Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[NSmith]

I think it is very reasonable to agree with Evangelium Vitae on the whole, and even with Pope Francis’ judgement on the current admissibility of the death penalty, while also affirming that the Church has irrevocably declared that the death penalty is not merely permitted under certain circumstances, but it is positively willed by God, as many of the dogmatic sources from the 1p5 article confirm. Even Pope Pius XII, who saw unlawful execution abused by the state, was in full agreement with Pope Innocent I, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Council of Trent.
My objection to the wording is that Pope Francis seems to hold that the death penalty is always and everywhere contrary to the Gospel…which contradicts Christ’s own submission to Pilate. Our Lord confirmed Pilate’s authority was from God, in full knowledge that he was about to face an unjust execution.
So I think we are bound to carefully consider the Pope’s words and judgement, but it does not rise to the same level in the hierarchy of truth as previous Church teaching on the same issue, which we are also bound de fide to give assent of will, and it is properly the jurisdiction of the state to make the determination that Pope Francis has placed in the catechism.

 

[Rau]

I am not sure what your point is

Then you fail to read my posts or you choose to feign confusion. I’ve been clear and will not repeat myself again.

 

[TMC]

Then you fail to read my posts or you choose to feign confusion. I’ve been clear and will not repeat myself again.

I asked one very specific question which you have not answered. If you don’t want to discuss your views, that’s fine.

 

[Sarcelle]

He said, “That’s true, they could execute the wrong person . . . but if the guilty person is not executed they could be set free to kill again.”

He’s never heard of life imprisonment?



I wonder if the people who think the government doesn’t have the right to mandate the wearing of face masks are the same people who think that this same government has the right to take someone’s life.

 

[signit]

He’s never heard of life imprisonment?

See post #51.

“Life” might not always mean “life.”

For example, after the person is sentenced, the legislature could decide that “everyone deserves a second chance” and abolish life without parole.

 

[Sarcelle]

So you are okay with the possibility of executing an innocent individual because of the possibility of the abolishment of life imprisonment?

 

[Ender]

The problem is that some people accept the church’s prudential guidance on one issue and then they reject it in others.

You’ve made some very good observations on this topic, but I think this one misses the mark. There really is no comparison between capital punishment and abortion. Abortion is an intrinsic evil; capital punishment is not. We may not support a candidate because of his support for abortion, but we may do so with regard to capital punishment.

Yes, there is prudential judgment involved in deciding whether to support a pro-abortion candidate despite that position, but that is very different than accepting the prudential judgment that capital punishment ought not be applied in modern societies.

Pope Francis made a deliberate addition to the catechism regarding the death penalty telling us it’s inadmissible.

He did indeed, but his personal opposition to its use does not mean its use has suddenly become immoral.

All unjustified killing of human beings is immoral and against Church teaching.

The question that has not been addressed adequately is “What justifies capital punishment?” It was never justified as a means of protection; rather it was acceptable because it was a just punishment for certain crimes (e.g. murder). The question therefore is “If it was a just punishment before, how can it not be a just punishment now?”

There are two aspects to that question: first, the punishment must be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime. Since this cannot change with time, if it was ever commensurate before it is equally commensurate now. The second is that its use cannot cause additional problems so that it is overall detrimental to society. That, however, is a judgment.

It seems that the current opinion of the church is that its use is in fact harmful, but it is the State that has the responsibility for making that decision, and prudential judgments, even of popes, do not require our assent.

 

[TMC]

The question that has not been addressed adequately is “What justifies capital punishment?”

I think the Church has answered that question. The answer is that it is not justified.

 

[christofirst]

Someone asked earlier why there’s such opposition to Pope Francis’s directive regarding capital punishment.

There are canon lawyer types who parse over every word, and there’s a place for that.

I wonder, though, if there might be a political element to the debate, at least here in the U.S. The Democratic party is moving away from the use of capital punishment, which would be more in line with the teaching of recent popes, especially Pope Francis. This might be problematic for Republicans who wish to promote the idea that they are the party of life while clinging to the death penalty. I could be wrong, but that’s my feeling.

 

[Anesti33]

Ender:

The question that has not been addressed adequately is “What justifies capital punishment?”

I think the Church has answered that question. The answer is that it is not justified.

No, the Church has said it is inadmissible in this place and time. So there must be certain conditions which can be met in the world at some point in the future that would again allow the admissibility of capital punishment. This is a transient state we are in now. It would help if the Magisterium would clarify what it is about the current state that makes capital punishment inadmissible, and thereby inform us what would change those circumstances in the future.

 

[TMC]

No, the Church has said it is inadmissible in this place and time.

I understand that is what supporters of the death penalty want the Church to have said. I even understand that some people look at the history of this issue and assume or interpret the Church to have said this. I get the desire to look at the teaching that way, but this is not actually what the Church has said. The actual words of the Catechism do not limit the teaching to the current conditions, or make it contingent on any particular conditions obtaining.

Should that leave any doubt, the Pope’s comments clarifying the teaching make clear that this teaching is a development of doctrine, not a prudential judgment tied to current circumstances.

 

[graciew]

Having set a pillar in human dignity, emphasizing this value,the case seems to be that there is no way back at least as DP as we know it today, likely more as self defense under circumstances.
Once it sinks in , it is like it is difficult not to look back at it as something we have overcome.
The Church moves slowly …

 

[o_mlly]

It [CP] was never justified as a means of protection …

Aquinas made the argument:
Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., II-11, q. 64

When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

This [God’s justice] also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

… the punishment must be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime.

The severity of the punishment does not have to match the severity of the crime; often it cannot. Mass or serial murderers can only be executed once. We do not rape rapists. On this aspect, one could argue in justice that the state may take only that which the state provides, i.e., circumstantial freedom.

 

[NSmith]

that this teaching is a development of doctrine

Such a development of doctrine, that is from the death penalty being not only admissible but a just and proportionate punishment for certain crimes to inadmissible in every case and every time, is not within the authority of the Supreme Pontiff to make. The authority of the successor of Peter is limited to expounding the deposit of faith, not mutating it.
From Vatican 1:

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles .
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors , for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .

Therefore, the only possible, orthodox interpretation is that the revision is a prudential judgement of the papacy on the circumstances surrounding capital punishment in our time. In that sense it is binding to consider his words carefully, and to apply them in the spirit that they were intended.
If you insist on saying that Pope Francis has overstepped the authority of his office, then you don’t have to listen to him at all on this matter, which I’m sure is not your position.

 

[TMC]

Such a development of doctrine, that is from the death penalty being not only admissible but a just and proportionate punishment for certain crimes to inadmissible in every case and every time, is not within the authority of the Supreme Pontiff to make.

Wow. Wow.

So you believe you are in a position to say what the limits of the Pope’s authority are? And you, not the Pope or the CDF or the bishops, get to say what is or is not a proper development of the faith?

 

[NSmith]

I am only repeating to you what my pastors have taught me in RCIA, and what Vatican I faithfully expounded. The CDF’s remarks on the revision were extremely careful to recognize and respect the former pronouncements on the death penalty, and they did not purport to abrogate or uproot the moral status of the death penalty.
Neither was the meeting wherein Pope Francis shared his teaching protected by the charism of infallibility, neither was the revision thus protected.
In the Catholic faith we believe what is certain and publicly revealed by lawful authorities…such as the limits and extent of the papal office. And we offer filial submission to our lawful pastors in matters that are their proper competency, which is faith and morals.
Thus, we respect Pope Francis’ opinion and I would go as far as to support the efforts of the church to seek the abolishment of the death penalty, but it cannot and never was intended to be a rewriting of the moral theology on this point.

 

[TMC]

I am only repeating to you what my pastors have taught me in RCIA, and what Vatican I faithfully expounded.

I am only repeating to you what the Vicar of Christ has to say on the topic.

 

[Bithynian]

I could be wrong, but that’s my feeling.

As a non-American, I think you’re right. Has there been such controversy over it in other countries?

I canvassed the topic with Catholic friends and colleagues from outside the West (Uganda, the Congo, Philippines, etc.) and most of them report that it was barely a blip on their news radar. This is not surprising, as most Catholics even outside the West live in countries that do not practice capital punishment.

 

[Sarcelle]

This might be problematic for Republicans who wish to promote the idea that they are the party of life while clinging to the death penalty.

It’s usually Republicans who are against mandating face masks because government can’t be trusted with managing disease but have no problem with government having the power of life or death over an individual citizen.

It doesn’t compute,

 

[NSmith]

The Vicar of Christ, as our lawful pastor, is due respect according to his office, but he is not God, and his teaching is subject to error except in the circumstances outlined in Vatican I. Insofar as it contradicts or seeks to upend what has come down to us from the same office and the same authority, we may disagree with him.
But I am not so impious as to suppose that this is what Pope Francis is doing, you are the one who is suggesting that he thinks himself more enlightened than Christ, who recognized Rome’s authority to execute him when he stood before Pontius Pilate in the Gospel of John, and more humane than Paul, who recognized the state’s God-given ability to execute him if he was found to be guilty, as he says in the Acts of the Apostles, or wiser than St. Augustine, who vigorously defended the status of capital punishment in the City of God.
I rather think that Pope Francis has more humility than that. You are misinterpreting and misrepresenting him.