Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[Motherwit]

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.

Each to his own history I guess.

In Furman v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court rules by a vote of 5-4 that capital punishment, as it is currently employed on the state and federal level, is unconstitutional. The majority held that, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, the death penalty qualified as “cruel and unusual punishment,” primarily because states employed execution in “arbitrary and capricious ways,” especially in regard to race. It was the first time that the nation’s highest court had ruled against capital punishment.

Supreme Court strikes down death penalty | June 29, 1972 | HISTORY

In Furman v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court rules by a vote of 5‑4 that capital punishment, as it is currently employed on the state and federal level, is unconstitutional. The majority held that, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, the death penalty qualified as “cruel...

www.history.com

 

[MarysLurker]

Each to his own history I guess.

You just quoted a source that said exactly what I said. And I can tell from the Discourse link counts that you completely failed to read the actual Supreme Court opinions that I linked to before posting again.

Instead you have insinuated that I was ignorant of the very case law that I linked to. That’s pretty low. If you want to have a civil discussion I’m all for it but I am beginning to doubt that this is your goal here.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

Each to his own history I guess.

You just quoted a source that said exactly what I said. And I can tell from the Discourse link counts that you completely failed to read the actual Supreme Court opinions that I linked to before posting again.

Instead you have insinuated that I was ignorant of the very case law that I linked to. That’s pretty low. If you want to have a civil discussion I’m all for it but I am beginning to doubt that this is your goal here.

I can see that this is going to be one of those conversations that I don’t get. You said there was no moratorium. There was a moratorium. From 1972 to 1976 the death penalty was deemed unconstitutional. When it was reinstated it was taken on most avidly by the Southern States and to this day the statistics show that it isn’t favored by the majority of the States.

Anyway. That’s my last post to you regarding the 1972 moratorium.

 

[MarysLurker]

There was a moratorium

No, nobody declared a moratorium. A moratorium is the temporary suspension of some practice that is otherwise acceptable. The Supreme Court held that non-individualized sentencing was unconstitutional, i.e., not acceptable. They did not hold that capital punishment itself was unconstitutional. Please read the linked opinions if you are sincerely concerned.

 

[Rau]

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.

I think that misses the point of the debate entirely. I’m pretty sure Ender will agree with you that CP ought not be pursued should it be held personally (by the relevant actor) or by anybody, were it held definitively, to do more harm than good. The debate Centres around whether it is possible for there to be any definitive assertion (compelling Catholics to accept) that it does do more harm than good. For such are judgements, not doctrines.

 

[Ender]

I think that misses the point of the debate entirely. I’m pretty sure Ender will agree with you that CP ought not be pursued should it be held personally (by the relevant actor) or by anybody were it held definitively to do more harm than good. The debate Centres around whether it is possible for there to be any definitive assertion (compelling Catholics to accept) that it does do more harm than good. For such are judgements, not doctrines.

Yes. Exactly.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

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.

I think that misses the point of the debate entirely. I’m pretty sure Ender will agree with you that CP ought not be pursued should it be held personally (by the relevant actor) or by anybody, were it held definitively, to do more harm than good. The debate Centres around whether it is possible for there to be any definitive assertion (compelling Catholics to accept) that it does do more harm than good. For such are judgements, not doctrines.

If Ender states that in his opinion the death penalty does more good than harm today as his reason for supporting retention, that’s fine. There really is no reason to be citing Church documents and Popes from the past to shore up that position. Stick with the reasons why the common good is served by it today. But I’m pretty sure you know he is going further than just that.

 

[anon90190422]

Yes you can. Sacred Tradition and the previous and consistent teaching of the Infallible Magisterium, popes and doctors hold more weight than the prudential judgements and opinions of John Paul 2 and Francis, who even contradicts the former. God commands the death penalty incessantly in the Bible. When the Good Thief was on the cross, he said his punishment was just, and Jesus did not refute him. This is overlooked and it is an extremely relevant point. If what matters is saving souls, physical death is not the worst thing that can happen. Every Catholic knows that the Church has taught that the State can put criminals to death, so I won’t touch on that. But the death penalty is good for the soul of the criminal, because without the incoming death, such a hardened sinner would not likely repent. Would the Thief on the Cross have had contrition and repented if he was allowed to live? Probably not. Any sane man, no matter how bad a sinner, would want to repent if he knows he will die, and if execution doesn’t push him to repentance, he never will as a free man. When a man is justified before he is executed, his execution will serve as a penance for him, to a degree according to his acceptance of the will of God and faith, and it could even completely eliminate his time in Purgatory if he accepted his death out of Perfect Charity and Contrition, whereby he conforms himself to Divine Providence

 

[Rau]

If Ender states that in his opinion the death penalty does more good than harm today as his reason for supporting retention, that’s fine.

Anyone familiar with catholic moral theology and comfortable with CP must hold that to be true. But it’s a judgement call.

There really is no reason to be citing Church documents and Popes from the past to shore up that position.

Correct. The church documents don’t address that. They address the good moral object in CP and the scriptural basis for that. Because it is that which tells us that CP can (given proper intention and circumstances) be a good act.

Stick with the reasons why the common good is served by it today.

That circles back to the judgement aspect.

 

[o_mlly]

Motherwit:

If Ender states that in his opinion the death penalty does more good than harm today as his reason for supporting retention, that’s fine.

Anyone familiar with catholic moral theology and comfortable with CP must hold that to be true. But it’s a judgement call.

True, but I think only with the codicil that eliminates slipping into a proportionalism ethic as controlling, i.e., the execution of an innocent man is intrinsically evil and can never be justified. CCC#1753 “… the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation”.

 

[Ender]

If Ender states that in his opinion the death penalty does more good than harm today as his reason for supporting retention, that’s fine. There really is no reason to be citing Church documents and Popes from the past to shore up that position. Stick with the reasons why the common good is served by it today. But I’m pretty sure you know he is going further than just that.

I have repeatedly said that practical objections to the use of capital punishment may be valid; these are prudential judgments which each of us is free to make. When the argument is made, however, that there is a moral objection to its use, that is when I cite the traditional teaching of the church on the matter.

That goes to the very topic of the thread: can a Catholic still maintain the death penalty? If its use is no longer moral then not, but if, as the church teaches, morality does not change with time or place then it is as moral today as it ever was. It is neither reasonable nor necessary to cite the Fathers or Doctors in any discussion of current conditions that affect the use of capital punishment. It is both when the debate turns on the question of morality.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

If Ender states that in his opinion the death penalty does more good than harm today as his reason for supporting retention, that’s fine. There really is no reason to be citing Church documents and Popes from the past to shore up that position. Stick with the reasons why the common good is served by it today. But I’m pretty sure you know he is going further than just that.

I have repeatedly said that practical objections to the use of capital punishment may be valid; these are prudential judgments which each of us is free to make. When the argument is made, however, that there is a moral objection to its use, that is when I cite the traditional teaching of the church on the matter.

That goes to the very topic of the thread: can a Catholic still maintain the death penalty? If its use is no longer moral then not, but if, as the church teaches, morality does not change with time or place then it is as moral today as it ever was. It is neither reasonable nor necessary to cite the Fathers or Doctors in any discussion of current conditions that affect the use of capital punishment. It is both when the debate turns on the question of morality.

My humble prediction is this will be the next aspect the Church will formally address by way of affirming that cp is in fact unjust and immoral if it is retained today. The Church is a moral guide in the world by the authority of Christ. The Church has spoken against the immoral nature of communism which attempts to rob the Church of its moral authority and she will speak again in my opinion against libertarianism desiring to replace our Churchs moral authority with individual judgment.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

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.

And, if you read on to verses 9-10 in Rom. 13 St. Paul specifically cites a few of God’s commandments, including “Thou shalt not kill”, and says any other commandment is comprised in this word: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, and that one who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the Law.

And, not only love those who love us, and from whom we expect reciprocation. That is no merit: it is a joy and also naturally honest men can do it. Also, the publicans and the gentiles do it. But, we must love according to God and out of respect for God, Who is the Creator also of those who are our enemies, or are not very fond of us. Jesus wants the perfection of love in us, and therefore said: “Be perfect as your Father, Who is in Heaven, is perfect.”

So great is the precept of love for our neighbor, the perfecting of the precept of love for our neighbor, that Jesus no longer says, as it was said: “Do not kill” because he who kills will be condemned by men. But, He says: “Do not get angry” because a higher judgement is above us, and takes into account immaterial actions (Mat. 5:21-22).

Consider the adulterous woman who was brought before Jesus. He said those who were without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, because no one was without sin. So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found.
He could have killed her, and it would have been justice, for she was guilty, but it would not have been mercy. He gave that soul time and possibility to arriving at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them.

Therefore, while the death penalty is just for some, it is not mercy, and God became man to teach in word and deed about God’s Love and Mercy.

In the case of killing out of self-defense, regardless of the reason, the fact one took life and death into their own hands and killed a creation of God is an act against the commandment not to kill, and therefore repentance is still due. So, when we are attacked we should defend ourselves, but without the intent to kill.

 

[Rau]

the Church … will speak again in my opinion against libertarianism desiring to replace our Churchs moral authority with individual judgment.

Has the church a record of actually claiming the broadened authority to which you refer? I readily agree the recent CP statements give the appearance of examples of doing just that.

Note carefully that no one here is suggesting individual judgement can be substituted for the Church’s determination regarding acts held to have an evil object (calumny, contraception, murder etc) etc.

That’s not the issue. The issue is about those cases where the object is not evil - has the Church declared that the Pope’s assessment of those are definitive?

 

[MarysLurker]

And, if you read on to verses 9-10 in Rom. 13 St. Paul specifically cites a few of God’s commandments, including “Thou shalt not kill”, and says any other commandment is comprised in this word: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, and that one who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the Law.

I guess St. Peter didn’t love Ananias and Sapphira.

Mercy is better than justice, but there are extreme cases where it is not merciful to let the offender live. Today these should be limited to cases of future danger which can’t be neutralized by incarceration.

 

[MarysLurker]

My humble prediction is this will be the next aspect the Church will formally address by way of affirming that cp is in fact unjust and immoral if it is retained today

This will unquestionably constitute a change in doctrine which is impossible.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

And, if you read on to verses 9-10 in Rom. 13 St. Paul specifically cites a few of God’s commandments, including “Thou shalt not kill”, and says any other commandment is comprised in this word: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, and that one who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the Law.

And, not only love those who love us, and from whom we expect reciprocation. That is no merit: it is a joy and also naturally honest men can do it. Also, the publicans and the gentiles do it. But, we must love according to God and out of respect for God, Who is the Creator also of those who are our enemies, or are not very fond of us. Jesus wants the perfection of love in us, and therefore said: “Be perfect as your Father, Who is in Heaven, is perfect.”

So great is the precept of love for our neighbor, the perfecting of the precept of love for our neighbor, that Jesus no longer says, as it was said: “Do not kill” because he who kills will be condemned by men. But, He says: “Do not get angry” because a higher judgement is above us, and takes into account immaterial actions (Mat. 5:21-22).

Consider the adulterous woman who was brought before Jesus. He said those who were without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, because no one was without sin. So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found. He could have killed her, and it would have been justice, for she was guilty, but it would not have been mercy. He gave that soul time and possibility to arriving at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them.

Therefore, while the death penalty is just for some, it is not mercy, and God became man to teach in word and deed about God’s Love and Mercy.

In the case of killing out of self-defense, regardless of the reason, the fact one took life and death into their own hands and killed a creation of God is an act against the commandment not to kill, and therefore repentance is still due. So, when we are attacked we should defend ourselves, but without the intent to kill.

I guess St. Peter didn’t love Ananias and Sapphira.

Mercy is better than justice, but there are extreme cases where it is not merciful to let the offender live. Today these should be limited to cases of future danger which can’t be neutralized by incarceration.

St. Peter didn’t kill Ananias and Saphira. And, in which cases could incarceration not prevent future suffering if it was used right?

 

[MarysLurker]

St. Peter didn’t kill Ananias and Saphira.

God did… after he judged them guilty.

I don’t understand what you mean by incarceration preventing suffering. Did you mean execution?

 

[Ender]

Mercy is better than justice…

I think this is another concept that needs more a more careful approach. Mercy does not trump justice; they are both virtues and are not in contention with one another.

Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?
A. God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. (Baltimore Catechism)

Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. (JPII)

Calling LWOP instead of the death penalty an act of mercy implicitly recognizes death as the just sentence, otherwise where is the mercy? However, even if mercy (here meaning lenience) was appropriate in some cases it is clearly not appropriate in all. Even God is not merciful to all or hell wouldn’t exist. In those cases where lenience is not applicable, what is the argument against capital punishment which is undeniably the just penalty?

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

My humble prediction is this will be the next aspect the Church will formally address by way of affirming that cp is in fact unjust and immoral if it is retained today

This will unquestionably constitute a change in doctrine which is impossible.

Only if you believe that cp is an actual commandment and not a sentence permitted to serve the common good. Every other Judeo Christian nation has abolished it because it is not seen to serve true justice or the common good.