Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[MarysLurker]

You ask the question “How can you conclude that the death penalty does more harm than good in every case without seeing the evidence in each individual case?” All these countries have deemed that to be the case.

What makes you think that was the reason for their abolition of the death penalty? Since when does a civil government serve as a proxy for human dignity or objective morality? After all, most of those countries also legalized abortion.

But I’ve said all this before and we are just going in circles.

Look. You believe that rationalizing from emotion is a substitute for evidentiary reasoning, and I don’t. We are not speaking the same language. And you’re not going to consider any evidence I give you because you assign no value to evidence.

I respect your position, though I disagree. Let’s stop.

 

[Motherwit]

I’m speaking the language of the Church so I’m in good company.

 

[o_mlly]

Francis implies that it [CP] is not [valid] …

I think it more correct to say that you infer your meaning just as I infer that the rewrite of 2267 is presently ambiguous.

… therefore virtually all of the arguments made before 2018 based on JPII’s comments are now void …

That does not follow. The clear language and logic of St. JPII’s teaching stands independently from Pope Francis’ teaching. The teachings are not contrary, i.e., both may be true.

 

[Julie4]

I don’t think that the death penalty accomplishes anything, except for vengeance maybe. Thou Shall Not Kill is pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Ender]

The choice is not either/or but and/both as the Council of Trent and St. JPII’s encyclicals do not conflict.

Does and/both mean Francis and JPII? because they absolutely do conflict. How is it you just ignored Francis? This is my point: your understanding of who’s teaching what doesn’t stand up to scrutiny; it is inconsistent with itself.

I do not dismiss Pope Francis’ change. My position is as I wrote: I await clarification.

“Awaiting clarification” at this juncture means “let’s just ignore Francis.” What needs clarification?

Technology most certainly leads us to the truth about the physical world. The revealed principles of morality do not change but their application does as circumstances change.

Since the issue here is morality, scientific truths are irrelevant, and as for the application of moral principles that is the very definition of prudential judgment, which is what I have claimed all along is what is happening here.

Nor is capital punishment a requirement – ever, in Catholic teaching.

Justice is a requirement, and capital punishment is a just sentence for some crimes. I’m waiting for an argument about what is wrong with applying a just penalty.

The human act.
The state puts to death a lawfully convicted criminal to protect society.

This shows where the discussion has gone completely wrong. It is not protection that justifies executions, it is justice. We don’t get to execute someone to protect ourselves; we execute someone because it is the just punishment for the crime. Nor is the physical protection of society the primary good that comes from punishment.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

Francis implies that it [CP] is not [valid] …

I think it more correct to say that you infer your meaning just as I infer that the rewrite of 2267 is presently ambiguous.

Francis said capital punishment is inadmissible. JPII said it was admissible in some circumstances. How are these not contradictory? How can they both be true? So which is accurate - is capital punishment admissible or not?

 

[o_mlly]

Does and/both mean Francis and JPII? because they absolutely do conflict. How is it you just ignored Francis? This is my point: your understanding of who’s teaching what doesn’t stand up to scrutiny; it is inconsistent with itself.

Why the angst? And, why the ongoing strawmanning of my position on Pope Francis? See Post #153.

That my position does not stand up to your scrutiny does not mean my position is inconsistent. It means your scrutiny is disordered.

By the way, you are welcome. No charge on the Aquinas reference. Glad I could help.

 

[o_mlly]

Francis said capital punishment is inadmissible. JPII said it was admissible in some circumstances. How are these not contradictory? How can they both be true? So which is accurate - is capital punishment admissible or not?

Stay tuned.

 

[Rau]

Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves…

You claim the exact opposite is true, and that this statement is completely backwards. Prove it.

Circumstances can’t alter the moral object (act itself) from good to evil or the reverse. But of course the circumstances is one of the 3 fonts - so it plays its part in the assessment of what is moral or not. Though where it is circumstances that are key, there may be difficulty in arriving at an objective assessment.

 

[Rau]

Moral object: Kill the prisoner to protect society.
Intent: Protect society.
Circumstance: The prisoner is innocent.

The human act is objectively evil.

Well yes, assuming you mean the State knows of the innocence, or fails to use due care in determining guilt, the act is no longer legitimately CP. If all acted with good faith belief in guilt, the act is morally good. If the circumstances are later found out to be different, that is regrettable indeed.

 

[Rau]

Ender:

Francis said capital punishment is inadmissible. JPII said it was admissible in some circumstances. How are these not contradictory? How can they both be true? So which is accurate - is capital punishment admissible or not?

Stay tuned.

Perhaps just say “At this point, I can’t reconcile the two either”.

 

[Motherwit]

o_mlly:

Ender:

Francis said capital punishment is inadmissible. JPII said it was admissible in some circumstances. How are these not contradictory? How can they both be true? So which is accurate - is capital punishment admissible or not?

Stay tuned.

Perhaps just say “At this point, I can’t reconcile the two either”.

I don’t think it’s necessary to have to say that. The majority of the Christian west doesn’t regard cp as a ‘divine command’ or a ‘holy institution’ the way it’s beheld in the US. That conundrum doesn’t have to factor into the road to abolition in an unreconcilable way.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Your personal interpretation notwithstanding, the church does not use this example, or the example of Cain, as objections to the use of capital punishment. Rather, she refers to more explicit statements, such as Gn 9:5-6, and Rm 13:1-4. That’s why she has always held that the legitimacy of capital punishment is Scriptural.

If you think Gen. 9:6 is the equivalent of “eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth…”, remember Jesus says: “You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:” (Mat. 5:38-39)

If you read verses Rom. 13: 9-10, St. Paul specifically cites several of God’s commandments, including “Thou shalt not kill”, and says it and any other commandment is comprised in this word: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, and that one who loves has fulfilled the Law, and thus does not fall into the concupiscence of the flesh, that of the mind, and that of the spirit, and remains in the light in God. He identifies himself with Christ, and he will share in His Kingdom.

In Rom. 12:19, we read “Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”

There’s human laws and justice and God’s Laws and justice. And, Jesus calls us to be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect, which is possible here on Earth as Jesus is proof of that. We should follow His example, and the scene of Him and the adulterous woman is one of the many examples He gave. Jesus 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, 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. Those in a position of power should follow the same example: love and mercy.

Finally, Jesus warns one will not only be judged for killing their neighbor, but even for getting angry with them (Mat. 5:22).

 

[kapp19]

If you read verses Rom. 13: 9-10, St. Paul specifically cites several of God’s commandments, including “Thou shalt not kill”, and says it and any other commandment is comprised in this word: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, and that one who loves has fulfilled the Law, and thus does not fall into the concupiscence of the flesh, that of the mind, and that of the spirit, and remains in the light in God. He identifies himself with Christ, and he will share in His Kingdom.

I think St. Paul also was more than willing to accept the fair delivery of capital punishment in his own case (as he himself indicates), and reminded everyone of the need to submit to the “sword” - also in Romans 13.

We are not more merciful than every saint, moralist, Father, pope, and Doctor before 5 minutes ago.

Consider the implications of the opposite position.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

I think St. Paul also was more than willing to accept the fair delivery of capital punishment in his own case (as he himself indicates), and reminded everyone of the need to submit to the “sword” - also in Romans 13.

We are not more merciful than every saint, moralist, Father, pope, and Doctor before 5 minutes ago.

Consider the implications of the opposite position.

There’s human laws and justice and God’s Laws and justice. And, in Rom. 12:19, we read “Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”

Jesus’s teachings and example were of love and mercy. Consider the adulterous woman. Jesus 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, 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. Those in a position of power should follow the same example.

Furthermore, Jesus warns one will not only be judged for killing their neighbor, but for even getting angry with them (Mat. 5:21-22). And, to forgive others if we are to be forgiven by our Father in Heaven (Mat. 16:14-15).

God could kill all the guilty at any moment, including you and me, but He hasn’t. So, we should ask ourselves: “Am I entitled to do to others what God does not do to me?” Jesus commanded us to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Mat. 5:48), which is possible on Earth as Jesus is proof of that. We can follow His example if our will is strong enough, and we invoke God’s help.

 

[kapp19]

Jesus said those who were without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, because no one was without sin.

I have considered it - so has every saint, Doctor, Father, pope, and approved moralist. They do not agree with your idea about “God’s law” and “human laws,” nor do I, in part for reasons I have alluded to elsewhere in this thread, and including also the very same chapter of Scripture you are citing in your favor.

If you want an extended discussion about what is going on in that chapter of John, good - you will find a lot is going on in it. But the specific jurisprudence of the Mosaic law, as actually practiced in Second Temple Judaism, is not the issue, the issue is whether the state has authority in principle to execute criminals. If not, then there is no such thing as the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church relating to morals. There goes, for instance, the reliability of the Church as such on issues like abortion, contraception, private property, etc.

You are free to think that it is not a good idea today to use capital punishment for xyz reasons, but to accuse every saint, pope, Doctor, Father, and approved moralist before Francis of not understanding “God’s law” is, to put it mildly, not a good idea.

 

[o_mlly]

Well yes, assuming you mean the State knows of the innocence, or fails to use due care in determining guilt, the act is no longer legitimately CP. If all acted with good faith belief in guilt, the act is morally good. If the circumstances are later found out to be different, that is regrettable indeed.

I think your interpretation confuses subjective culpability with the objective morality of human acts.

One need not assume that the state’s knowledge is certain. The threshold for capital offense is typically beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt, i.e., moral certainty.

The example did specify the one to be executed was lawfully convicted.

Every occurrence of a state execution of an innocent person is an evil act. If the state’s legal process is flawed either negligently or intentionally then the culpability of state’s agents is increased. If the state’s agents followed the law then their culpability may be mitigated or eliminated. However, the act remains an evil act.

Perhaps just say “At this point, I can’t reconcile the two either”.

I could reconcile the two but the mental gymnastics to do so are too fragile to defend. What is needed is a definition for the novel term “inadmissible” from the Pope. My conjured definition doesn’t count.

In a 2000 year old institution, 50 or 100 years is not too long to work through difficulties.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

I have cited God’s commandments, Jesus’s teachings, and example. We, including those in power, are called to obey God’s commandments, heed Jesus’s teachings, and imitate His example.

 

[kapp19]

My friend, sincerely, if you think appealing to your own interpretation of revelation is a good argument, you do not understand the point of the magisterium at all.

God bless you,
-K

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

I have cited God’s commandments, Jesus’s teachings, and example. We, including those in power, are called to obey God’s commandments, heed Jesus’s teachings, and imitate His example.

My friend, sincerely, if you think appealing to your own interpretation of revelation is a good argument, you do not understand the point of the magisterium at all.

God bless you,
-K

I didn’t interpret because there was no need. I quoted directly from the Bible, and the words speak for themselves.

Regarding the adulterous woman, it was a clear case of capital punishment where Jesus would’ve been just to kill her, but instead chose mercy. That was one of His many examples for us to follow, including those in power. Just because we can do something, it doesn’t mean we should, or that there’s not a better way.