CP doctrine.

Eternal doctrine is not tied to technological developments.

The issue is the morality of an act not intrinsically evil. Acts not intrinsically evil must look to the other fonts for their moral status. The font of circumstance is tied to technological changes.

… redressing the disorder of a past crime is not achieved by preventing a future one

Redressing the disorder most certainly involves actions to prevent the causes of the past disorder to remain as a cause of future disorders.

… 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.

As I argue the premise is in error, its conclusion does not necessarily follow.

But to your point, do you believe the papal office possesses a special charisma in its prophetic voice on faith and morals? If so, arguing from human reason as to the truth in papal pronouncements which claim that charisma are invalidated.

Years ago, we had began this exchange which ended in my writing, “Stay tuned”. Infallibility has not yet been claimed but the trend is in that direction. Not only is the sensus fidelium moving in that direction, so is the common sense of the world’s population. So again, I end with: stay tuned. Pope Francis’ rationale for the most recent change is lacking some important facets that validate the change as developmental. Minds are at work to discern those missing points.

 

[Ender]

Actually this was addressed upthread, when we were discussing the practicality of self-defense. Self-defense, however, would not apply anymore due to the advent of maximum security prisons, and the possibility of staff negligence enabling an escape would not justify killing the convict.

The church always taught that there were three situations where killing a person could be legitimate: in a just war, in self defense, and as a punishment for a severe crime. Capital punishment was never considered a sub-set of self defense.

When we become aware that something is doing more harm than good in the light of better means, we are morally obliged to go for the good option. We are more aware now of how violence breeds violence and we are morally obliged to use a better option.

Execution by lethal injection is the very antithesis of violence. This is not a reasonable argument.

the very ease with which death is accomplished by drugs…could lead to easier imposition and acceptance of the death penalty. (Oklahoma bishops, 1983)

I’d wager that the strong statements of the last 3 Popes addressing the abolition of the death penalty and its abolition in all other Judeo Christian countries, it would take an extremely holy saint to call that out.

That these are prudential judgments is a point made by any number of people, including bishops. I don’t think it’s all that controversial.

 

[Ender]

Thomas did not think so. I offered the Saint’s argument as evidence to counter the claim that such arguments did not exist prior to St. JPII’s development of the CP doctrine.

I missed this argument, but I’m willing to bet that Aquinas never stated that the need for protection justifies capital punishment. I can believe he said protection is a benefit.

The issue is the morality of an act not intrinsically evil. Acts not intrinsically evil must look to the other fonts for their moral status. The font of circumstance is tied to technological changes.

This is true, but this undeniably involves a judgment…which has been my point.

Redressing the disorder most certainly involves actions to prevent the causes of the past disorder to remain as a cause of future disorders.

The church identifies four separate objectives of punishment.

According to Church teaching, a civil government’s response to crime should be to uphold justice by achieving four goals: rehabilitate the offender, protect society from the offender, deter future offenses, and redress the disorder caused by the offense. (Texas Conference of Bishops, 2019)

Protecting society is no part of redressing the disorder.

do you believe the papal office possesses a special charisma in its prophetic voice on faith and morals?

With regard to faith and morals, yes; with regard to most practical considerations, no.

Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role. (Gaudium et Spes)

 

[blackforest]

So far as I know, Augustine’s defense was that it was a deterrent, disproven by available data, and self-defense, a moot issue in the age of maximum security prisons.

The Thomistic approach is to say that there’s a greater chance of their conversion if death is looming, but that’s a moot issue now that we have a greater understanding of sociopathy, mental illness, and a rare likelihood that somebody seeking religious conversion will select Catholicism before they’re condemned.

The Church no longer teaches that it’s acceptable as “punishment for a severe crime,” so playing the “justice” card no longer works here.

 

[NSmith]

Prison as well as capital punishment is cruel and contrary to the Gospels?

I mean contrary to the Gospel in the sense that I think Pope Francis uses it, not as contrary to the word of Scripture, but as contrary to the spirit of love for our enemies, the respect for their human dignity, and the desire that God has revealed for the salvation of all men.
To imprison any person is contrary to those things because you are stripping them of their dignity and right to individual agency, placing them in a situation where they are very likely to commit further crimes or become a victim of further crimes, and labeling them as a “felon” or as a “criminal” which results in their degradation in the eyes of other citizens, significantly harming their ability to find a vocation after their release.
Therefore, it follows that even imprisonment in the form it exists in all first world countries is an affront to the Gospel on the same reasoning applied to the death penalty by Pope Francis. He has even spoken about the harm of life imprisonment on several occasions.
But I do not think that capital punishment is contrary to the Gospel, that is Pope Francis’ teaching, taken directly from his address to the pontifical committee on the new evangelization. This is in accordance with Christian belief about the inviolability of the right to life, from conception to natural death.
I agree with the Holy Father that it is an assault on human dignity…that seems self-evident considering the fact that a person ends up without their life. I think that the doctrine of the dignity of life is extremely important and I am glad that the Holy Father passionately seeks to defend it. However, we will have to wait and see how Catholic social doctrine regarding a civil government’s duties with respect to crime and punishment also develops alongside the awareness we are beginning to have as to the extent of our defense of life.
The problem is that the development occurred with respect to and in continuity with Christian teaching about the value of life, and Pope Francis did not elucidate about the impact on Christian civil governments, except to say that what applies to the individual also applies to the society at large.
I think that the positive duties of civil governance justify the existence of punishments proportionate to crime, and I believe this is substantiated by Christian teaching. In that sense it is not incompatible with the Gospel message to rightly punish the criminal, because the government, acting out of abundant love, should not permit evils to perpetuate, and for the hope of the criminal’s salvation ought to rebuke him. Obviously, as far as capital punishment is concerned, it is no longer considered a proportionate punishment even for the most serious crimes, mostly because it does not meet with the human dignity of the criminal.

 

[TMC]

I am happy to stand by the exact words of my previous statement, and I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

I am not going to buy into your game of forcing me into one of what you see as the only two choices. That is a false dichotomy, as I suspect you realize, and seems like a naked attempt to convince Catholics that the Church’s current teaching on the death penalty is conditioned on a prudential judgment, which is not what the Church teaches.

 

[Ender]

So far as I know, Augustine’s defense was that it was a deterrent, disproven by available data, and self-defense, a moot issue in the age of maximum security prisons.

I have seen nothing to suggest that Augustine ever made that argument, and as far as capital punishment being proved to have no deterrent effect, that’s not accurate either. There are numerous studies that have addressed the subject, including those that found it did indeed deter. This argument is still open.

The Church no longer teaches that it’s acceptable as “punishment for a severe crime,” so playing the “justice” card no longer works here.

It is justice alone that validates any punishment. A punishment is either just or unjust, and I’ve not heard anyone support an unjust one. The church also teaches this: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” (CCC 2266)

If capital punishment was a commensurate (just) punishment in the past it is equally commensurate today.

 

[NSmith]

A punishment may be commensurate without being indispensable.

 

[Ender]

I mean contrary to the Gospel in the sense that I think Pope Francis uses it, not as contrary to the word of Scripture, but as contrary to the spirit of love for our enemies, the respect for their human dignity, and the desire that God has revealed for the salvation of all men.

OK, I can understand that interpretation, but the objection still stands. This understanding would have the gospel message interpreted in direct contradiction with scripture. That seems unlikely.

To imprison any person is contrary to those things because you are stripping them of their dignity and right to individual agency…

I think this is exactly backwards, and is based on a grave misunderstanding of sin and punishment. First of all, sin is personal, and it is punishment itself that recognizes man’s dignity by holding him morally accountable for his actions.

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. (Reconciliatia et paenitentia, JPII)

If a person is not justly punished for his sin he cannot atone for it.

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice. (Aquinas ST I-II 87,6)

Obviously, as far as capital punishment is concerned, it is no longer considered a proportionate punishment even for the most serious crimes…

Can the proportionality between capital punishment and murder change? If it was a commensurate punishment before how can it be incommensurate now? Has man’s nature changed so that murder today is no longer as serious a crime as before? Again we face the problem of condemning now what was doctrine before.

…mostly because it does not meet with the human dignity of the criminal.

Given that God himself commanded this form of punishment I have difficulty condemning it as a violation of man’s dignity.

 

[NSmith]

Can the proportionality between capital punishment and murder change?

Perhaps it isn’t quite correct to say it is no longer proportionate. Rather, it is no longer necessary.

I think this is exactly backwards, and is based on a grave misunderstanding of sin and punishment.

I would agree, except it would not be my misunderstanding but that of the magisterium, unless I am seriously misunderstanding their point, which seems to be that even a serious criminal such as Hitler, or Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein, does not require the application of the death penalty, and indeed it would be cruel if it were applied, even if it would be commensurate for their misdeeds. In our time the penal compensation due for such crimes is imprisonment, following Pope John Paul II’s words in Evangelium Vitae.

Given that God himself commanded this form of punishment I have difficulty condemning it as a violation of man’s dignity.

I agree that the Old Testament law proposes a serious difficulty in attempting to show that the death penalty in principle is evil. However, it could be argued that since God is the Lord of life and death his precepts carry an authority that no civil authority can claim in our time, except possibly for the Vatican state which is lead by the Vicar of Christ.
The Lord saw fit to order the destruction of entire nations down to the last living thing, but no nation today would be justified in executing such a campaign no matter the wicked deeds of the targeted people.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps it isn’t quite correct to say it is no longer proportionate. Rather, it is no longer necessary.

OK, but how is necessity determined? The catechism states that the State has a positive duty to apply a commensurate punishment, and if we know that capital punishment is proportionate then what is the argument against applying a punishment we know to be just?

I would agree, except it would not be my misunderstanding but that of the magisterium, unless I am seriously misunderstanding their point, which seems to be that even a serious criminal such as Hitler, or Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein, does not require the application of the death penalty…

Having lived through WWII, Pius XII statement in 1953 would seem to address this very point:

In the case where human life is made the object of a criminal gamble, where hundreds and thousands are reduced to extreme want and driven to distress, a mere privation of civil rights would be an insult to justice.

it would be cruel if it were applied, even if it would be commensurate for their misdeeds.

Again, can what was just before be cruel today?

In our time the penal compensation due for such crimes is imprisonment

“In our time” relates to judgments, not doctrines.

it could be argued that since God is the Lord of life and death his precepts carry an authority that no civil authority can claim in our time,

“And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate.”
(Catechism of St. Thomas)

 

[NSmith]

I find the force of your arguments very convincing, but I cannot bring myself to accept what would then be a rather significant error on the part of the present magisterium. I did see Pope Pius XII’s statement, and in fact it is one of the reasons why I feel as though it can not be determined by any future pontiff that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. His pronouncement as well as the confession of faith that the Waldensians were forced to make on their conversion.

Again, can what was just before be cruel today?

I think the example of slavery is salient, because there was a time perhaps when the Church did not consider the ownership of persons to be evil, and in Philemon it is not condemned as such. Only the mistreatment of the servant was considered evil from the beginning.
However, as the Church began to live the gospel of love that was given to us, the practice of slavery became known at a later time to be incompatible with our faith, and obviously today is considered unacceptable in every form.
Perhaps slavery was never considered just in the same way as the death penalty was in the past, but I think it could be argued it was at a former time permissible, and that it no longer is.
In a similar way the death penalty which was long considered acceptable is now understood to be by nature contrary to the gospel of life, and in the words of Pope Francis, “Yet the harmonious development of doctrine demands that we cease to defend arguments that now appear clearly contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth.”
I think perhaps he was referring to St. Thomas Aquinas’ statement that the serious criminal divests himself of his dignity, comparing the condemned man to an animal – “Although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful.” (Summa Theologica, II Q64 article 2)
The Church no longer believes that it is possible for a man to lose his dignity under any circumstances.