Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[Motherwit]

Correct, which is a prudential judgement made by local judges and leaders.
[/quote]
And it is the duty of the Church to speak up against false claims which seek to influence the natural course of abolition.

His encyclical admits in the first few paragraphs it is not anything binding, and is just for open dialogue.
Also, if it contradicts past teaching either it is wrong and not to be followed, or your interpretation is wrong.
[/quote]
Who makes the decision that it contradicts past teaching and why should I submit to that authority over the authority of the Magisterium?

Our culture is no more a culture of death than any before is. Actually it’s less so. Read the history during the 13-1500’s.
[/quote]
And by what authority do you claim that as opposed to the Church discernment?

Actually, we have proven it was.
[/quote]
Are you claiming that all other Christian countries who’ve abolished it are disobeying Gods commandment?

Correct, which only that community can determine, and which has been affirmed for 2,000 years.

Also, you are very selectively picking Summa quotes.

Here is just above that:
For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
[/quote]
That justifies the dp for the safety of the whole community/body. If it transpires that the community can be safeguarded by modern non bloody methods it would be unethical not to do this. Today we have medications that can treat and cure infections that in the 14th century weren’t available. Do you really think that it would be ethical to continue doing amputations when we have the means to restore the health of the whole body without it?

 

[Ender]

If the Church is wrong about the inadmissibility of the dp today, she can be wrong about abortion being intrinsically evil. If you can’t trust the Church in one area there’s no point in trusting her in another.

But if the church is right now (according to your interpretation) then she was wrong before and all of your objections apply anyway. That’s quite a scenario you’ve created where we can’t trust the church whether she’s right or wrong here.

So Just War theory is pretty irrelevant? It can’t be discerned objectively and is only relative to a governments opinion of what is just or unjust?

Again, making a prudential judgment is not getting carte blanche to do anything. In order for a judgment to be valid it has to be made in good faith; there was never any suggestion that whatever one chooses to do is valid simply because it involves judgment.

Could you please point to the new doctrine Pope Francis has created so we can be on the same page (as they say) in discussing it.

The 2000 year old doctrine of the church on capital punishment is that States have a moral right to use it. If Pope Francis’ words are prudential judgments then there is no issue, but if they are assumed to be new doctrine, and that doctrine says States do not have a moral right to use it then we have a very serious problem.

 

[humilityseeker]

The 2000 year old doctrine of the church on capital punishment is that States have a moral right to use it. If Pope Francis’ words are prudential judgments then there is no issue, but if they are assumed to be new doctrine, and that doctrine says States do not have a moral right to use it then we have a very serious problem.

Which doctrine are we discussing, could you link it please, then we can establish just how old it is. Pope Francis has not created a new doctrine in his update to the Church’s understanding of human dignity, serious crime and the use of the death penalty as punishment. If you believe he has, please link that one also.

 

[Ender]

That justifies the dp for the safety of the whole community/body.

This belief is where the train went off the tracks. This claim is absolutely false; the church has never justified capital punishment based on whether or not it was necessary to protect society.

A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law…but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty.

…this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. (Pius XII)

Which doctrine are we discussing, could you link it please, then we can establish just how old it is.

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude… recourse to the death penalty, when…

You’ve seen the references to Innocent I in 405 saying the same thing. How far back is it necessary to go?

Pope Francis has not created a new doctrine in his update to the Church’s understanding of human dignity, serious crime and the use of the death penalty as punishment. If you believe he has, please link that one also.

No, I don’t think he has created a new doctrine, but that is because I understand his words to be prudential judgments, and not doctrinal changes. I do not believe that “inadmissible” reverses the doctrine taught by the Fathers and Doctors because I believe that doctrine to be irreversible.

 

[humilityseeker]

Ok we have established there is no new doctrine here.
We are yet to establish which doctrine, in which Church document/s , has/ have been expanded due to a new understanding of the death penalty and human dignity.
Catechism of the Catholic Church is a teaching document.
We can definately look beyond it to some of the types of official documents of the Church you listed up thread.
Which post Vatican II documents discuss executing the offender and which other Popes have discussed the death penalty. Pope Francis is not the only Pope to have come out with words like ’ ought not to go to the extreme of executing …’

 

[Rau]

And the Church has also taught that the dp is forbidden when it does more harm than good.

EVERY act that does more harm than good is an act we may not choose! The question is: who judges the balance of consequences of acts and does anyone’s judgement on the matter demand our assent?

 

[Rau]

I do not believe that “inadmissible” reverses the doctrine taught by the Fathers and Doctors because I believe that doctrine to be irreversible.

I take inadmissible to be the strongest way he could express the notion of “unthinkable”. And it is a conclusion “for the times”.

 

[Ender]

Ok we have established there is no new doctrine here.

This, then, is the doctrine: “States have a moral right to apply capital punishment.”

We are yet to establish which doctrine, in which Church document/s , has/ have been expanded due to a new understanding of the death penalty and human dignity.

I think what is being said now is: “States have a moral right to apply capital punishment, but they ought not do it if they don’t absolutely have to.” Nor is this anything new; it was a position expressed by St. Ambrose in the 4th century:

You see therefore both what power your commission gives you, and also whither mercy would lead you; you will be excused if you do it, and praised if you do it not.

Which post Vatican II documents discuss executing the offender and which other Popes have discussed the death penalty.

To what end? If the doctrine is unchanged, and what remains are strongly worded (but still prudential) judgments about the inadvisability of its use, what is the debate about?

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

If the Church is wrong about the inadmissibility of the dp today, she can be wrong about abortion being intrinsically evil. If you can’t trust the Church in one area there’s no point in trusting her in another.

But if the church is right now (according to your interpretation) then she was wrong before and all of your objections apply anyway. That’s quite a scenario you’ve created where we can’t trust the church whether she’s right or wrong here.

It’s not my interpretation. The Vatican explained it quite clearly in its letter to Bishops.

1. The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times.[1] This development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”[2]
2. It is in the same light that one should understand the attitude towards the death penalty that is expressed ever more widely in the teaching of pastors and in the sensibility of the people of God. If, in fact, the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good, today the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes, the deepened understanding of the significance of penal sanctions applied by the State, and the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens have given rise to a new awareness that recognizes the inadmissibility of the death penalty and, therefore, calling for its abolition.

That is a very clear explanation of why the state had Gods permission in the past to use the dp, but that today its use undermines our heightened awareness of the dignity of human beings. It’s happened with lots of sentences approved in the past. Stripes, stocks, torture, exile etc. The world has gradually come to view these sentences as inhumane and unacceptable. This strange desire to hang on to the death sentence in the face of this growth is nothing to do with human justice or Gods will.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

So Just War theory is pretty irrelevant? It can’t be discerned objectively and is only relative to a governments opinion of what is just or unjust?

Again, making a prudential judgment is not getting carte blanche to do anything. In order for a judgment to be valid it has to be made in good faith; there was never any suggestion that whatever one chooses to do is valid simply because it involves judgment.

‘Prudential’ judgments imply having recourse to objective moral guidance. If that isn’t the Church who is it? Natural law alone?

Motherwit:

That justifies the dp for the safety of the whole community/body.

This belief is where the train went off the tracks. This claim is absolutely false; the church has never justified capital punishment based on whether or not it was necessary to protect society.

A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law…but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty.

…this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. (Pius XII)

This is addressing the principle of punishment itself, not the different sentences applied. No one is suggesting that punishment should be abolished.

 

[LilyM]

I know many will disagree, but you can’t be anti-abortion and pro death penalty.

It is the application of the legal system.

Given the numbers of guilty verdicts that have been overturned years, even decades, after the fact through initiatives such as the Innocence Project, I would hesitate to equate any guilty verdict with being deserving of death.

And I say this as a lawyer who sees injustices happen too frequently. Thankfully not in a jurisdiction that has the death penalty to make them completely irreversible.

 

[Ender]

That is a very clear explanation of why the state had Gods permission in the past to use the dp, but that today its use undermines our heightened awareness of the dignity of human beings.

I think the only way this explanation could be accurate is if morality changes from time to time depending on God’s whims. Capital punishment is either moral or it isn’t; it can’t be immoral now but moral in the past. You talk about our heightened awareness of man’s dignity - are we to assume that God was also unaware of man’s dignity in the past?

This strange desire to hang on to the death sentence in the face of this growth is nothing to do with human justice or Gods will.

Has God’s will been reversed from then to now? Did he just change his mind about what is moral and what is not? How could he have commanded it before and disapprove of it now? What kind of God are we to believe in?

‘Prudential’ judgments imply having recourse to objective moral guidance. If that isn’t the Church who is it? Natural law alone?

Yes, moral guidance about what we should and should not do, what we should want, what our goals should be…but not a word about the specific actions we should take to achieve those goals. That’s up to our individual judgment, our own individual problem solving ability. We are to work within moral guidelines, but within those lines the church offers no guidance in solving the particulars of political problems. In the general sense, yes, the church is absolutely involved in informing our moral sense so we have a moral framework to work in, but in the particular sense of informing our understanding of how to solve problems she has nothing to offer inasmuch as those solutions do not involve moral questions.

This is addressing the principle of punishment itself, not the different sentences applied. No one is suggesting that punishment should be abolished.

Yes, I am talking about understanding punishment itself; if it is not understood properly it cannot be applied properly, and I think there has been a rather gross misunderstanding of what it is, starting with the belief that its primary objective is protection.

 

[Rau]

This development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”[2]
2. It is in the same light that one should understand the attitude towards the death penalty that is expressed ever more widely in the teaching of pastors and in the sensibility of the people of God. If, in fact, the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good, today the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes, the deepened understanding of the significance of penal sanctions applied by the State, and the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens have given rise to a new awareness

This statement (from the Vatican) traverses several bases. In my opinion, the only rational interpretation of it is as a new weighing up of the pros and cons of the death penalty. What it is doing is this:

1). It is saying that the downside (harmful consequences) of CP is perhaps greater than fully appreciated in the past; [fine - I can see that as a development]

2). It is saying that other measures with far less downside are available to punish and protect adequately [fine]

and from this concluding that applying CP in all these circumstances is offensive or unthinkable. [“Inadmissible” seems like overreach to me - it’s inadmissible for anyone concurring with the judgement about the pros and cons…]

Now - I really have no problem with that - but it is a prudential judgement. IMHO it is not saying that CP has always and everywhere and forever and a day been wrong and if we’d only appreciated Point (1) earlier, it would never have been allowed.

 

[Motherwit]

I can see no other logic in your approach than an attempt to rewrite morality either out of public affairs altogether or reduce it to such a weak aspect as to make no one accountable to anyone but himself or accountable only to an ideological cabal who push their version of what’s moral onto everyone. Do you want to replace the role of Christs Church on earth?

I think the only way this explanation could be accurate is if morality changes from time to time depending on God’s whims. Capital punishment is either moral or it isn’t; it can’t be immoral now but moral in the past. You talk about our heightened awareness of man’s dignity - are we to assume that God was also unaware of man’s dignity in the past?

But it does change. A moral act has to meet with 3 fonts to be moral otherwise it can’t be moral. We have already witnessed this in legal sentencing over time with the abolition of torture, scourging, exile etc. Those were accepted means of sentencing criminals in the past but are roundly known as inhumane and unjust now.

Yes, moral guidance about what we should and should not do, what we should want, what our goals should be…but not a word about the specific actions we should take to achieve those goals. That’s up to our individual judgment, our own individual problem solving ability. We are to work within moral guidelines, but within those lines the church offers no guidance in solving the particulars of political problems. In the general sense, yes, the church is absolutely involved in informing our moral sense so we have a moral framework to work in, but in the particular sense of informing our understanding of how to solve problems she has nothing to offer inasmuch as those solutions do not involve moral questions.

What leg do we have to stand on then to condemn communists, China’s treatment of the Uighurs, Islamic Jihad, Russia’s annexing surrounding countries? Your logic rules out any justification to determine any other government or ideological groups version of morality.

Yes, I am talking about understanding punishment itself; if it is not understood properly it cannot be applied properly, and I think there has been a rather gross misunderstanding of what it is, starting with the belief that its primary objective is protection.

The end of human law is the common good. – Aquinas. Regardless of any other purpose of punishment, it must serve the common good to be moral/just. That is the Catholic understanding.

 

[Rau]

A moral act has to meet with 3 fonts to be moral otherwise it can’t be moral.

The 3 fonts are what determine the morality of our personal acts. We must have a good intention and we must judge the balance of consequences to be good. The Church does not authoritatively adjudicate on these two things for us. But, the church does set forth the moral object of acts. It has previously set forth that the moral object in CP is not evil and it has not ever said otherwise.

Your thesis seems to be that the Church may authoritatively declare that its prudential judgement is binding.

The end of human law is the common good. – Aquinas. Regardless of any other purpose of punishment, it must serve the common good to be moral/just. That is the Catholic understanding.

Is it possible to determine authoritatively that CP - an act not intrinsically evil - detracts or contributes to the common good? Or can we only have judgements on this question.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Is the inadmissibility of the death penalty something that a future pope could reverse and make admissible again? Or is inadmissibility irreversible?

 

[Motherwit]

Now - I really have no problem with that - but it is a prudential judgement. IMHO it is not saying that CP has always and everywhere and forever and a day been wrong and if we’d only appreciated Point (1) earlier, it would never have been allowed.

In my opinion the theory that people are claiming that the dp is intrinsically evil, is a strawman to keep a wedge in the door of final abolition. I don’t believe this tactic has anything to do with Gods will or the common good. It has to do with mans want of power and authority beyond what he is given.

Are you of that mind that we have no right to condemn other governments for using inhumane and unjust laws because afterall, it’s up to them to decide what is moral or not?

 

[Motherwit]

Is the inadmissibility of the death penalty something that a future pope could reverse and make admissible again? Or is inadmissibility irreversible?

The only situation where I can see that ever happening is if some apocalyptic event destroyed societies ability to contain the most dangerous criminals. There is of course the exception that St Augustine defined this way -

However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual.

I believe we can regard the killing of Osama bin Laden as one of those.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

The Augustinian exception remains in the current understanding of inadmissibility?

 

[Motherwit]

The Augustinian exception remains in the current understanding of inadmissibility?

The Church is addressing ‘inadmissibility’ to the general law. The death penalty as devised by man.