Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[Ender]

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.

If the comments from JPII - Francis are seen as prudential judgments about the inadvisability of using capital punishment in modern society then there is no problem. If, however, we look at these changes as doctrinal then we have an impossibly serious problem. We would be forced to choose between 2000 years of popes, magisteriums, Doctors, and Fathers on the one hand and the changes of the last 25 years. We would also have to question whether we could actually believe the Holy Spirit has kept the church from serious error.

I think there is no solution to the problems created by interpreting these changes as doctrinal.

 

[NSmith]

I thought you were also saying that it would be impossible to accept the statement of Pope Francis that “It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity.” It seems as though the same objections to doctrinally redefining the death penalty to be evil apply to this.
The reason is: Under what circumstances, if any, would it ever be considered just to abase human dignity? This question seems to be the very reason that St Thomas Aquinas held that the criminal divests himself of his dignity, because then it would not be the act of the state which abases him, but the very crime he committed.
I suppose considering the character of the address in which the statement was made it could simply be considered an error, if it would also propose insurmountable problems.

 

[NSmith]

After some reading, it would appear that even if the Magisterium is in error on some point or another, it is not permissible for theologians or the laity to publicly dissent, but rather they are bound to accept what is being taught as much as possible and to seek dialogue with their superior in order to reconcile any errors in their reasoning, without publicly sharing what may be shown to be a fractious opinion. In light of this I don’t feel comfortable pontificating about this matter further in this context. God bless!

 

[Ender]

I thought you were also saying that it would be impossible to accept the statement of Pope Francis that “It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity.” It seems as though the same objections to doctrinally redefining the death penalty to be evil apply to this.

One of the fastest ways of getting in trouble on this forum is to say anything that is insufficiently deferential to a bishop. You can imagine the reaction if you’re careless with what you say about a pope, so I want to tread cautiously here.

That statement, however, does seem problematic as I can’t find any way to reconcile it with either scripture or the first 2000 years of church doctrine. Perhaps someone else can untangle it, but I’m at an impasse. God himself commanded the Israelites to impose the death penalty. How are we to understand that if it is inhumane and abases human dignity?

The reason is: Under what circumstances, if any, would it ever be considered just to abase human dignity? This question seems to be the very reason that St Thomas Aquinas held that the criminal divests himself of his dignity, because then it would not be the act of the state which abases him, but the very crime he committed.

Someone more acquainted with Aquinas could perhaps answer that, but I would not be surprised to find there are two forms of dignity: that which we possess by being made in God’s image, and that which we create or destroy by our own actions.

I suppose considering the character of the address in which the statement was made it could simply be considered an error, if it would also propose insurmountable problems.

For me the problem is insurmountable, but I would not go so far as to assert the pope was in error. Not in this forum.

 

[Ender]

§3, Canon 212, Title I, The Obligations and Rights of All the Christian Faithful, Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici,states: Can. 212 §3.

According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons

 

[NSmith]

Yes, but also, in Donum Veritatis,

Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

1. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him well founded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.
   Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

I myself am not a theologian, merely someone who thinks deeply and requires rational consistency. Even so, if my disagreement with the statements of Pope Francis is based solely on a lack of justification, which appears to be the case since he has not spoken of how to reconcile the historical or Scriptural status of the death penalty, neither has any bishop as far as I know, then I ought to refrain from speculation, and wait for him or for some other authentic act of the Magisterium to clarify the situation.
My qualms are not about the existence of any disagreement, but about the nature of the presentation thereof, particularly in this thread where I have contributed to the lively debate perhaps by representing my views as certain, rather than open to change. I think in the future I ought to be more careful to ask questions rather than making declarations.
Anyway, these are my own feelings about the discussion here. I won’t say that you ought to stop discussing it. In fact I will probably keep reading the thread. I just want to take the time to reflect on my views and perhaps seek the counsel of my pastor on certain issues, before speaking about them.

 

[Rau]

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…

Explain why please @TMC. Point out my error. Is CP intrinsically evil? Why do you dodge these questions?

 

[Ender]

The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him well founded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

If the “non-irrformable magisterial teaching” was doctrine I think this observation would apply. That it also applies to prudential judgments seems unlikely.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles, 2004)

 

[Rau]

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?

The application of another punishment judged proportionate that does less collateral harm would be preferable. A better choice.

 

[Ender]

Is CP intrinsically evil?

This is of course the inescapable question. It is a simple yes or no question, and it is not a trick question. The problem is that either answer leads to difficulties that really are unanswerable for those who believe the use of capital punishment is immoral.

Which is why the question remains unanswered.

 

[Ender]

The application of another punishment judged proportionate that does less collateral harm would be preferable. A better choice.

True, but this involves two judgments: that punishment X is proportionate, and that it does less collateral harm, and has been pointed out, we are allowed to maintain our own judgments. I don’t argue that the anti-capital position (for prudential reasons) is illegitimate, only that the pro-capital punishment position is neither illegitimate nor immoral.

 

[NSmith]

The whole disagreement of this thread has been whether or not the revision is intended to express such a judgement or to teach a matter of moral doctrine. It seems clear from the language that Pope Francis chose to employ that he means for it to be a development of doctrine, particularly because he invokes the words of St Vincent of Lerins, saying “Some may say: Shall there be no progress of religion in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For who is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it?”
Now, I mistakenly applied the term prudential in earlier posts to express what I understood to be the Holy Father’s guidance to civil authorities on this moral dilemma. In that sense it is prudential, and from this sprang my misunderstanding. But it is also evidently doctrinal, because Pope Francis did not restrain himself to merely offering guidance, but also makes explicit reference to development, and on these merits justifies himself by saying, “Here we are not in any way contradicting past teaching, for the defense of the dignity of human life from the first moment of conception to natural death has been taught by the Church consistently and authoritatively.”
The fact that he did not explain how this is not contrary to Scriptural commandments involving death, or previous pronouncements of the Apostolic See not only permitting it but expressly demanding acknowledgement of the state’s authority to exercise it, is not sufficient grounds to question the validity of the present teaching. Therefore I will not continue to question it in this public forum, but I will seek answers from a legitimate authority on the matter.

 

[Rau]

Therefore I will not continue to question it in this public forum, but I will seek answers from a legitimate authority on the matter.

I wish you well with that! I presented a dichotomy above that @TMC says is false though he cannot explain why. Perhaps you will discover a flaw in that dichotomy, or alternatively, you will be able to report which statement aligns with the Pope’s recent statements on CP.

 

[Motherwit]

The whole disagreement of this thread has been whether or not the revision is intended to express such a judgement or to teach a matter of moral doctrine.

The term ‘prudential judgment’ in regards to the death penalty arose in the language of a US Cardinal in trying to bring people into line with the Church. But looking at the big picture and the abolition of the DP in other countries, it becomes evident that the Church has always addressed the civil death penalty with their ‘prudential judgment’. Implicitly in the past but with a ‘heightened moral awareness’, it’s explicit. The Church never directly taught around the DP as if it were a divine command.

 

[Pug]

I’d just like to add a Pope Francis quote that I hadn’t previous come across (that I remember, anyway, sigh). For me it helps clarify what he might have been thinking with the changes to the CCC:

This issue [death penalty] cannot be reduced to a mere résumé of traditional teaching without taking into account not only the doctrine as it has developed in the teaching of recent Popes, but also the change in the awareness of the Christian people which rejects an attitude of complacency before a punishment deeply injurious of human dignity. It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se contrary to the Gospel…

 

[NSmith]

I think it is very unlikely that the church never gave a moral teaching on the death penalty until the modern time. Even if they haven’t, Scripture demonstrates its use repeatedly by divine command. I won’t present the evidences because I said I don’t want to discuss this matter in detail. Maybe you’re right and somehow the prior statements of the Church and Scripture don’t amount to a teaching on CP, but to me this claim needs to be demonstrated and not assumed.

 

[Motherwit]

I think it is very unlikely that the church never gave a moral teaching on the death penalty until the modern time. Even if they haven’t, Scripture demonstrates its use repeatedly by divine command. I won’t present the evidences because I said I don’t want to discuss this matter in detail. Maybe you’re right and somehow the prior statements of the Church and Scripture don’t amount to a teaching on CP, but to me this claim needs to be demonstrated and not assumed.

I believe that it can be understood in the big picture. When Christian countries first began abolishing the death penalty, the Church did not speak out against abolition. It allowed governments to do what was best for the common good of each country. The circumstances in which the Church did address the dp was against specific arguments claiming it was ‘intrinsically evil’ (or the equivalent argument of that concept in that time). In that context the Church referenced Scripture to show a government could legitimately use it. That didn’t amount to teaching that it was a divine command.

Today, the Church only started addressing the dp in the face of the opposite faulty claim, that is, that it is not beholden to any objective morality that can render it an evil/unjust. It is to the point that especially through the charity of Sr Helen Prejean, the force to abolish the death penalty is strong. The problem now is the faulty arguments claiming a Christian basis, distorting the natural trajectory to abolition.

 

[blackforest]

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.

This is as simple to settle as looking at the data that I posted above. If the death penalty were a deterrent, we would not see a positive correlation between murder rates and execution rates in U.S. states.

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)

This thought is inchoate without continuing with what follows it:

1. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

 

[Ender]

The fact that he did not explain how this is not contrary to Scriptural commandments involving death, or previous pronouncements of the Apostolic See not only permitting it but expressly demanding acknowledgement of the state’s authority to exercise it, is not sufficient grounds to question the validity of the present teaching. Therefore I will not continue to question it in this public forum, but I will seek answers from a legitimate authority on the matter.

All too many debates on this subject end up with bitter and acrimonius accusations. Discussing this with you has been a pleasant exception that I am sorry to have end, but if you are uncomfortable publicly questioning Francis’ teaching on the matter why do it? Instead take the opportunity of defending the teaching and see if you can do so against the objections I am sure to raise.

The whole disagreement of this thread has been whether or not the revision is intended to express such a judgement or to teach a matter of moral doctrine.

I agree with this, and you clearly see it as an expression of doctrine. Now - can you defend that position?

As I said, I would be sorry for our discussion end, but if you are uncomfortable continuing I can certainly understand that.

 

[JimG]

It would be unlikely for a doctrinal development of any doctrinal matter to conclude with a 180 degree turn, reversing the prior doctrne. That’s why I see the new catechism language as a moral judgment rather than a doctrinal development.