Can a Catholic support the death penalty in good-faith?

[OneSheep]

Sure, and while I know I asked this before I can’t remember your answer so I’ll ask it again: do you believe capital punishment is or is not intrinsically evil?

I’m not familiar with the terminology “intrinsically evil”, but I can say that the deliberate taking of any life is evil. When one is taking a life to save the lives of others, it is still evil, but the net effect is not evil.

There can be only one primary objective, and according to CCC 2266 that is retribution, therefore rehabilitation must be secondary.

It doesn’t say that retribution is primary. It says that redressing the disorder is primary, and such redressing includes the medicinal purpose.

This is the example the catechism gives of a punishment that works to the rehabilitation of the offender, which refutes your claim that capital punishment cannot do that.

You might notice that the footnotes pertain to something in the entire clause, not just the last sentence or phrase. You are correct in noticing that the footnote presents a contradiction, it is a very poor choice of footnotes. Regardless, even with that footnote, the Church is saying that the DP does not apply today.

“My” logic is nothing more than what the church teaches:

Incorrect: the Church stands against the death penalty regardless of what you see as contradictions. The Church and her doctrine is guided by the Spirit, not by the individual critics.

Are there specific people who you think deserve the death penalty? A specific category of crime? The DP was applied to many, many offenses in the past.

 

[signit]

As I posted in a thread 13 days ago, I do not relish the death penalty but I am willing to go along with it in extreme circumstances, where the crime was especially severe and there is practically no doubt about the person’s guilt.

Yes, it’s true that there’s the million-to-one chance of making a mistake and executing the wrong person. But it’s also true that if the guilty person is not executed they could be set free to kill again. The person could escape a maximum security prison (as happened last month), or the legislature could retroactively abolish life without parole (as was on the agenda last year in Massachusetts).

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

The arguments Feser and Bissette presented have not in any sense been refuted. The responses to their work are much like this one: vague objections and personal attacks.

David Bentley Hart’s objections are specific and persuasive. He does not use personal attacks. That review pretty well demolishes Feser and Bessette’s arguments. It also helps that Hart is a stylist virtually on a par with Gibbon himself.

 

[BornInMarch]

I support the Death Penalty because I lean more towards Kantianism than Utilitarianism; I don’t care about how punishments affect society at large, only that they give the guilty what they deserve. The only question I consider when judging the death penalty is this: “Does this person deserve to die?”

I would have been fine with Life Imprisonment as an alternative, but unfortunately that name is non-indicative. It doesn’t mean “this person will be imprisoned until he dies”, rather it often means “this person will be imprisoned until people forget the evil he did and he gets released”. If someone murdered children then I don’t think he deserves to be free.

And before anyone says “Jesus said to forgive!”, I’ll point out that God Himself doesn’t just forgive everyone: the people in Hell are not forgiven, nor were the Canaanites, nor was the Pharaoh. You can’t just ignore the harsh or stern parts of the bible and pretend it’s all fluffy clouds.

 

[Ender]

I’m not familiar with the terminology “intrinsically evil”…

The church uses the term for acts which are evil without exception. Abortion is intrinsically evil, missing Sunday mass is not.

It doesn’t say that retribution is primary. It says that redressing the disorder is primary, and such redressing includes the medicinal purpose.

“Redressing the disorder” means retribution, that’s why I included the comment from the USCCB clarifying that point. Here’s another:

The subsection briefly departs from this motif in no. 2266 to introduce punishment’s “primary purpose,” i.e., redressing the disorder introduced by deliberate crime (i.e., retribution). (Cardinal Dulles)

Incorrect: the Church stands against the death penalty regardless of what you see as contradictions. The Church and her doctrine is guided by the Spirit, not by the individual critics.

My argument has never been with what the church teaches; rather it is with people like yourself who (I believe) misunderstand what that teaching is.

Are there specific people who you think deserve the death penalty? A specific category of crime?

Everyone who sins deserves a just punishment. Since God himself commanded the Israelites to execute murderers there seems little doubt that that is a just punishment for that crime, and since it is just it is deserved.

 

[Inbonum]

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/for-those-who-are-lamenting-the-loss-of-the-death-penalty/502322/150?u=cathf

 

[Ender]

Yes, it’s true that there’s the million-to-one chance of making a mistake and executing the wrong person. But it’s also true that if the guilty person is not executed they could be set free to kill again.

Statistics are not easy to find, but the recidivism rate among murderers works out to around 40 people a year.

(II) one should not forget that no human sentence finally and definitively settles the fate of a man, but only the judgment of God, both for single acts and for those of a lifetime. (Pius XII)

Only God controls life and death.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

David Bentley Hart’s objections are specific and persuasive.

Then cite what you find convincing and let’s discuss it.

 

[StudentMI]

Christians & the Death Penalty | Commonweal Magazine

That was a good article. Thanks for citing it. Or one of his at any case.

 

[StudentMI]

Found this by Jimmy Akin.

Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[ImJustPro]

I would not take Edward Feser particularly seriously. He has his own agenda. His work has been reviewed unfavorably (the expression “hatchet job” comes to mind) by much abler scholars.

That was a good article. Thanks for citing it. Or one of his at any case.

Feser has responded to the criticism here:

Loading…

www.catholicworldreport.com

I thought that “rebuttal” wasn’t very kind or much of a rebuttal.

Granted, this question didn’t come up much on my journey to Catholicism, so I could be wayyyy off lol

No worries. All (name removed by moderator)ut helps =)

You’re not alone. Great numbers of Catholics are confused on this issue as well, and the latest change to the catechism - containing an “eloquent ambiguity” (American bishops) - has not clarified things.

I’m glad I’m not alone. I want to make sure I’m in the right side in such a paramount issue.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Then cite what you find convincing and let’s discuss it.

I know that you have an answer for everything and that you have no intention of changing your mind. I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole. All I know is that Pope Francis has been given to us to guide the Church during this period of its history. The Holy Father has said what he has said. He does not speak in riddles. One does not have to be a scholar to understand what he says. He has said that the death penalty is inadmissible. This seems to be the inexorable conclusion of the developments already made by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

 

[Ender]

The Holy Father has said what he has said. He does not speak in riddles. One does not have to be a scholar to understand what he says. He has said that the death penalty is inadmissible.

And yet the US bishops specifically asked what that meant, and accepted the answer that it was ambiguous. You may claim to understand it but the bishops are a lot less sure about it. As for David Bently Hart, his review of Feser and Bessette was pretty awful. It contained assertions and personal put downs, but virtually nothing in the way of argument. Take this:

“…the Gospel does not admit the authority of proportional justice, as either a private or a public good.”

The catechism, however, states otherwise:

2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

Not only does the State have the right to inflict proportional justice but it has the positive obligation to do so. It appears his error stems from his next claim:

The whole of the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, is a shocking subversion of the entire idea.

The problem appears to be that he doesn’t distinguish between public rights and private duties. It is surely true that the individual is obligated to forgive, but it seems he is unaware that public officials are obligated to punish (that’s the duty spoken of above). His analysis doesn’t improve.

Again and again, the New Testament demands of Christians that they exercise limitless forgiveness, no matter how grievous the wrong, even in legal and public settings. And it insists that, for the Christian, mercy always triumphs over judgment.

This is just vague enough to allow plausible deniability. If attacked on point A it would be a simple thing to insist he was really speaking about point B. It’s not clear what he means by “judgment”, and if that actually means justice. In any event it is clear that mercy does not supersede justice.

That’s about as far as I got, but there was nothing whatever in anything to that point to recommend the article.

 

[27lw]

A couple of things:

1. Is it worth keeping the DP on the books, so it can be used as a bargaining chip with criminals?
2. I heard a very good interview on NPR, I wish I could find it again. The interview was with a woman who had been a victim of violent crime, by an escaped prisoner. The prisoner was recaptured and had also committed murder, and had been sentenced to the DP. The crime victim was a Christian, who had forgiven him, and did not agree with the DP. Nevertheless, after the criminal had been executed, she said she felt a profound feeling of relief, and she realized how much she still had worried about him attacking her again.
3. I’ve read a similar story about one of Bundy’s survivors – profound relief and peace after the criminal was executed.

 

[Ender]

A couple of things:

There are two classes of arguments: moral and prudential. Yours are prudential. There is nothing wrong with such arguments but it is important to distinguish between them and to recognize which argument is which type.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

A Catholic could in good faith support the death penalty.
The Church has said conflicting things about this recently. An example is the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.” Originally, the Catechism condemned the death penalty. Then Pope John Paul II changed what it said to say that the death penalty is permissible in particularly serious cases. In the last year this was changed again, which shows that Catholic teaching in this matter is not well established.
In view of this, a Catholic can decide for himself whether the death penalty can be carried out. He can support it in good faith, or condemn it in good faith.

I question whether the Church’s judgment on the inadmissibility of the death penalty in our time is a correct judgment. However, as a practical matter, I accept that judgment, and do not argue against it, reasoning that far greater minds (and far holier souls) than I have studied the question more assiduously than I have. I do concede that at least in modern American society, it brings out a side of many people that should not be brought out — cheering crowds outside prisons when executions are carried out, posters with hateful, vindictive slogans and shouts of half-baked, ignorant Biblical misunderstanding of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”. These people are not mature enough, not developed enough spiritually, to understand that the death penalty, even if it were theoretically admissible, is something to be administered mournfully, not cheerfully or with delight in “revenge” having been exacted.

I do have a concern that this is going to morph into another example of what I call “recentism” — that people are going to hear what this present Pope says, and simply conclude “capital punishment is immoral” without seeing nuance beyond that, and concluding that “the Church changed its teaching on this, therefore the Church can change its teaching on anything else that people don’t like or don’t agree with”. As I have said here before, for many people, the Church began in 1962, and John Paul II (or possibly Paul VI) is the first Pope who, for all practical purposes, ever existed in their eyes — the 260-odd Popes prior to these just kind of “blur together” into an amorphous mush that has nothing whatsoever to do with our faith.

 

[ImJustPro]

I do concede that at least in modern American society, it brings out a side of many people that should not be brought out — cheering crowds outside prisons when executions are carried out, posters with hateful, vindictive slogans and shouts of half-baked, ignorant Biblical misunderstanding of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”.

Thanks for the comment.

I agree that it does bring out an ugly, but fringe, part of society that seriously misrepresents that verse.

What do you say Catholics ought to do about the death penalty? Is it okay to have some disagreement with the arguments put against it by contemporary popes?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I do concede that at least in modern American society, it brings out a side of many people that should not be brought out — cheering crowds outside prisons when executions are carried out, posters with hateful, vindictive slogans and shouts of half-baked, ignorant Biblical misunderstanding of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”.

Thanks for the comment.

I agree that it does bring out an ugly, but fringe, part of society that seriously misrepresents that verse.

What do you say Catholics ought to do about the death penalty? Is it okay to have some disagreement with the arguments put against it by contemporary popes?

I say we obey the magisterium. It is far safer, and even though, strictly speaking it is only a prudential judgment, it has the weight of the Church behind it. Respectful disagreement is not per se a dissent from the teachings of the Church (such as, for instance, dissent from Humanae vitae or advocating women’s ordination would be) — as I said, it is only a prudential judgment, saying that conditions in the modern world make the DP inadmissible — but as a loyal son of the Church, I don’t even go that far.

 

[Emeraldlady]

For those who are lamenting the "loss" of the death penalty - #150

“Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching. Fortunately, those experiencing such difficulties can have the consolation that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church “into all the truth” (John 16:13).” - Wise and edifying guidance Jimmy Akin.

 

[tweedlealice]

Well, the Bishops & church are pro-life at the beginning & end of life. I got into a debate about pro-life, anti-abortion. Would Jesus perform a Abortion? No! He was pro-choice but anti-Capital punishment. I was for Capital punishment. A priest acquaintance of mine gave an example for Capital punishment in the Bible. I can’t recall. But, would Jesus pull the switch? No! Now, VENGEANCE IS MINE, saith the Lord. Plus, He is Love, Forgiveness & Mercy. His Mercy endures forever. HE IS, ALSO, JUSTICE.!
God knows. I’d say, pro-life everywhere. He judges.
There is a philosophy that is interesting. NO JAILS! Just make sure everybody has what they need w dignity. It might be cheaper than incarceration. Those that are Un redemptive criminals get to go to jail & not pass Jail or collect $200.00. SMILE.
God bless.

 

[OneSheep]

The church uses the term for acts which are evil without exception. Abortion is intrinsically evil, missing Sunday mass is not.

Yes, the deliberate act of taking another’s life is evil, without exception. Even the act of protecting oneself with violent force, however, is not an intent to take a life. The DP, then, in my opinion is intrinsically evil because it is the intent to take a life. Now, can you accept that a fellow Catholic thinks this, are you in communion with me, eating at the same table?

“ Redressing the disorder ” means retribution, that’s why I included the comment from the USCCB clarifying that point. Here’s another:

The subsection briefly departs from this motif in no. 2266 to introduce punishment’s “primary purpose,” i.e., redressing the disorder introduced by deliberate crime (i.e., retribution). (Cardinal Dulles)

Cardinal Dulles appears to give an example of redressing the disorder, which in the catechism includes both “retribution” and the medicinal purpose. So here he is not denying that the medicinal is part of the primary purpose of punishment.

My argument has never been with what the church teaches

Cool, so you agree that the DP is no longer applicable today.

rather it is with people like yourself who (I believe) misunderstand what that teaching is.

Thank you for the “I believe” part, that gives your assumption some humility!

OneSheep:

Are there specific people who you think deserve the death penalty? A specific category of crime?

Everyone who sins deserves a just punishment. Since God himself commanded the Israelites to execute murderers there seems little doubt that that is a just punishment for that crime, and since it is just it is deserved.

That did not answer my question, Ender. I was not asking about the ancient Israelites image of God thousands of years ago. I am asking today, “Are there specific people who you think deserve the death penalty? A specific category of crime?”

I am hoping, this go-round, that you might actually answer the questions I ask.

You might notice that I am answering your questions.