Can a Catholic support the death penalty?

[Pieman333272]

I read that the death penalty was condemned by the Church yesterday. I am, however, in support of the death penalty for convicted terrorists and serial killers. Can I hold my position on the death penalty in light of the Church’s teaching?

 

[callmeChris]

As a Catholic, it is a vitial priorty for you to respect the dignity of human life, as Our Holy Father Father Benedict said, “From natural birth to natural death” It isnt up to you or me, or the government to choose when a life should begin or end. God is the God of Life and Death. **HE ALONE **can decide when a soul can return to him. And as a Catholic you need to have a spirit of compassion and forgiveness. Even Christ loved and forgave those who crucified him. I see the death penalty as the ‘reenactment’ of what transpired between Pilate and Jesus.

 

[buffalo]

Yes - depending what country and its resources.

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."65
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:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I read that the death penalty was condemned by the Church yesterday. I am, however, in support of the death penalty for convicted terrorists and serial killers. Can I hold my position on the death penalty in light of the Church’s teaching?

The CCC at 2267 teaches the instances where the death penalty is allowable, and it is quoted below. Considering that drug lords and gang leaders convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison still manage to control their gang or network and can and do order murders, the DP seems more than justified for some of these people.

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What would have happened had the Apostle Paul been been put to death before his conversion? Would he have not been a candidate for the death penalty at that time?

Just sayin:shrug:

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

What would have happened had the Apostle Paul been been put to death before his conversion? Would he have not been a candidate for the death penalty at that time?

Just sayin:shrug:

He probably was under existing law. but then as now, who get prosecuted for what is a matter of government discretion. So, considering that Saul was persecuting enemies of the state, the chances of him being sentenced to death, much less charged with any offense, were vanishingly slim.

 

[d97c]

Of course you can support the death penalty !!
The Pope spoke about it and stated there is a difference in abortion and the death panelty
Here is the main quote and the link
““3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.””"

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

In addition…here is a good summary that I stole from another poster here in cath.com
This is just a brief review.

God: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

What does “most certainly” mean?

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

What does “shall” mean?

2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

Both secular and religious governments are responsible for defending the lives of their citizens. “The common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”.

The definitions of “require” and “unable” are clear in meaning and in context.

It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor - by definition, the death penalty.

2266: “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.”

The “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm.” 2265

St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions “frivolous”, citing Exodus 22:18, “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live”. Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146

What does “shall not suffer to live” mean?

St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.

What does “shall” mean?

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

What does “paramount obedience” mean?

Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

What does “when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” mean?

COST ISSUES

“Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP”
homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03…over-lwop.aspx

Cost Savings: The Death Penalty
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05…h-penalty.aspx

 

[d97c]

CONTINUING

What are the costs of not having the death penalty?

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07…innocents.aspx

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07…nd-lacock.aspx

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/0…der-rates.html

A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

---

2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267)

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves.

Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.

All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not, find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”. The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come. (7)

The Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be.

This newest Catechism cannot rewrite that, even though it is trying to.

Furthermore, a unique benefit of the death penalty is that the offender knows the day of their death and therefore has a huge advantage over the rest of us and, most certainly over the innocent murder victim.

“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I am a Catholic, a Convert at the age of 9 (baptized at 13).

I support the death penalty, and frankly I think that the Churches position on this is totally wrong.

By the standards that they are promoting, there could have been no redemption of man. If there were no death penalty, Jesus could not have died on the Cross.

If God himself could submit himself to the Death Penalty, then it can not be wrong in and of itself. God in the person of the Son, could NOT do anything wrong. If the death penalty itself were wrong, he could not have submitted himself to it.

That said, I no longer actually support the death penalty because it has become far too expensive to administer it; the actual penalty is so remote from the action that warranted it that it means almost nothing; it is so arbitrary in the way it is administered and frankly it is a more severe punishment to place the person into the general prison population for life.

Let the other prisoners make his life an utter hell on earth. They would do that to child killers, traitors, etc.

 

[Rascalking]

I firmly support the death penalty-I find no contradiction between being Catholic and supporting the death penalty. In fact, I think it’s vital in some cases.

 

[lizaanne]

I am a Catholic, a Convert at the age of 9 (baptized at 13).

I support the death penalty, and frankly I think that the Churches position on this is totally wrong.

I firmly support the death penalty-I find no contradiction between being Catholic and supporting the death penalty. In fact, I think it’s vital in some cases.

So both of you stand in bold defiance of what is clearly stated in the Catechism and still think that’s ok?

Wow.

Sorry - but you are wrong. You need to fix whatever it is that is wrong in your own understanding so that you are in line with Church teaching - period. Cafeteria Catholicism is not an acceptable way to live your life and your Faith.

~Liza

 

[Ender]

I read that the death penalty was condemned by the Church yesterday. I am, however, in support of the death penalty for convicted terrorists and serial killers. Can I hold my position on the death penalty in light of the Church’s teaching?

The simple answer is yes. The Church has in fact supported the State’s right to execute criminals throughout her entire history and does so even today.

Part of the confusion on this issue comes from the interpretation of section 2267 of the new Catechism which, even as it reaffirms Church doctrine on this point -

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty …

• it goes on to impose such restrictions as to make it all but impossible to actually use. That is, this section supports it in theory but not in practice.

The greater part of the confusion, however, is in separating the opinions of the Magisterium from the teachings of the Church. It is generally assumed that, since it is in the Catechism, 2267 represents Church doctrine but that appears not to be the case in this instance.

It is incorrect, therefore, to claim that the Church condemns the death penalty. She does not, although it is certainly true that the majority of the bishops who have spoken out on the issue oppose its use, there is no Church doctrine that condemns it - and you are free to support it.

Ender

 

[portarica]

The simple answer is yes. The Church has in fact supported the State’s right to execute criminals throughout her entire history and does so even today.

Part of the confusion on this issue comes from the interpretation of section 2267 of the new Catechism which, even as it reaffirms Church doctrine on this point -

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty …

• imposes such restrictions as to make it all but impossible to actually use. That is, this statement supports it in theory but not in practice.

The greater part of the confusion, however, is in separating the opinions of the Magisterium from the teachings of the Church. It is generally assumed that, since it is in the Catechism, 2267 represents Church doctrine but that appears not to actually be the case.

It is incorrect, therefore, to claim that the Church condemns the death penalty. She does not, although it is certainly true that the majority of the bishops who have spoken out on the issue oppose its use, there is no Church doctrine that condemns it - and you are free to support it.

Ender

From a post I made earlier on the same subject on a different thread:

The only recorded time Jesus (directly )addressed the death penalty was when He stopped the stoning of the woman who committed adultery.

Whether or not you want to argue about the church making what Jesus said about capital punishment a doctrine or not, doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said it.

So do we ONLY believe in the “official” doctrines of the church or do we believe in what Jesus taught? Because the official doctrines do not encompass all that Jesus taught.

For instance it is doctrine that we must believe Mary was assumed into heaven, but it is not doctrine that we must feed Jesus when He is hungry and in the guise of the least.

So some things that Jesus directed us to do are not doctrine,so does that allow us to ignore what He taught if they are not doctrines of the church?

Peace

 

[puzzleannie]

I read that the death penalty was condemned by the Church yesterday. I am, however, in support of the death penalty for convicted terrorists and serial killers. Can I hold my position on the death penalty in light of the Church’s teaching?

what did you read, where? source please

unless you have a link to a valid vatican source with the pope and bishops united in a unilateral, infallible declaration that the death penalty for criminals is at all times and places immoral, you do not have a “condemnation by the Church.”

if you want the CAtholic teaching it is in the catechism. If the pope has changed it I’m sure we would all know about it by now.

btw no fair quoting part of the CCC, mistating or incompletely stating the teaching, and then using the misstatement to support one’s own position.

OP is several hours old. source?

 

[Rascalking]

So both of you stand in bold defiance of what is clearly stated in the Catechism and still think that’s ok?

Wow.

Sorry - but you are wrong. You need to fix whatever it is that is wrong in your own understanding so that you are in line with Church teaching - period. Cafeteria Catholicism is not an acceptable way to live your life and your Faith.

~Liza

Thanks to you Liza, I see the error of my ways and am now returning my “Catholic of the year” award to the proper authorities.

 

[Ender]

The only recorded time Jesus (directly )addressed the death penalty was when He stopped the stoning of the woman who committed adultery.

Jesus never directly addressed the death penalty; this interpretation is entirely your own. There were perhaps four times (I haven’t done a study of this) that he was in situations involving executions or the threat thereof: the one you mention, his own condemnation before Pilate, his conversation with St. Dismas (the “good” thief), and his comments in Mt 15:3-4.

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’

At no time did he ever condemn the practice and in the case of his comments in Matthew seems rather to have supported than to have opposed it.

Whether or not you want to argue about the church making what Jesus said about capital punishment a doctrine or not, doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said it.

It has always been Church doctrine that the State has the moral right to execute criminals and the only fact here is that what you claim Jesus said is untrue.

So do we ONLY believe in the “official” doctrines of the church or do we believe in what Jesus taught? Because the official doctrines do not encompass all that Jesus taught.

Is it your position that each of us is free to decide for himself what Jesus taught?

For instance it is doctrine that we must believe Mary was assumed into heaven, but it is not doctrine that we must feed Jesus when He is hungry and in the guise of the least.

No, it is doctrinally taught that we have an obligation to feed the hungry and help the poor. The assumption of Mary was proclaimed infallibly, which is not true of the doctrine on capital punishment, but both are doctrine.

So some things that Jesus directed us to do are not doctrine,so does that allow us to ignore what He taught if they are not doctrines of the church?

Are you claiming the right to interpret scripture as you see fit?

Ender

 

[JimG]

The Church does not prohibit the use of the death penalty when it is necessary for the protection of society.

The cases that come to mind in which it might be necessary to the protection of society are those in which it prevents a murderer from from murdering again.

And that does happen. There are many instances of killers being given prison sentences, even life sentences, and later being released on parole, and going on to kill again.

I’ve seen cases on the local news where a killer was given four consecutive life sentences, in which that person was coming up for parole for the second of third or fourth time.

The other day a prisoner who had murdered four women, including the daughter of a local parishioner, paid for and had published in the newspaper a photo and celebratory announcement of himself in celebration of his 50th birthday, with much laudatory verbiage. The newspaper said they would not have published it had they realized who it was. The district attorney who had prosecuted the case, said that such behavior is part of his modus operandi. Rehabilitated? I think not. But he routinely comes up for parole while serving a life sentence for killing four women.

So how is a life sentence not a life sentence? How are four consecutive life sentences, still not a life sentence? It’s part of the corrections system, which has total control over the prisoners after conviction. It decides when they come up for parole.

Could a life sentence be invoked without the possibility of parole? Yes, but it is very seldom used.

In the meantime, the public is not fully protected, and there will be a place for the death penalty.

 

[d97c]

I ve always wondered, when Jesus was being cricified, and there were 2 robbers on both sides, he didnt say SOMETHING, anything like, “you men are guilty, but are not due the death penalty.”…or something. In fact one of the robbers says" we are deserved of the penalty." (and it was not even for a murder, but a robbery.) Of course THE best evidence for what Jesus thought was to look at what his Church taught and allowed after Jesus was crucified, and that evidence was that the Catholic Church, up until about 1975, supported, taught, even URGED the inflivtion of capital punishment in certain cases. That is INDISPUTABLE !!!