Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[MarysLurker]

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

Again, not what the Catechism says:

Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

Of course you will say that this part needs to be amended to line up with the Franciscan amendment to the death penalty section and the corresponding “deepened development of our understanding of human dignity.”

And that is how the slippery slope goes. Pope Francis has already derogated from capital punishment and life imprisonment, and arguably just war as well. Even if he doesn’t try to do the same to self defense and defense of others, @Lunam_Meam already has… and is one of many who will do the same.

In reality, the Church’s teaching has not changed. The Pope has just made prudential judgments which may be carefully considered and then disregarded. But the vast majority of Catholics will follow suit with @Lunam_Meam and treat this “spirit of Pope Francis” as doctrinal change, just as the past generation did with the so-called “spirit of Vatican II.” Neither of these “spirits” presents an authentic interpretation of the source material, but everyone will be pressed to play along.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Again, not what the Catechism says:

Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

Of course you will say that this part needs to be amended to line up with the Franciscan amendment to the death penalty section and the corresponding “deepened development of our understanding of human dignity.”

And that is how the slippery slope goes. Pope Francis has already derogated from capital punishment and life imprisonment, and arguably just war as well. Even if he doesn’t try to do the same to self defense and defense of others, @Lunam_Meam already has… and is one of many who will do the same.

In reality, the Church’s teaching has not changed. The Pope has just made prudential judgments which may be carefully considered and then disregarded. But the vast majority of Catholics will follow suit with @Lunam_Meam and treat this “spirit of Pope Francis” as doctrinal change, just as the past generation did with the so-called “spirit of Vatican II.” Neither of these “spirits” presents an authentic interpretation of the source material, but everyone will be pressed to play along.

Remember what Jesus says: to be angry towards or kill one’s neighbor, including those considered an enemy, is an act against God’s commandment of love (Mat. 5:21-22, Lk. 6:27, Rom.13:9), and thus is unlawful. We are not our own (1 Cor. 6:1). Only God gives and takes away life (Job 1:21).

 

[MarysLurker]

Remember what Jesus says: to be angry towards or kill one’s neighbor, including those considered an enemy, is an act against God’s commandment of love (Mat. 5:21-22, Lk. 6:27, Rom.13:9), and thus is unlawful. We are not our own (1 Cor. 6:1). Only God gives and takes away life (Job 1:21).

So goodbye 2000+ years of Sacred Tradition and Magisterium and saints and history. We know so much better now.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Remember what Jesus says: to be angry towards or kill one’s neighbor, including those considered an enemy, is an act against God’s commandment of love (Mat. 5:21-22, Lk. 6:27, Rom.13:9), and thus is unlawful. We are not our own (1 Cor. 6:1). Only God gives and takes away life (Job 1:21).

So goodbye 2000+ years of Sacred Tradition and Magisterium and saints and history. We know so much better now.

Do you disagree with my previous post?

 

[MarysLurker]

Do you disagree with my previous post?

Yes, because as a Catholic I reject sola scriptura, which is a nice way of saying that you are not better at interpreting a 2000 year old book than the people who were actually there and those who knew them.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Yes, because as a Catholic I reject sola scriptura, which is a nice way of saying that you are not better at interpreting a 2000 year old book than the people who were actually there and those who knew them.

I didn’t interpret, rather recited God’s Law as it is.

 

[MarysLurker]

I didn’t interpret, rather recited God’s Law as it is.

Just the parts that line up with your position. Not a word about Romans 13:3-4, or Genesis 9:6, both of which endorse capital punishment.

Look, I understand the attraction of pacifism and the consistent life ethic and all of that. If you speak the world’s language maybe you can evangelize them. It never works in practice because you’re talking to people who are not interested in Jesus. Presenting Him as the king of nice guys or as a Gandhi analogue isn’t going to open their hearts because they already have nice guys and Gandhi. You can’t get them interested in Him unless you talk about the supernatural. Dialogue about human dignity alone does not open that door, and if you lose track of what Jesus actually taught in the process, then you’ve lost more than you’ve gained.

Jesus said what He said about free millstones and neck ropes for people who hurt children. He said what He said about bringing a sword. He even said Pilate legitimately had the right to inflict capital punishment. He is not a pacifist, and while He prefers mercy to justice, He and His Apostles unequivocally endorsed capital punishment, as the Church has done without issue until very recently.

 

[Rau]

I could not resist posting this statement by a US Bishop about the Pope’s statement on civil unions.

“ October 21, 2020

The Holy Father’s apparent support for the recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples needs to be clarified. The Pope’s statement clearly contradicts what has been the long-standing teaching of the Church about same-sex unions. The Church cannot support the acceptance of objectively immoral relationships. Individuals with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and must have their personal human rights and civil rights recognized and protected by law. However, the legalization of their civil unions, which seek to simulate holy matrimony, is not admissible.”

 

[Ender]

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?

No…

 

[Ender]

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

As @MarysLurker said, this is not what the church teaches.

St. Jerome says, “To punish murderers, and sacrilegious men, and poisoners is not a shedding of blood, but the administration of law.” St. Augustine, “Those who, endowed with the character of public authority, punish criminals by death, do not violate that commandment which says, Thou shalt not kill.” (St. Bellarmine)

No. 2263, the first in the subsection, introduces double-effect reasoning to show that not all actions which result in killing are intentional killing and forbidden by the Commandment; indeed, the teaching that controls the whole of the subsection is that what the Commandment excludes as murder is intentional killing. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions… (St Augustine)
…
Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

 

[hope]

MarysLurker:

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.

The definition of murder is The unjust killing of an innocent person not just killing another. God forgives anyone who repents. I don’t think that murder is the unforgivable sin.
You quote scripture but none of which addresses self-defense.

 

[Rau]

I think you posted in wrong thread.

No - I posted in the correct thread. Those who have participated in this thread will understand.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

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?

No…

So you must agree then that the dp is not a commandment. It is subject solely to how it serves the common good like every other law. There is no other special authority it can claim, than human justice. As the Church is Christs ‘evangelical witness to justice and peace’ she has the authority to address unjust laws.

 

[Motherwit]

Read. His. Comments.

Think about them. Truly read them. Contemplate what he is saying. Read what he puts on the screen.

Stop just throwing replies out without having actually taking in what he said.
[/quote]

Would you like to address the topic rather than insult me.

 

[Motherwit]

Very unChristian ad hominems aren’t personally worth addressing either.

 

[Ender]

So you must agree then that the dp is not a commandment .

I’m not sure it isn’t a commandment, but it would be a positive commandment, and “only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances…what must be done in any given situation depends on the circumstances…” (Veritatis Splendor 52)

As the Church is Christs ‘evangelical witness to justice and peace’ she has the authority to address unjust laws.

Unjust perhaps, but unwise? no, and there is no way to call laws permitting capital punishment unjust inasmuch it is church doctrine which permits it, and has for 2000 years. It can be no more unjust now than it was then. Either it was just then and just now, or unjust then and unjust now. What it cannot be is just then and unjust now.

Practical considerations can make its use immoral, but the thing is, the determination of whether such conditions exist is a judgment about which disagreement is legitimate. The fact that it is considered by some to be harmful does not mean it is immoral for those who disagree. It is not a question of morality, but of judgment.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

So you must agree then that the dp is not a commandment .

I’m not sure it isn’t a commandment, but it would be a positive commandment,

No it isn’t. There is no ‘must do’ or obligation ever attached to it in Church teaching. Punishment by natural law must fit the crime but there is no objective law that a death sentence is a must.

and there is no way to call laws permitting capital punishment unjust inasmuch it is church doctrine which permits it, and has for 2000 years.

Church doctrine very clearly only permits cp if it serves the common good. That permission ceases when it does more harm than good. Every country including the US has deemed cp harmfull to the common good. The roadblock to abolition is a false claim being presented as Catholic that denies it is a forbidden action when it does more harm that good.

 

[MarysLurker]

Every country including the US has deemed cp harmfull to the common good.

I have no idea what you are basing this assertion on.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

Every country including the US has deemed cp harmfull to the common good.

I have no idea what you are basing this assertion on.

In 1972 when the issue of the death penalty was coming to a head in Europe and around the world generally, the US issued a moratorium on it. Unlike the rest of the countries who abolished it around that time, the US had pressure from the Southern states to bring it back which it did in 1976. It can’t be ignored that as with other nations, the issue of racism was a big factor in discomfort with the dp. Since reintroduction, to this day, nearly every execution is from the Southern States.

 

[MarysLurker]

Unlike the rest of the countries who abolished it around that time, the US had pressure from the Southern states to bring it back which it did in 1976.

This is not what happened at all. In Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment required individualized sentencing of capital defendants, which rendered capital punishment unconstitutional until each state and the federal government amended their statutes to allow the defendant to present individualized evidence in mitigation of the death sentence. See Jurek v. Texas.

There was no “moratorium.” The United States of America is a constitutional federal republic, not an elective monarchy where people vote for presidents and governors who they pressure to do whatever they want. And nobody can act for the whole country, so as to decide what suits the common good for everyone. The president acts for the union and governors act for their states.