Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[o_mlly]

As long as a Catholic is in harmony with his bishop and his bishop with the pope, he is on solid ground:

U.S. bishops say 'enough' on federal executions

Just hours before the sixth federal execution took place this year, two U.S. bishops' committee chairmen called on the government to end this practice.

angelusnews.com

https://www.city-sentinel.com/2020/09/vatican-radio-interviews-paul-s-coakley-american-archbishop-concerning-federal-use-of-the-death-penalty/

 

[Ender]

? St. JPII in EV made exactly that argument.

This is not an argument that God opposed capital punishment. Given that he himself commanded it and personally executed it later on your interpretation would have God contradict himself. That’s not what is going on here. This is an argument that even the murderer does not lose his personal dignity. Abel was not to be hunted down like an animal.

We do not read the bible literally but rely on the Church to interpret the text.

More specifically, the church proclaimed in Vatican I that no one could interpret Scripture in contradiction to the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, who, with two exceptions, all interpreted Scripture to acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment.

 

[o_mlly]

Given that he himself commanded it and personally executed it later on your interpretation would have God contradict himself.

The argument that God wills it (capital punishment) from the Old Testament’s Mosaic Laws does not stand up under any scrutiny. Do we still execute sodomites, adulterers, perjurers, etc. Moses and David (also adulterer) were both murderers but God did not execute either. The argument that the worst crime of the Mosaic Law perhps next to perverted sex acts, was idolatry. Murder falls down the list of offenses to God.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The claim that God personally kills anyone is also without basis. Should anyone whose loved ones died as a result of physical evils, e.g.,natural disaster or disease, claim, “God killed them!”

Acts does not read that God killed Ananias and Sapphira,.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

We do not read the bible literally but rely on the Church to interpret the text.

More specifically, the church proclaimed in Vatican I that no one could interpret Scripture in contradiction to the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, who, with two exceptions, all interpreted Scripture to acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment.

I have not claimed that CP is immoral in se. I do claim that if one judges that bloodless means are available to protect society that one may not execute the criminal.

 

[otjm]

I have not claimed that CP is immoral in se . I do claim that if one judges that bloodless means are available to protect society that one may not execute the criminal.

That echoes the comment by Pope John Paul 2, and presumably the comment by Pope Francis, although he couches it in terms which appear, on the face, to be absolute.

And it helps to recall (not that you don’t - but others may not) that the Church is universal, meaning that it applies to all countries. News today is that there was a massive (@ 200 inmates) jail break in Nigeria in the last few hours.

Which is an indirect way of saying that not all countries have the same level of security of prisons as do Europe and North America.

Pope Benedict 16 made a comment after JP2"s take on capital punishment; it was a prudential judgement, and Catholics may disagree with that prudential judgement and are still free to present themselves to Communion.

As Benedict did not respond to specific circumstances (e.g. the U.S. or some third world country), then Catholics are free to disagree; although I would suggest that an emotional response to the application of the death penalty is most likely not what B16 had in mind.

Having defended two murder cases, when the State reinstated the death penalty I chose to not continue to defend such cases further. And my personal position is that life without parole can be far greater punishment than many believe. Having seen a number of cases where the prisoner refuse to appeal and/or cut short appeals in order to hasten the date of execution, I recall a number of defense attorneys referring to such decisions as “suicide by execution” and I will leave it at that. Personally, I oppose the death penalty, but for multiple murders by an individual, I don’t spend much time at all mourning their death; I say a prayer begging mercy and forgiveness for them, and move on.

 

[Ender]

The argument that God wills it (capital punishment) from the Old Testament’s Mosaic Laws does not stand up under any scrutiny.

The issue was whether God willed it before, not whether he wills it now. Your argument is that God opposes capital punishment because he protected Cain, but that argument fails given that he commanded Moses to employ it. How can he morally oppose something he commands be done?

The claim that God personally kills anyone is also without basis.

Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. (Gn 19:24-25)

Acts does not read that God killed Ananias and Sapphira.

Do we lay it on Peter?

Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also. At that moment she fell down at his feet and died.” (Acts 5:9-10)

I have not claimed that CP is immoral in se . I do claim that if one judges that bloodless means are available to protect society that one may not execute the criminal.

So if bloodless means are not available it would be admissible?

 

[Rau]

o_mlly:

I have not claimed that CP is immoral in se . I do claim that if one judges that bloodless means are available to protect society that one may not execute the criminal.

So if bloodless means are not available it would be admissible?

Is the embargo on executions “if bloodless means exist to protect” a prudential judgement about the balance of good evil outcomes of executions or as some suggest, is it only the question of whether “bloodless means exist which will protect” which is prudentially judged? It would seem they are both judgements of the prudential order.

 

[Motherwit]

This is not an argument that God opposed capital punishment. Given that he himself commanded it and personally executed it later on your interpretation would have God contradict himself.

One would think that if your interpretation that capital punishment is a commandment why the Church has never spoken against abolition as it happened in Christian countries over the last century and a half? Do think the Church has failed in her duty to justice for not having defended such a commandment?

 

[Rau]

Personally, I think the scriptural endorsement of CP only establishes it can be an acceptable punishment. It does not compel the act, nor does it declare the act always appropriate.

 

[Motherwit]

Personally, I think the scriptural endorsement of CP only establishes it can be an acceptable punishment. It does not compel the act, nor does it declare the act always appropriate.

Which is the Church position since were it a commandment by nature, the Church would have opposed abolition rather than be in the forefront of that movement.

 

[o_mlly]

The issue was whether God willed it before, not whether he wills it now. Your argument is that God opposes capital punishment because he protected Cain, but that argument fails given that he commanded Moses to employ it. How can he morally oppose something he commands be done?

First, we believe that God does not change. My argument is that the Old Testament, as I’ve shown, does not disclose a clear answer as to God’s attitude toward capital punishment of the murderer. Absent the New Testament, the issue remains a mystery. Given the New Testament, that Old Testament mystery is now revealed in the Sermon on the Mount. The only justification for taking a life is in defense of another life.

So if bloodless means are not available it would be admissible?

Three circumstances must be met in order to morally execute the murderer. The murderer’s identity and guilt fully determined and the lack of bloodless means to protect society.

 

[Ender]

One would think that if your interpretation that capital punishment is a commandment why the Church has never spoken against abolition as it happened in Christian countries over the last century and a half? Do think the Church has failed in her duty to justice for not having defended such a commandment ?

I think the three changes to the catechism (1992, 1997, 2018) regarding capital punishment have contributed to a rather significant misunderstanding of the nature of punishment in general. They have led to the belief that it is the protection of society that is paramount rather than justice.

Personally, I think the scriptural endorsement of CP only establishes it can be an acceptable punishment. It does not compel the act, nor does it declare the act always appropriate.

The argument has never been made that it is always appropriate. It is my position that there is no argument to be made that it is always inappropriate.

My argument is that the Old Testament, as I’ve shown, does not disclose a clear answer as to God’s attitude toward capital punishment of the murderer.

Do these passages really seem all that unclear?

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed… (Gn 9:6)

'Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death (Num 35:31) [God speaking to Moses]

Given the New Testament, that Old Testament mystery is now revealed in the Sermon on the Mount. The only justification for taking a life is in defense of another life.

This is your personal interpretation; it has never been the doctrine of the church. It in fact rejects what the church does teach (re just war).

Three circumstances must be met in order to morally execute the murderer. The murderer’s identity and guilt fully determined and the lack of bloodless means to protect society.

This goes to the point I just made about confusion regarding the nature of punishment. It is not protection that is paramount in determining a proper punishment; it is justice, a concept entirely missing from this formulation.

 

[o_mlly]

It is not protection that is paramount in determining a proper punishment; it is justice …

The two are not opposed. Justice, the duty to do as one ought, requires the state to protect its own.

 

[o_mlly]

Given the New Testament, that Old Testament mystery is now revealed in the Sermon on the Mount. The only justification for taking a life is in defense of another life.

Doctrine, no. Teaching, yes. EV makes the argument. Just war is always a defensive war against an unjust aggressor.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

One would think that if your interpretation that capital punishment is a commandment why the Church has never spoken against abolition as it happened in Christian countries over the last century and a half? Do think the Church has failed in her duty to justice for not having defended such a commandment ?

I think the three changes to the catechism (1992, 1997, 2018) regarding capital punishment have contributed to a rather significant misunderstanding of the nature of punishment in general. They have led to the belief that it is the protection of society that is paramount rather than justice.

That’s not what I asked. Do you think the Church has failed in her duty to justice for not having condemned Christian countries who’ve abolished the dp over the last century and a half?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

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. Is it permissible for a Catholic to still hold to the death penalty?

“If one kills the son of a father, does one offend only the son? No. One offends
also the father. One offends the son in his flesh, and the father in his heart.
Both are wounded. By killing a man, does one offend only the man? No. Also God.
Man in his flesh, God in His right. Because life and death are to be given and
taken by Him only. To kill is to do violence to God and to man. To kill is to
enter God’s domain. To kill is to go against the commandment of love. Who
kills does not love God, because he dissipates one of His works: a man. Who
kills does not love his neighbor, because he takes away from his neighbor
what a murderer wants for himself: life.”

 

[MarysLurker]

What if the killing was in self defense or defense of others? If a father kills someone who is trying to kill his daughter, is that father guilty of murder just as the murderer would have been?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

What if the killing was in self defense or defense of others? If a father kills someone who is trying to kill his daughter, is that father guilty of murder just as the murderer would have been?

Yes, but that father who in a painful derangement became a murderer, can still be forgiven by God.
God will not forgive those who become a murderer through lust for power, or for men’s esteem.
And, one does not commit murder only by means of a weapon or poison, but also by slander.

 

[MarysLurker]

Yes, but that father who in a painful derangement became a murderer, can still be forgiven by God

No, he was never a murderer to begin with.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[Lunam_Meam]

No, he was never a murderer to begin with.

If one kills another they are a murderer, and depending on the circumstances, they can still be or not be forgiven by God.