Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[Motherwit]

I also don’t ascribe the belief that people are somehow more enlightened 2,000 years later than they were 2,000 years ago just because of technology and societal changes.

People still had cognitive reasoning and moral philosophy even 2,000 years ago so our technology and the state of our society and the modes of implementing the death penalty have changed but morality hasn’t and neither has man’s ability to reason.
[/quote]

When technology etc comes up with new ways to heal illness that preserve the body, such as the example I’ve used earlier where hysterectomy was performed in the past to rectify certain female problems. Today those can be resolved with less violent means which preserve the body. What reason would you proffer to defend hysterectomy because that was the primary solution in the past?

 

[Rau]

Rau:

Therefore, CP remains as the church has always said an acceptable measure in appropriate circumstances. Therefore - it would be readily clear that what Francis 1 has written is a statement about what is acceptable in current circumstances. That is a judgement - even when a Pope makes it.

Are you interchanging the word ‘acceptable’ with the word ‘inadmissible’? I need clear language to know what you are talking about.

You noted that in some circumstances, CP might be “necessary” - from which we can conclude it must in those circumstances be acceptable (not evil). It follows that if in some circumstances, an act is acceptable, it is not intrinsically evil.

Francis 1 declares CP “inadmissible” - which is clearly closer to “unacceptable” than to “acceptable”. The only question is whether this inadmissibility is taught as “inherent” to the nature of CP, or is subject to the circumstances in which it is exercised. If it is inherent, then Francis 1 declares CP intrinsically evil. If the inadmissibility is concluded in light of circumstances, then the Pope is expressing a prudential judgement.

 

[Rau]

When technology etc comes up with new ways to heal illness that preserve the body, such as the example I’ve used earlier where hysterectomy was performed in the past to rectify certain female problems. Today those can be resolved with less violent means which preserve the body. What reason would you proffer to defend hysterectomy because that was the primary solution in the past?

Using your example… Hysterectomy might be termed “inadmissible” these days (as a means of treating condition X) because we judge other options to bring about a better balance of good and evil outcomes. But hysterectomy can’t be regarded as intrinsically evil, because were it so, it would be morally wrong at all times (past, present and future) regardless of circumstances.

Your recent posts appear to support the same interpretation as I have expressed - that CP is being declared inadmissible by virtue of a judgement about options in the current age and their relative balance of good and evil consequences.

 

[goout]

goout:

I’m really not sure why people cling to the absolute admissibility of the death penalty like a warm blanket.

Since if we believed the Church could teach (with binding authority) ‘A’ on Wednesday and ‘Not A’ on Thursday, we’d have to disbelieve the Church has any teaching authority at all.

Wise counsel there.

 

[lbower2025]

Yes The council of Trent confirms this and the Vatican even used to use the death penalty. But the new catechism says no but that goes against what the Church has said

 

[MikeInVA]

No, we in America (and some other countries) are able to incarcerate with fairly high certainty that the prisoner will not escape, but that isn’t true in many other places. For example, look at the drug lord in Mexico who escaped from their most secure facility. Especially in poor countries where criminals are well armed or financed compared to the government, the country may need to employ CP to protect its people.

The fact that there are some situations where CP is acceptable and others that is not implies that the teaching is problematic (morals are not relative to circumstances).

Having said that, I agree that we should encourage other means to protect people from dangerous criminals, and that CP should only be used as a last resort.

 

[TMC]

If you lack the authority to say what the church teaches why are you so insistent that arguments contrary to yours are wrong? This is what the whole debate is about: what exactly does Francis’ change mean (which includes dealing with the very serious problems that arise from interpretations like yours.)

I am not saying what the Church teaches, the Church is. I am merely posting to direct quotes from the Catechism and the Pope. It is others who are claiming the right to say that the Pope lacks the authority to teach on this topic, or that this particular teaching is somehow optional.

 

[MNathaniel]

MNathaniel:

Since if we believed the Church could teach (with binding authority) ‘A’ on Wednesday and ‘Not A’ on Thursday, we’d have to disbelieve the Church has any teaching authority at all.

Wise counsel there.

I’m not sure whether you meant that straightforwardly or sarcastically.

But just to note: my words don’t constitute counsel. Simply a description of fact.

Proof that the Church required its faithful to believe morally evil falsehood for 2,000 years, would disprove the teaching authority of the Church not only of the last 2,000 years but of today. Because the Church is one, and if her teaching authority wasn’t reliable yesterday, it isn’t reliable today.

I of course believe her teaching authority is reliable (both yesterday and today), therefore my recourse is to reconcile the new mere catechism edit (which will presumably be followed up with further edits and clarification because of what is universally recognized as imprecise terminology, i.e. “inadmissible” doesn’t mean anything clearly defined) with existing teaching, in a way that does not contradict existing teaching. i.e. this catechism edit reflects a prudential judgement, not a moral reversal.

Again, no counsel at all. Simply a description of fact.

Including the fact that those defending traditional Church teaching aren’t doing it because the content relates to the death penalty. They’re doing it to avoid fundamentally undermining the teaching authority of the Church herself.

 

[NSmith]

I agree with you, but to be fair I think most of those who are defending the concept of the death penalty being considered evil are doing so out of similar loyalty to the church’s teaching authority in our time. There is an element of trust that is required here, which doesn’t come easily to me, but which evinces an attitude of acceptance even when something doesn’t make sense at the moment. Although Pope Francis did not teach definitively, nor did he offer an irreformable teaching, the edit of the catechism still requires submission of will, not out of fanatic devotion to the words of any man, but out of respect for the guiding Spirit that we believe the office of the successor of St. Peter has.
In short, yes we should be careful not to take Pope Francis’ words beyond their meaning, but we should also be careful about reducing it to something less than it was intended to be.

 

[Polak]

British Catholic politician Ann Widdecombe supported it (and I believe still does). Here’s a short clip of her explaining why.

 

[Ender]

In the (unlikely) circumstance where the legitimate defense of a community can’t be served by imprisonment any longer, it would become a necessary sentence, because it would be doing more good than harm. The ultimate purpose of civil law is the common good.

One may not do evil even though good may come of it. If capital punishment is evil (contrary to the gospel, inadmissible, contrary to man’s dignity) then it cannot be applied even if it benefited society. You are referring to JPII’s position, but Francis abrogated that. Apparently JPII was wrong. Either that or it was only an opinion.

I completely accept that capital punishment is inadmissible and I know what that means.

So you claim, although the US bishops recognize it as ambiguous, but how can you claim it is inadmissible and still be applied (where necessary). That would make it admissible in certain (limited) circumstances. It’s not clear how something can be both admissible and inadmissible. Don’t you have to believe one or the other?

Although Pope Francis did not teach definitively, nor did he offer an irreformable teaching, the edit of the catechism still requires submission of will, not out of fanatic devotion to the words of any man, but out of respect for the guiding Spirit that we believe the office of the successor of St. Peter has.

When the Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed” it “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” - CCC891 (We must accept in faith what is infallibly taught.) When the church proposes “in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium” we “are to adhere to it with religious assent” - CCC 892. (We must still assent to non-infallible doctrine.)

Prudential judgment, however, even that of a pope, does not oblige our assent. "To differ
from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching." (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

In the (unlikely) circumstance where the legitimate defense of a community can’t be served by imprisonment any longer, it would become a necessary sentence, because it would be doing more good than harm. The ultimate purpose of civil law is the common good.

One may not do evil even though good may come of it. If capital punishment is evil (contrary to the gospel, inadmissible, contrary to man’s dignity) then it cannot be applied even if it benefited society. You are referring to JPII’s position, but Francis abrogated that. Apparently JPII was wrong. Either that or it was only an opinion.

Do you believe in the principle of legitimate defense and its conditions? If not, then I understand that you’ll never be able to accept that the dp can cease to meet those conditions and be inadmissible.

 

[Motherwit]

I agree with you, but to be fair I think most of those who are defending the concept of the death penalty being considered evil are doing so out of similar loyalty to the church’s teaching authority in our time. There is an element of trust that is required here, which doesn’t come easily to me, but which evinces an attitude of acceptance even when something doesn’t make sense at the moment. Although Pope Francis did not teach definitively, nor did he offer an irreformable teaching, the edit of the catechism still requires submission of will, not out of fanatic devotion to the words of any man, but out of respect for the guiding Spirit that we believe the office of the successor of St. Peter has.
In short, yes we should be careful not to take Pope Francis’ words beyond their meaning, but we should also be careful about reducing it to something less than it was intended to be.

That is well said. Perhaps because of the deeply religious upbringing, I have no doubt or trouble submitting to whatever change or development the Magisterium brings. If I didn’t believe that the Churchs teaching capacity was guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit, I wouldn’t know where to turn. I don’t know what it is like to be in the skin of someone who doubts. I can only pray for them.

 

[Ender]

Do you believe in the principle of legitimate defense and its conditions? If not, then I understand that you’ll never be able to accept that the dp can cease to meet those conditions and be inadmissible.

I understand and accept the principles of legitimate defense, and recognize that this is one of three exceptions to the prohibition against taking human life. That said, I do not accept that capital punishment is justified as a form of self defense. The church has never, and does not now, justify capital punishment based on that assumption.

Self defense allows killing only if that is not the intent behind the action that takes a life. With capital punishment the death of the felon is intended. Indeed, taking his life is the sole purpose of the action.

But this evades the question: if the defense of society justified capital punishment it would be admissible in those situations, so how can it be called inadmissible if there are in fact cases where it is clearly admissible?

If I didn’t believe that the Churchs teaching capacity was guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit, I wouldn’t know where to turn.

How do you explain the apparent failure of the Holy Spirit to guide the church for those 2000 years when capital punishment was recognized as legitimate?

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

Do you believe in the principle of legitimate defense and its conditions? If not, then I understand that you’ll never be able to accept that the dp can cease to meet those conditions and be inadmissible.

I understand and accept the principles of legitimate defense, and recognize that this is one of three exceptions to the prohibition against taking human life. That said, I do not accept that capital punishment is justified as a form of self defense. The church has never, and does not now, justify capital punishment based on that assumption.

Here is an error in your knowledge not just of Church teaching but of the law. Legitimate defense is not one of three exceptions. Legitimate defense explains those three exceptions. Just war, the death penalty and moderate self defense.

The Church has always addressed them in the context of the 5th Commandment “Thou Shall not Kill”. It distinguished the conditions that deem these circumstances not murder. Have a look at the Catechism. They all three are placed under the heading ‘legitimate defense’.

https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/546/

But this evades the question: if the defense of society justified capital punishment it would be admissible in those situations, so how can it be called inadmissible if there are in fact cases where it is clearly admissible?

To be legitimate, the defense of society has to meet the conditions and that being that it does more good than harm to the society. It doesn’t anymore.

Motherwit:

If I didn’t believe that the Churchs teaching capacity was guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit, I wouldn’t know where to turn.

How do you explain the apparent failure of the Holy Spirit to guide the church for those 2000 years when capital punishment was recognized as legitimate?

Why do you think I would regard previous teaching ‘a failure’. By faith I accept that God speaks to mankind through His Holy Spirit and the Church to meet with His will. If I lived in the middle ages, I would be saying the same thing about submitting to Church teaching as I am now.

 

[Rau]

How do you explain the apparent failure of the Holy Spirit to guide the church for those 2000 years when capital punishment was recognized as legitimate?

@Ender i believe @Motherwit reads “inadmissible” to refer to current circumstances. Where she differs may be in the characterization of such a position as a prudential judgement, and thus not obliging assent.

 

[Motherwit]

Where she differs may be in the characterization of such a position as a prudential judgement, and thus not obliging assent.

I believe that a Catholic can argue a need for the dp based on their local expertize that it is needed for the good of that society. But I don’t believe that a Catholic can argue it can never be inadmissible because it’s value/justification is not tied to the common good and human good.

 

[Ender]

I believe @motherwit reads “inadmissible” to refer to current circumstances.

That would make it by definition a prudential judgment.

Where she differs may be in the characterization of such a position as a prudential judgement, and thus not obliging assent.

This is the dilemma. If “illegitimate” means intrinsically evil it is a repudiation of the church and all she claims. If it means “prudentially believed harmful” then it is unambiguously an opinion, does not oblige our assent, and creates no problems with church doctrine, let alone unresolvable ones.

My concerns are with those who refuse to unambiguously take one position or the other. There are only two possibilities: the death penalty is intrinsically evil or it isn’t. I have little patience for arguments where that choice is deliberately ignored.

 

[Rau]

I believe that a Catholic can argue a need for the dp based on their local expertize that it is needed for the good of that society.

Agreed.

But I don’t believe that a Catholic can argue it can never be inadmissible…

The problem with this statement is that inadmissibility of CP needs to be judged. Whether it delivers the common good needs to be judged. It can’t be answered by consulting clear doctrine, as, for example we can in respect of euthanasia. The latter is “intrinsically evil” - meaning always wrong to choose. No judgement needed. CP is not intrinsically evil - therefore deciding CP is inadmissible requires a judgement.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

But I don’t believe that a Catholic can argue it can never be inadmissible…

The problem with this statement is that inadmissibility of CP needs to be judged. Whether it delivers the common good needs to be judged. It can’t be answered by consulting clear doctrine, as, for example we can in respect of euthanasia. The latter is “intrinsically evil” - meaning always wrong to choose. No judgement needed. CP is not intrinsically evil - therefore deciding CP is inadmissible requires a judgement.

And that judgment belongs to the civil processes according to natural law desire for the common good. When the Church has addressed the dp in the past, it was to correct an ideology that interfered with that. Generally a claim that the dp is never justified.

Today, the Church is doing the same thing. Addressing an ideology that interferes with the civil authorities duty to the common good. That is the ideology that the dp is not accountable to the common good first and foremost. The Church is affirming the societies right to abolish the dp.