Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alainval
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Living in solitary confinement in a super-max prison is no picnic. The most dangerous prisoners are locked down 23 hours a day. They shower and eat in their cells. For one hour a day, they are taken out to an an exercise pen with high cement walls. There is no view of the outside world.


 
Explain why please @TMC. Point out my error. Is CP intrinsically evil? Why do you dodge these questions?
You are proposing that there are only two possible choices, each of your own framing. It is not the case that this teaching must be either prudential (and in your opinion optional), or a condemnation of what came before. That is a false choice. I would point you to Pope Francis’ explanation of how this change to Church teaching is a development of Church teaching, not a break in it.
 
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.
I have explained why, as you know, as has the Pope. Why do you choose to cling so tightly to the right of the state to kill its citizens, even in the face of the Church’s clear teaching?
 
This is as simple to settle as looking at the data that I posted above.
I missed where you posted this. Which post do you refer to?
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 calculation of a deterrent effect is inordinately difficult, and is not found with such a simple comparison. In fact: "a committee of the National Research Council has concluded that existing studies are far too methodologically flawed to draw conclusions one way or another. Neither side can maintain that they have empirical support. In most years, most states execute no one, and that pattern seems to be on the rise. One cannot study the impact of executions when they are hardly ever imposed, and it is difficult to separate any impact of the death penalty from the large number of other factors that affect the amount and kinds of crime. The committee’s conclusion about the claim that the death penalty deters is “can’t tell.” "
This thought is inchoate without continuing with what follows it:
Not at all. It is a stand-alone statement expressing church doctrine on a state’s rights and responsibilities as they pertain to punishment. That doctrine is not repudiated by anything that comes after it. 2267 cannot be legitimately interpreted as cancelling what was just expressed in 2266.
 
Last edited:
Before treating the possibility of the development, it is important to establish what the former teaching of the Church has been on the issue in question, and upon which principles that teaching is founded. In order to be consistent with any evaluation there cannot be confusion about what the intent of the development is, or about its extent, but to start with we must be aware of the situation prior to the revision.
The Church has a mixed history with capital punishment. The Church Fathers are not unanimous in either direction. As an amateur student of their works, I am not familiar with any quotations against the death penalty, but I do know that the condemnation of killing was taken very literally in the early days. Even the occupation of soldier does not meet with much support in patristic writings until Augustine, unless I am incorrect.
St. Augustine wrote in defense of the state’s right to utilize capital punishment, but he often petitioned governors for clemency and appeared to be against its practice in the majority of cases. It isn’t until Pope Innocent I in the fifth century that we have a papal statement on the matter, and he supports the right of the state to have recourse to CP, which is based on the letter of Paul to the Romans.
Clearly St. Thomas Aquinas defended the right of the state to execute, and indeed seems in favor of it on the whole, treating it as a strong motivation for the sinner to repent and be saved before their death. Further papal support is found in Innocent III, and Pius XII.
In summary, I think the position of the Church can be stated by a quote of Pius XII, “Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”
Now it appears to me that the principle of the dignity of life is present in this statement, as well as a principle of sin and the punishment due for it. For the former we have the recognition that it would be sin to deprive someone of the right to life, which is why Pope Pius XII must explain why the state is not guilty. For the latter we have the recognition that the offender, through his crime, has engendered just consequences.
 
John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae expresses that there is a ineffable worth and beautiful treasure in human life, because “By the Incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being.”
This is a development consistent with the principle of the dignity of life, because the Church has always affirmed and does insist on the sanctity of life, but in former times considered it possible through grievous sin that even this dignity was lost. “…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.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, Q64).
JPII contradicts this opinion, saying in regards to Cain, "And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him…Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”
Again, this development is consistent with the sanctity of life that Christianity has always and everywhere defended.
Pope Francis, now seeking to apply the consequences of the development of JPII on this point, says, “It [the death penalty] is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.”
This development of course is the crux of the issue. It relates the principle of justice and the severity of sin, for which reason Pope Pius XII said, “…depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”
I do not want to put words in the Holy Father’s mouth. Indeed, I consider Pope Francis’ silence on the controversy intentional, because he knows that there are plenty of people willing to interpret whatever he might say to their own detriment. However, from the address I think it is reasonable to claim that Pope Francis is applying a principle that all Christians know, expressed beautifully by Christ, who said, “And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent.”
The expiation of the guilty for his crimes is most beautifully and perfectly expressed in his conversion and acts of hope and charity. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, on this point, confirms that “…punishments of this life are sought, not for their own sake, because this is not the final time of retribution, but in their character of medicine, conducing either to the amendment of the sinner, or to the good of the commonwealth whose calm is ensured by the punishment of evil.” Therefore what was imperfect in the punishment of death is made perfect by a hypothetical alternative that has as its principle aim the rehabilitation of the offender. This is made impossible by the death penalty, thus Pope Francis says “No one ought to be deprived not only of life, but also of the chance for a moral and existential redemption that in turn can benefit the community.”
 
Last edited:
And if there was any doubt as to the intent of the Holy Father, he preempts objections by saying: “Tradition is a living reality and only a partial vision regards the “deposit of faith” as something static. The word of God cannot be moth-balled like some old blanket in an attempt to keep insects at bay! No. The word of God is a dynamic and living reality that develops and grows because it is aimed at a fulfilment that none can halt. This law of progress, in the happy formulation of Saint Vincent of Lérins, “consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age” ( Commonitorium , 23.9: PL 50), is a distinguishing mark of revealed truth as it is handed down by the Church, and in no way represents a change in doctrine.”
 
I have explained why, as you know, as has the Pope.
No, you’ve not. Is the death penalty intrinsically evil? Do you agree this is a “yes” / “no” answer? Or will you label that an unfair question too?
Why do you choose to cling so tightly to the right of the state to kill its citizens, even in the face of the Church’s clear teaching?
Do I? I’ve posed some questions that you refuse to answer. 🤷‍♂️
 
No, we cannot pick and choose. Popes can teach heresy…for a while. The Holy Spirit will correct it. The fact is that the pope had no authority to change the consistent teaching of the Church for over 2000 years. He is “teaching” contrary to all three sources of inspiration: previous magisteriums, scripture - specifically, Jesus’ own words! - and tradition. I am certain that if this pope doesn’t correct it, a following pope will.
 
@CherylPurrs, you are taking what I said out of context. My answer was in response to the above comment, and was meant sarcastically, that no, we cannot pick and choose, even if one incorrectly feels the Church has no competency in the matter.

But happy you came out of post exile of 3 years to respond to me. 😉
 
The Church has a mixed history with capital punishment. The Church Fathers are not unanimous in either direction.
The Fathers were virtually unanimous in their recognition of the legitimacy of capital punishment.

It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church (1) that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation). (Steven A Long)
St. Augustine wrote in defense of the state’s right to utilize capital punishment, but he often petitioned governors for clemency and appeared to be against its practice in the majority of cases.
If Francis’ comments are understood in this light, as an opinion against the practice of capital punishment, there is no issue with what was said.
JPII contradicts this opinion, saying …Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity…
Again, it was JPII who said not holding a person fully accountable for his actions is to deny his dignity, and full accountability means the imposition of a commensurate punishment.
“It [the death penalty] is per se contrary to the Gospel…
It is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile this statement with the fact that the death penalty is supported in scripture in numerous places. Does this not say that the Gospel contradicts scripture?
Therefore what was imperfect in the punishment of death is made perfect by a hypothetical alternative that has as its principle aim the rehabilitation of the offender.
Hypothetically the principle aim of punishment may seem to be rehabilitation, but it is explicitly stated to be “redressing the disorder caused by the offense.” (CCC 2266)
Pope Francis says “No one ought to be deprived not only of life, but also of the chance for a moral and existential redemption that in turn can benefit the community.”
But Pope Pius XII said: “one should not forget that no human sentence finally and definitively settles the fate of a man, but only the judgment of God, both for single acts and for those of a lifetime.”

Execution cannot deprive a person of the possibility of redemption.
 
The Fathers were virtually unanimous in their recognition of the legitimacy of capital punishment.
Like I said I am only an amateur student of patristics, but I think off the top of my head I remember people quoting St. Ambrose, Tertullian, and St. Cyprian as opponents of the death penalty.
it was JPII who said not holding a person fully accountable for his actions is to deny his dignity
I imagine that holding someone fully accountable is possible without recourse to death.
It is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile this statement with the fact that the death penalty is supported in scripture in numerous places.
I don’t have an answer to this problem, but I am studying it. I suspect it has something to do with two kinds of dignity, one which is inalienable and the other which in fact is dependent on our choices and the consequences of them.
Execution cannot deprive a person of the possibility of redemption.
My claim is merely that execution is not the best expression of Christian hope for the criminal. It certainly does not preclude redemption, and I feel that Pope Francis by mentioning the community was specifically mentioning that the man condemned to death can never perform acts of charity in the course of his redemption. If there is a better way to redress the disorder caused by the offense while also providing everyone the best opportunity to seek not only eternal redemption but also temporal reconciliation with others, we ought to pursue it.
 
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…
Does this suggest the Pope holds that the church erred in the past in declaring CP acceptable? The immediately prior Popes did not assert that. I believe @Ender has provided the Scriptural support for CP. How are these things to be reconciled?
 
Last edited:
You make a good argument here that the Pope has made a case for unacceptability of CP “in the present times”.
 
I think that a Catholic should be against the death penalty and abortion. If one is against one of these they have to be against the other.

Reasons to be against the death penalty are numerous. Forgiveness being the biggest one but also the fact that innocent people have been sent to death row.
 
No, you’ve not. Is the death penalty intrinsically evil? Do you agree this is a “yes” / “no” answer? Or will you label that an unfair question too?
This is a more complicated question than a mere yes or no. The unjustified killing of a person is intrinsically evil - surely we can agree on that. The Church once taught that the death penalty could be justified. The Church now teaches that it is not. But the core of the teaching is that unjustified killing of a person is intrinsically evil.
Do I? I’ve posed some questions that you refuse to answer.
Yes, you appear to, and I don’t know what your unhappiness with my responses (or the Church’s teaching) has to do with what I said.
 
I don’t think we can conclude he thinks the Church definitively declared DP acceptable in the past. But I do think he thinks there is a development in the understanding of the dignity of the human person (so previously it was not as well understood, perhaps), there had been an unbalanced appreciation of justice/law, and society was then less mature. Taken together this made it easy to fall into erroneous reasoning about DP in the past. But now it is not so easy to make this mistake, in his view.

I don’t think the address I quoted is geared to answering questions about scriptural support for CP, other than noting scripture as being part of the Deposit of Faith which is guarded and perennially made new by the Church.
 
This is a more complicated question than a mere yes or no. The unjustified killing of a person is intrinsically evil - surely we can agree on that. The Church once taught that the death penalty could be justified.
You say here that the church has taught at one time that there can be a circumstance in which CP can be justified (that is - circumstances in which it can be a good act). By definition then, the Church taught that CP is not intrinsically evil.
The Church now teaches that it is not [justifiable].
This statement is ambiguous. Are you saying:

a) The church now teaches that - in the current age - CP is unjustifiable; OR
b) The church teaches that CP never was, is not now, nor ever can be justifiable.

You will appreciate that (a) is a more limited condemnation of CP.

Could you please clarify which of these you meant in your statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top