Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alainval
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OKComputer said:
I’m simply saying that it’s hard to accept that for many American Catholics.
Click to expand...
I’ve never had a problem with accepting it. I actually reached the conclusion that the death penalty under the US legal system was unworkable, useless, prone to error (we’ve probably already executed some innocent people), and from a cost-benefit perspective, not worth the bother, without ever having to reach the moral issue, back in the days when I wasn’t practicing my faith and the Church still seemed to allow the death penalty.

This isn’t even a hard issue where the death penalty is providing us with all kinds of great benefits. It’s not doing much at all. It’s just costing taxpayers a whole heck of a lot of money with endless appeals and general lack of enforcement. It’s cheaper and better to just lock the person up and throw away the key. Also if he turns out to be innocent down the road, you can let him out.
 
Last edited:
Alainval said:
Is it permissible for a Catholic to still hold to the death penalty?
Click to expand...
As the Church has always taught and could never deviate, if one has a good faith belief with sufficient reason that is would be conducive to the common good given the circumstances and it is a proportionate punishment, than yes. But when coming to that conclusion we should give our pastors’ judgment their due respect that it is not conducive to the common good–and even harmful to it–in the current circumstances.

I liked Archbishop Gomez’s explanation of this admittedly confusing new catechism paragraph.

He affirms the Church’s irreformable and revealed doctrine:
The Scriptures, along with saints and teachers in the Church’s tradition, justify the death penalty as a fitting punishment for those who commit evil or take another person’s life. And the Church has always recognized that governments and civil authorities have the right to carry out executions in order to protect their citizens’ lives and punish those guilty of the gravest crimes against human life and the stability of the social order.
Click to expand...
In addition, he notes:
The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral.
Click to expand...
He then notes “from a practical standpoint” it should no longer be used.

He elaborates more on the prudential aspect–“in these times and in this culture”–while acknowledging disagreement of those of good will (there is no condemnation here of those who disagree in good conscience):
I respect that many good people will continue to believe that our society needs the death penalty to express its moral outrage and to punish those who commit the ultimate crime of taking human life.

But I do not believe that public executions serve to advance that message in our secular society.

We all need to consider how much violence has become an accepted part of American society and popular culture. There is not only the random violence we see every day in our communities. But we are also a society that permits our children to play video games that involve them “virtually” killing their enemies; much of our popular “entertainment” consists of movies and other programs that involve fictional characters committing heinous murders and other unspeakable acts.

In this kind of society, executing criminals sends no moral signal. It is simply one more killing in a culture of death.

The Church today is pointing us in a different direction.

Showing mercy to those who do not “deserve” it, seeking redemption for persons who have committed evil, working for a society where every human life is considered sacred and protected — this is how we are called to follow Jesus Christ and proclaim his Gospel of life in these times and in this culture.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NSmith said:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty
Click to expand...
See my above post
 
Fine, then, I can tell you there are plenty of unjust applications of the death penalty even when the accused is clearly guilty of some type of homicide.

But go ahead and keep assuming that the justice system always gets it right, if you like. You’ll only be kidding yourself.
 
The details of specific legal systems are beside the point of this thread, which is about the permissibility of the death penalty
 
Red herring.
The question is not about the death penalty being intrinsically evil, the question is about the admissibility, or permissibility of it, in the world as we currently know it.
 
Last edited:
There is this idea of direction , pointing in a direction.
If looked at it this way, the wording confirms said direction a step further.
Coming from previous Popes in discerning God’s will
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
That’s a simplistic take on Magisterial authority.

The Catechism is not an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Th at is an odd take given that a catechism is a document containing the teaching of a particular confession and that priests are bound to teach doctrine that is in harmony with the catechism, but okay. I will take your word for it. Are you saying that the catechism is not reflective of Catholic doctrine on this matter?
 
I’m really not sure why people cling to the absolute admissibility of the death penalty like a warm blanket.
 
goout said:
I’m really not sure why people cling to the absolute admissibility of the death penalty like a warm blanket.
Click to expand...
I do not think that anyone here has claimed that there is an absolute permissibility of the death penalty. The Catechism however does claim that it is impermissible.
 
Which is outside of the competency of the Church at large because every place in the world is different 🙂

Some places have better means of imprisonment than others, some have better legal systems than others, etc. 🙂

A place that can securely lock away (and does) a prisoner for life who is a danger to society can do without it (I suppose), but a place that cannot needs it 🙂

Heck, even in first world countries (such as the US), there are violent criminals who are released multiple times (such as the man who beat a 90 year old woman on the streets), who was arrested several times and was released, and had I think around 60 violent crimes behind him 🙂

There are also people who were released when the pandemic started who went and murdered and raped people who had testified against them, and the man in NY that raped and murdered a 90 year old woman in her home upon release. 😦

Because it is a prudential thing that God left you the secular government, it falls outside of the competency of the Church to blanket statement the matter 🙂
[/quote]

And I’ll go with the Pope’s prudential judgment on the matter over yours, no offense to you. Who do you trust more than the living Pontiff?
 
Last edited:
No offense, but I only trust him in what the Church has declared his competency in throughout history, and that does not include this 🙂
[/quote]

It’s certainly your right to freely accept or reject the living Pope’s interpretation and application of Church doctrine.
 
goout said:
Red herring.
The question is not about the death penalty being intrinsically evil, the question is about the admissibility, or permissibility of it, in the world as we currently know it.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of people who read the revision as declaring that the death penalty is always and everywhere at all times intrinsically evil, and based on the wording and read out of context of the history of Church teaching, it’s easy to understand why. The revision is not worded well.
 
Last edited:
Alainval said:
Ever since the new revision of the Catechism there has been some uproar among more conservative Catholics as to whether or not a Catholic can still hold to the proper use of the death penalty despite the Catechism rejecting it now.
Click to expand...
All catechisms take their authority in their footnotes that cite Scripture, Tradition or the constant Magisterial teachings of the church. One would have hoped that the latest revision could cite such an authority but it does not.

Nevertheless, the prior catechism’s revision under JPII with a circular reference in his Evangelium Vitae encyclical indicates a rethinking and development of the doctrine on the issue of capital punishment.

The state’s right to execute emanates, as do all rights, from a prior duty. Arguably, the state’s duty to protect its citizens is foremost among its duties. JPII structures his development (supporting the culture of life theme) on the restoration of order in society, not retribution. If the state can meet its obligation to restore order (which includes protection from the offender) in a bloodless means then it may not execute. The right to execute has always been conditional and JPII defines a condition that reflects today’s penal technology. The execution of a criminal is evil in its circumstance, not in its moral object, if the state has access to bloodless means to protect society.
 
C. Have you read just out of interest the different stages/ instances the colours represent?

It is like countries are at different stages in relation to death penalty and its consideration.
And I far as I know , there are Catholic people living all over the world…also perhaps in CAF…
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Except when you put a guy to death who turns out to be innocent.
UK did that at least once before they got rid of hanging.
US probably did it at least once also.
Click to expand...
I used to believe that as well.

I once said to my cousin, “I oppose the death penalty because of the possibility of making a mistake and executing the wrong person.”

He said, “That’s true, they could execute the wrong person . . . but if the guilty person is not executed they could be set free to kill again.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top