Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[Rau]

The Church once taught that CP was justified and therefor fell into an exception. The Church currently teaches that it is not.

If the church holds that CP is not (ever) justified, then it teaches CP is intrinsically evil. That would be an about-face in teaching.

If of course, the justification or otherwise for CP is a function of “the current age” - then a different conclusion follows - the church “teaches” what is justified in the current age. That is a a prudential judgement.

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.”

I suspect you don’t understand what you write here. It’s not comprehensible.

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.

I’m fine with whatever position you want to take. That CP is always and everywhere unjustified (ie intrinsically evil), or that the church expresses a prudential judgement on the acceptability of CP in the present age. You seem to favour the former.

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 have sought to get you to think about the topic logically. I stated earlier I oppose CP.

similar changes to Church teaching have been made. Like those, this change will be considered natural and common sense by future generations.

If the church proposes a 180 degree reversal, that would be an odd thing to describe as a “development”.

 

[o_mlly]

The Church teaches that capital punishment is no longer a justified exception to the general prohibition on killing persons.

The trend certainly seems to be in that direction.

The proponents of CP support their position on biblical interpretations and prior papal teachings. The recent papal teachings, as you suggest, show an effort to rationally harmonize the three exceptions permitting directly killing a human being. Two of those exceptions, the unjust aggressor and those who prosecute an unjust war, stand on the rationale of self-defense and proportion.

CP stands as the only exception w/o a rationale, that is, CP is permissible because an interpretation of Scripture says so and subsequent papal teachings (of questionable fallibility) relied on the same Scriptural interpretations for their authority.

The principle stands that “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being” (CCC 2258, CDF, instruction, Donum vitae , intro. 5). How is it that what is denied to an individual becomes permissible to the collective? Is not the convicted criminal also “innocent” defined as in the moment not unjustly aggressive? It would seem that self-defense, as St. JPII taught, is the only rationale that can permit CP.

 

[Ender]

He is coming from previous Popes( I was referring to JP and Benedict and Francis). Those we didn’t listen to,

JPII acknowledged the validity of capital punishment if it was necessary for the protection of society. Francis has repudiated that position by calling it an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person and being contrary to the gospel.

They have the authority…

The authority to do what? To alter right and wrong according to their inclination?

They are simply not authorizing the CP any longer…

This is not how doctrine operates. Do popes ban abortion, or do they express the word of God on the subject? This is one of my major concerns about the arguments against capital punishment: it is too directly tied to the personality of individual popes as if they personally had the power to define morality.

 

[Ender]

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.

Legitimate development does not include the reversal of prior doctrine. We cannot legitimately go from a point where denying the validity of capital punishment is a heresy to believing its use is contrary to the gospel.

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

Development does not include repudiation.

"Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” (Cardinal Dulles)

“A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started.” (Cardinal Newman)

 

[Rau]

Is not the convicted criminal also “innocent” defined as in the moment not unjustly aggressive? It would seem that self-defense, as St. JPII taught, is the only rationale that can permit CP.

I take the view the actual killing of a convicted criminal does little or nothing to protect society because the penal system is relatively secure. There is the question of whether killing administered by the state as a punishment is justified - I know @Ender can quote chapter and verse to support a position that it is. But in so far as the statements of Popes are concerned, that issue (punishment) is but a distant memory…

 

[Pug]

Legitimate development does not include the reversal of prior doctrine. We cannot legitimately go from a point where denying the validity of capital punishment is a heresy to believing its use is contrary to the gospel.

Well one might reason similarly as one might with AL by considering things subjectively and not objectively, presumably. So we have the Waldensian quote, but one reasons it refers to subjective mortal sin:

The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude…

At least that is a guess as to how one might proceed. That or the Church doesn’t consider it a definition even though it sort of looks like one.

 

[graciew]

It isn’t personal, Ender. We have discussed these issues in different threads throughout the years.
So with due respect, I prefer to leave it at this and open the spot for whoever may want to answer your questions. There are always persons who may have a better way of conveying the ideas I can’t seem to be able get across or different and even better ones.
I believe that there isn’t much I can add for now.
I sincerely wish you good discussions on this topic and above all they being a means to get closer to God and neighbour for all of us.
Have a blessed day and Happy Fall to you all.

 

[Motherwit]

TMC:

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.”

I suspect you don’t understand what you write here. It’s not comprehensible.

To be fair, I can see TMC’s position perfectly gelling with the Church’s teaching and even implicit in Pope Innocent III statement as quoted by @Pug above.

The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude. (Innocent III, DS 795/425)

There are conditions upon using the DP without mortal sin. All the Popes have cited in some form a ‘heightened moral awareness’ in society that it does more harm than good.

 

[ralfyman]

The Church and Capital Punishment | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Rau]

All the Popes have cited in some form a ‘heightened moral awareness’ in society that it does more harm than good.

That is what I took from JP II. And that is a prudential judgement, which I think is the better way to understand the statement of Francis I. TMC seems to reject such an interpretation though.

 

[Rau]

The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude . (Innocent III, DS 795/425)

This statement teaches clearly that CP is not intrinsically evil, and is admissible under the right conditions. TMC seems to take the blanket position that “the church now teaches CP is inadmissible”. I’ve asked him multiple times whether that’s a statement applicable in the present age, or always, but he will not answer

 

[christofirst]

I still say that in light of the Church’s prohibition and the refusal to accept this prohibition there is indeed a political motivation behind much of this arguing over capital punishment.

Breakfast of Scandals: Chaput adds to Barr fiasco - Where Peter Is

Why does this matter? For years now in our essentially two party system in the US. Catholic Republicans have used abortion to shame their fellow Catholics from voting as Democrats, while strongly supporting and carrying out capital punishment. It therefore behooves them to find ways to diminish or ignore the Church’s teaching abolishing the death penalty if they want to retain their self identification as the moral majority.

 

[TMC]

I suspect you don’t understand what you write here. It’s not comprehensible.

I suspect that resorting to “you’re stupid” is not an effective argument style. I assume you are familiar with how the Church’s teachings have developed over the last two millennia. Do you not see parallels here?

If the church proposes a 180 degree reversal, that would be an odd thing to describe as a “development”.

I have explained why this is not a “180 degree reversal.” The moral teaching at the root of this topic is obviously unchanged. In this way it parallels the other developments in the Church’s teachings that could appear to be a reversal if the background and core moral teaching involved are not properly considered and understood.

 

[TMC]

TMC seems to take the blanket position that “the church now teaches CP is inadmissible”. I’ve asked him multiple times whether that’s a statement applicable in the present age, or always, but he will not answer

Yes I take the “blanket position” that the Church teaches exactly what the Church says it teaches - that the death penalty is inadmissible. Period. I am not trying to project that teaching back into history to condemn past Church leaders, and neither is the Church. It applies now, and going forward. We can’t go back in time and make it apply in the past; and I am going to follow the Pope in not condemning those that taught differently in the past.

 

[Rau]

Yes I take the “blanket position” that the Church teaches exactly what the Church says it teaches - that the death penalty is inadmissible. Period. I am not trying to project that teaching back into history to condemn past Church leaders, and neither is the Church. It applies now, and going forward.

That’s not quite what I suggested, but I’ll overlook that. Because your statement here is just too fascinating. So here we have - in your view - a moral truth about CP that has a starting time point in the 21st century, and will endure forever. Now THAT is a truly remarkable theological development!

 

[Ender]

Well one might reason similarly as one might with AL by considering things subjectively and not objectively, presumably. So we have the Waldensian quote, but one reasons it refers to subjective mortal sin:

I am very concerned about the form arguments against capital punishment often take; this one for instance. We cannot consider morality to be subjective or it is meaningless. It is true that Innocent III did not explicitly call opposition to the validity of capital punishment a heresy; he just acted as if it was. There is, however, this explicit reference:

One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body - guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. (St Bellarmine, De Laicis)

This should not be surprising inasmuch as the church taught from the very earliest times that States had a legitimate moral right to apply capital punishment. It is after all expressed in Scripture. This cannot be glossed over and ignored because modern sensibilities now oppose its use.

 

[Ender]

I still say that in light of the Church’s prohibition and the refusal to accept this prohibition there is indeed a political motivation behind much of this arguing over capital punishment.

The problems with this approach are threefold: it ignores the actual arguments being made, and it judges the motivation behind the arguments which cannot be known. This approach is not intended to rebut arguments, but to ignore them, which, given the difficulty involved in rebuttal, is understandable. Finally, this mindset assumes politically motivated arguments are invalid simply because of their motivation, which, again, is untrue. An argument is either right or wrong, strong or weak, and what motivates the argument has nothing to do with its validity.

Respond to the arguments made; don’t argue to have them ignored.

 

[TMC]

That’s not quite what I suggested, but I’ll overlook that. Because your statement here is just too fascinating. So here we have - in your view - a moral truth about CP that has a starting time point in the 21st century , and will endure forever. Now THAT is a truly remarkable theological development!

Of course, that is not at all what I said. I seriously can’t tell if you are deliberately missing my point.

I pointed out that this change in teaching is similar in nature to other changes in Church teaching. Do you not agree with that? Is there not a similar problem to the one you perceive with other changes that appear to some to be a “180”?

 

[Ender]

So here we have - in your view - a moral truth about CP that has a starting time point in the 21st century , and will endure forever.

And this is the real problem: how do we condemn today what was clear and unambiguous doctrine for 2000 years? How can we reasonably conclude that all the Doctors, virtually all the Fathers, and all the previous popes including JPII and BXVI were wrong? If we can reverse a doctrine as established as this one with nothing more than the assertion that it is “development” then what doctrine is safe? The German bishops are already suggesting that the prohibition against women priests be reviewed. Why not? Is it unreasonable to claim we have a better understanding of the issue now than before? Having effectively dismissed the significance of the Fathers and Doctors, not to mention Sacred Tradition, what doctrines are not ours to rewrite?

 

[christofirst]

Argue all you want. Whatever good arguing against a standing order may or may not accomplish, it certainly casts doubt and provides cover for those who wish to ignore the standing order.