Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[Rau]

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.

Does this not mean the church got it wrong then, and has got it right now?

 

[blackforest]

I missed where you posted this. Which post do you refer to?

Refer to Post 87.

It is a stand-alone statement expressing church doctrine on a state’s rights and responsibilities as they pertain to punishment.

It does not specify that state-sanctioned killing is the specific punishment “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” On the contrary, it continues in 2267 to say just the opposite.

 

[Pug]

I think he probably thinks the statements made in the past that the DP was perfectly fine were wrong or misleading. But I don’t think he thinks he is in opposition to a fully defined dogma that couldn’t change. He must think it was something that was changeable or subject to possible revision.

But no, I would not say he thinks we have it all right now, since it could develop even further. For example, I imagine lengthy incarceration could be disallowed in the future…

 

[Anesti33]

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.

I am against the shedding of innocent blood.

 

[Rau]

But no, I would not say he thinks we have it all right now, since it could develop even further.

As we appear to have done a 180 degree about face in the acceptability of CP, my head spins at the thought of where we go next!

 

[Bernoulli]

Which is the general understanding behind contraception use among Catholics.

I doubt people supporting contraception think that opposing it is a heresy.

 

[o_mlly]

I trust that in time the Spirit will provide resolution on the morality of the death penalty. It may take some time.

Single combats and dueling were outlawed in 1215 by the constitutions of the Fourth Lateran Council. Pope Leo XIII, 676 years later, was still issuing pastoral letters to affirm and clarify the Church’s teaching.

… nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels.
Fourth Lateran Council : 1215

Finally, the new age which boasts of far excelling previous ages in a more civilized culture and refinement of manners is wont to consider older institutions of little value and too often reject whatever differs from the character of the new elegance. Why is it that in its great zeal for civilization, it does not repudiate the base remnants of an uncouth age and foreign barbarism that we know as the custom of dueling?
Pastoralis Officii - On the morality of dueling
By Pope Leo XIII: 1891

 

[Sarcelle]

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?

I would say yes.

Take for example slavery. Slavery is also an attack against the inviolability and dignity of a person. It is wrong now and it was wrong then.

 

[graciew]

Has become.
A process.Development.
Not “ now” is , tomorrow isn’t and the day after tomorrow is.
Plenty of threads.
It has been dealt with with great care and awareness that it is about the death of a human being. A concession, a permission ,
Three last Popes being very vocal against it. Weren’t we listening then?
Once we know best and it is evitable it doesn’t become an entitlement to cling on to. Let go and give thanks …
So many times ones goes back to Exodus, so many people and still traveling together ones a bit behind , ones at the forefront, towards that so very special place…in movement .
Take your time to read the Pope’s explanation TMC posted…
God ‘s patience is inexhaustible…

 

[Pug]

my head spins at the thought of where we go next!

That is the salient point. The difficult part isn’t the DP itself, at least not for me, since I support it being outlawed in my country. It is the level of change that it suggests is possible. One feels an impulse to withdraw lest one discover that something one does care about is changing just as dramatically.

 

[Ender]

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.

“The two exceptions are Tertullian, who died outside the Church, and Lantanctius.” (Long)
Ambrose opposed its application but did not deny its validity.

I imagine that holding someone fully accountable is possible without recourse to death.

Possibly so, nonetheless it was God who set this as the appropriate penalty.

I don’t think we can conclude he thinks the Church definitively declared DP acceptable in the past.

If by “definitively declared” you mean “declared infallible”, you would be right, but with perhaps two exceptions nothing has been declared infallible. Doctrine can be taught infallibly even though it is not declared, and the teaching on the validity of capital punishment may well satisfy that standard.

There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. (Fr. John Hardon, 1998)

…scripture as being part of the Deposit of Faith which is guarded and perennially made new by the Church.

…it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (First Vatican Council)

We know the position of the Fathers on this point.

 

[CherylPurrs]

Forgive me. I can’t realize sarcasm without the lilt in voice. I think I will fade to black, again.

 

[Rau]

Has become.
A process.Development.
Not “ now” is , tomorrow isn’t and the day after tomorrow is.
Plenty of threads.

Sorry Grace, you’ll need to use full sentences for me to understand you.

Three last Popes being very vocal against it. Weren’t we listening then?

The prior Popes provided clarity & which did not contradict prior teaching. I shared their judgement about the lack of necessity of CP in the present age.

 

[graciew]

Sorry about that.
It is really enough if we read the Popes’ writings, Rau.
As Vicars of Christ they discern God’s will for our own good.
They have the authority , and they have been very vocal in their plead to abolish the Death Penalty.
They are simply not authorizing the CP any longer …and they have been doing so for a long time, so what are the excuses now?

 

[Rau]

It is really enough if you read the Pope’s writings, Rau.

Which Pope Grace?

they have been very vocal in their plead to abolish the Death Penalty.

And I concur. But whether it should be abolished as a practice is not what is in debate. There is no doubt Francis I and recent predecessors advocate for abolition, and consider all acts of CP unjustified in the current age.

What is in debate is whether Francis I (unlike predecessors) asserts that CP is intrinsically evil, and thus proposes a 180 degree about face on that point.

 

[graciew]

What 180 degree?
He is coming from previous Popes( I was referring to JP and Benedict and Francis). Those we didn’t listen to,
360 degrees would be not to recognize their authority…
If they are saying no, again what are the excuses?

 

[Rau]

What 180 degree?
He is coming from previous Popes( I was referring to JP and Be edict and Francis).

Does Francis I hold CP to be intrinsically evil? Put another way - has it always, by its very nature, been unacceptable (morally)? His predecessors did not deem it intrinsically evil.

 

[Pug]

Doctrine can be taught infallibly even though it is not declared, and the teaching on the validity of capital punishment may well satisfy that standard.

I don’t think Pope Francis thinks whatever was said previously concerning capital punishment is irreformable or is unchangable. His overall language in the address of his that I quoted from seems to indicate he thinks it is subject to development.

Although the late Fr. Hardon didn’t think so, I can say that there has been a moral theologian (also supportive of the Magisterium) who at some point thought it was possibly subject to development: Germain Grisez

Moreover, the position that capital punishment can be just does not seem to have been proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium, for, unlike moral teachings on actions most Christians might do, the received position on this matter seems to have been taken for granted in theology and catechesis rather than proposed universally as a truth to be accepted as certain by the faithful.109 Therefore, it seems that Catholic teaching on capital punishment can develop, just as Catholic teachings on coercion in matters of religion and on slavery have.110

But knowing what Hardon or Grisez thought does not determine for us if that is actually the case or not.

 

[graciew]

“ 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” (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth”

One of our beloved Popes…

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

 

[TMC]

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.

The Church teaches that capital punishment is no longer a justified exception to the general prohibition on killing persons. What could be more plain than that? The issue is not whether CP is inherently evil. The issue is that unjustified killing is inherently evil. The Church once taught that CP was justified and therefor fell into an exception. The Church currently teaches that it is not. That is a change to the application of a core teaching on inherently evil acts. You are trying to transform this teaching about the application of a teaching into a core teaching so that you can declare it “optional.”

It seems like you are looking for an excuse to say that this teaching is prudential. Its not. It is based on the uncontestable teaching that unjustified killing is inherently evil. If you choose to dissent from it that is between you, your conscience and God, but it will be dissent.

You also want me to say that the Church taught in error in the past, so that you can springboard off of that to claim a right to continue supporting the death penalty. I am not going to sit in judgment of the Church’s past teaching on this exception to the general prohibition on killing people, except to point out that similar changes to Church teaching have been made. Like those, this change will be considered natural and common sense by future generations. The development and expansion of Church teaching does not denigrate the past Church; it celebrates and improves the current Church.