Can the Death Penalty save souls?

[Ender]

Please provide an example of “a situation” involving already incarcerated prisoners where the taking of human life not against an active aggressor could be morally justified.

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment (Aquinas)

*Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. *(Aquinas)
Man is responsible for his actions. Sins oblige punishment and the severity of the punishment is determined by the severity of the sin. Your question involves the assumption on your part that there is no sin that deserves to be punished with death.

It seems to me that the church has always understood Gen 9:6 to mean just what it says:
Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
That is, it is God himself who has said that the murderer deserves death for his crime. Reference to this passage in this context goes at least as far back as Innocent I in 405 and is even cited in the current catechism in section 2260 with the additional comment that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

Our disagreement lies in the fact that I believe for some sins, and murder for certain, the just punishment is death and while there may surely be exceptions, this is the precept that should be commonly followed.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Quotes from Archbishop Gregory…"The Catholic moral tradition…shows an unambiguous preference to preserve life even when the order of justice is threatened and the safety of innocent life is at stake.

I find this comment problematic; it implies something the archbishop seems unwilling to state plainly. Clearly the church prefers to preserve life. Who could argue with that? The question is, does he mean to say that the church opposes the taking of life in all circumstances? I doubt it because the answer is clearly no. Are we to infer from this that the church puts the life of the murderer above justice itself? Surely he’s not saying that. We also know for a fact that the last part of the statement is inaccurate inasmuch as the sole reason given in 2267 for someone to be executed is because he presents a threat to innocent life. How can it be said that we may execute someone if he is a threat and at the same time claim that there is an “unambiguous preference to preserve life”? One or the other must take precedence.

If the use of “bloodless means” is in line with the Tradition of the Church, must not society limit itself to such means?

The traditional teaching of the church never went as far as 2267.

And what if the state has the capability of administering justice while using bloodless means in all circumstances? I think then that the use of the death penalty should be “practically non-existent”.

You cannot claim that justice has been administered unless the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime. If God himself has set the punishment for murder as death how are we to claim that lesser punishments are just?Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Pope St. Innocent I)
Ender

 

[DavidWJackson]

I mean that the Death Penalty should be real and effectual - that is, it is in routine and predictable use. The so called “Death Penalty” in use in the US is pretty much a legal fiction in many states.

This is a very good thing too. Putting a person to death quickly after a conviction helps secure a Soul for the devil. This is not what Christ wants! Christ wants conversion and forgiveness for all mankind. I have read that the average death row immate spends ten years on death row in the United States before being put to death. This buys an inocent person time to prove their innocents. It also buys the Church; priests, religious, you and I, time to recover another Soul for the Glory of God. Thus, defeating satin one more time within the million battles yet to come.
It’s a battle for God’s Souls. All Souls belong to God. It’s always a battle for Souls. Save God’s Souls.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Putting a person to death quickly after a conviction helps secure a Soul for the devil. This is not what Christ wants! Christ wants conversion and forgiveness for all mankind. I have read that the average death row immate spends ten years on death row in the United States before being put to death. This buys an inocent person time to prove their innocents. It also buys the Church; priests, religious, you and I, time to recover another Soul for the Glory of God.

In Arizona, where tonight Jodi Arias awaits her fate, it’s a 12-year average wait. Like you, David, I am glad of that. (Unfortunately, today Jodi practically sealed her own fate, & it does not look good for her. The jury will probably decide that the aggravators outweigh the mitigators. Her presentation, according to all observers, was dispassionate & lacked remorse.)

God has unlimited time (during our lifetimes, and even when they appear dead to us) to encourage a soul to turn to him. This is my reason for opposing the DP – except in the rare case in which some deadly prisoner cannot be isolated and has been proven to be an imminent danger to others, and an uncontrollable killer.

I was listening to The Journey Home on the weekend. Marcus Grodi had Russell Ford (I believe) on. Fascinating and horrific story about his wrong 25-year confinment in prison and ultimate release. During his time in prison, not only did he, an innocent person, convert, but many guilty prisoners did as well, one of whom he now calls a living saint. Ford still has a prison ministry and is seeking to expand that, some of that with help from the Catholic Church.

The State is not obligated to kill; the State is obligated to protect the innocent. The DP punishes the convicted, but in itself is not exclusively a way to protect the innocent.

I am open to considering extreme cases, such as measures in the event of a violent escape after conviction. But nothing that is merely retribution rather than protection.

Understand that this is my intellectual and spiritual conviction, not my emotional response. Juries, however, are not known for limiting their decisions to non-emotional ones, which is why, as Catholics and moral people, we are called to something higher.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Dear fellow members,

Can the death penalty save souls? Do you not think it possible that someone faced with death as the consequence of a freely chosen act of evil might turn his heart to repentance and beg for God’s mercy? Might it be more likely that the soul of the impenitent sinner would simply rot away if that person was merely thrown into prison for life?

(Of course, by ‘save souls’ I mean ‘by way of the Cross’.)

While the death penalty remains a valid, (though decreasingly so), method of dealing with grave crime in developed nations, whether or not it would have anything to do with remorse for one’s sins doesn’t seem any more likely, and in a way, even less likely, than for someone sentenced to a life of penitence. They may both end without repentance, and they may both end with repentance. Honest repentance comes from our heart and our conscience. If it is forced by simple primal fear, it may not even be valid. One must be truly sorry (contrite). Not because they’re in a foxhole, or strapped to a table about to receive death, but because they are sorrowful for their sin, and believe that Jesus Christ is they way to God. It’s not just something to say under duress, but a see change in all that we are. In many ways, I think true repentance would perhaps be arrived at more honestly by a life of penance.

Just my 2 cents.

Blessings,

Steve

 

[Ender]

While the death penalty remains a valid, (though decreasingly so), method of dealing with grave crime in developed nations…

“Dealing with crime” in the sense of preventing or deterring it has never been the primary objective of punishment so a nation’s level of development isn’t particularly relevant to what is the primary objective, which is retributive justice. If the death penalty was a just punishment in the past it will remain so for all times and all places since the justness of the penalty is determined by whether it is of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime. The nature and severity of murder cannot change therefore what the just punishment is for that crime cannot change either.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

You cannot claim that justice has been administered unless the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime. If God himself has set the punishment for murder as death how are we to claim that lesser punishments are just?Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Pope St. Innocent I)
Ender

Is CP the only punishment commensurate with the crime of murder?

I also don’t see CP being condemned in and of itself, so I don’t see the relevance of the quote from St. Innocent I.

As a side note, it seems that statements from the hierarchy that you disagree with you label as “problematic” or “incorrect”, which IMO is problematic itself since it’s a Protestant-esque argument. Just an observation. :twocents:

 

[CrossofChrist]

It seems to me that the church has always understood Gen 9:6 to mean just what it says:
Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

A deeper reading of these passages indicates, however, that the principal intent of the Mosaic statutes was to limit the retribution that could be exacted for an offense and not to require a minimum punishment. Particular commands like the one found in Genesis 9:6 - “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” - have a poetic character that indicates an original purpose that was not legal in intent. Such verses convey a pedagogical purpose removed from the sphere of literal legal applications. - Archbishop Wilton

 

[Ender]

Is CP the only punishment commensurate with the crime of murder?

That is a very valid question and not surprisingly I answer that it is.

As a side note, it seems that statements from the hierarchy that you disagree with you label as “problematic” or “incorrect”, which IMO is problematic itself since it’s a Protestant-esque argument. Just an observation. :twocents:

You should observe more closely. When I criticize a statement I give as clear an explanation as I can for why I disagree with it, and if I disagree with something then of course I believe that statement is incorrect … or problematic. I don’t merely label it as wrong; I explain why I take a position.

Ender

 

[Ender]

A deeper reading of these passages indicates, however, that the principal intent of the Mosaic statutes was to limit the retribution that could be exacted for an offense and not to require a minimum punishment.

This is a bit confusing. I was speaking about Gen 9:6 and Archbishop (Wilton) Gregory must be speaking about something else because that passage has nothing to do with the Mosaic statutes. In that passage God is speaking to Noah, not Moses. One would really like to believe the archbishop knows at least that.

• Particular commands like the one found in Genesis 9:6 - “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” - have a poetic character that indicates an original purpose that was not legal in intent. Such verses convey a pedagogical purpose removed from the sphere of literal legal applications.* - Archbishop Wilton

Does he provide any explanation as to why we should ignore the plain meaning of the sentence? What could the passage even mean if it doesn’t mean what it says? What is the pedagogical meaning? I find this interpretation incomprehensible and I think it is clearly not the traditional interpretation. Gen 9:5 says:Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it.
This passage applies the same condemnation to animals for killing a man as 9:6 does to man for killing a man. Wouldn’t you expect these two passages to be interpreted the same way - either both literal or both “poetical”? Here is how 9:5 was interpreted by the Catechism of Trent:So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.
I see no justification for the assertion that Gen 9:6 is merely poetical when it is clear from Traditional teaching that it was interpreted literally. Under Archbishop Gregory’s interpretation, what could 2260 possibly mean? How can a teaching remain “necessary for all time” if it doesn’t even have a particular meaning?

If Gen 9:6 doesn’t mean what it says, what does it mean?

Ender

 

[Ender]

God has unlimited time (during our lifetimes, and even when they appear dead to us) to encourage a soul to turn to him.

I don’t believe this concern is as valid as it would seem.*Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. *(Romano Amerio - theological adviser to Vatican II)

The State is not obligated to kill; the State is obligated to protect the innocent.

Saying the State is not obligated to kill is a bit misleading. The State is obligated to justly punish criminals and if that just punishment includes the death penalty then the State is obligated to apply it. The focus is not killing; it is justice.

The DP punishes the convicted, but in itself is not exclusively a way to protect the innocent.

Protecting society is not the primary concern of punishment. The primary concern is justice.

I am open to considering extreme cases, such as measures in the event of a violent escape after conviction. But nothing that is merely retribution rather than protection.

This is one of the more unfortunate aspects of 2267: it has led people to form an erroneous view of punishment. Protection, despite what is implied by 2267, is not the primary objective. The first aim of punishment is retribution, which is the obligation of justice. You’re right that “mere” retribution is not the objective, which is why a judge should evaluate and apply mitigating circumstances, but sin incurs a debt that can be paid solely through punishment.*A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. *(Pius XII)
Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

Saying the State is not obligated to kill is a bit misleading. … Protection, despite what is implied by 2267, is not the primary objective. The first aim of punishment is retribution, which is the obligation of justice. You’re right that “mere” retribution is not the objective, which is why a judge should evaluate and apply mitigating circumstances, but sin incurs a debt that can be paid solely through punishment

Again, you’re looking at a lot of this technically, first of all, and secondly, you’re taking the view of what’s allowed. It’s a deficit view, i.m.o. And that’s why I say Chritianity calls us to more than that as long as protection of society is not endangered.

I want to make clear that I am not confused about the dual principles of legal justice and moral justice. The primary purpose of our legal system is not moral justice. In fact, ironically, if so, many convicted criminals would/should receive far longer, harder, and more personalized sentences than many receive.

In DP cases in AZ, there is a legal standard to be met, if the defendant is convicted of First Degree Murder. Only indirectly is there morality involved, but more accurately it is emotion combined with some intellectual analysis: If the aggravating facors of the crime are objectively greater than the mitigating factors, the defendant “qualifies” for the DP,

The Catholic Restorative Justice movement seeks to assimilate moral considerations into the sentencing process, both positively and negatively, and that has to do with three things: justice for victims, justice for the criminal, and justice for society. Justice is not the same thing as revenge, and justice is not limited to punishment. Yes, you’re right in some of the statements you are making about our current secular legal system – its intents and its effects. But since legality in the secular realm and justice in the moral realm are not equivalent, some think that there’s a way to achieve a better marriage between the two. And none of that would oppose the CCC.

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is a bit confusing. I was speaking about Gen 9:6 and Archbishop (Wilton) Gregory must be speaking about something else because that passage has nothing to do with the Mosaic statutes. In that passage God is speaking to Noah, not Moses. One would really like to believe the archbishop knows at least that.

That was my bad on the copy and pasting. He was talking about certain passages like “an eye for an eye…” before.

Perhaps relevant:

When Cain killed Abel, God did not end Cain’s life. Instead, he sent Cain into exile, not only sparing his life but protecting it by putting “a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight” (Gn :5). (from the USCCB website)

If Gen 9:6 doesn’t mean what it says, what does it mean?

My thinking (and this is just my opinion, so take it for what it’s worth) is that since life is sacred attempts to harm or destroy that life has consequences. Punishment must be commensurate with the crime of murder.

Cardinal Martino once said this:

*Turning back for a moment on the Genesis account of Cain, we must understand that in sparing Cain’s life God does not leave his crime unpunished. While God rejects the enactment of capital punishment upon Cain, he does render justice. Cain, in essence, receives a life sentence without parole. He is cursed by God and also by the earth, which will deny him its fruit. He receives a sentence of loneliness and separation from God, a sentence that will be with him forever.
So, the Cardinal thinks that justice can be served, when speaking about the crime of murder, with a life sentence, or more to the point, a punishment that isn’t death.

 

[Portrait]

This is a bit confusing. I was speaking about Gen 9:6 and Archbishop (Wilton) Gregory must be speaking about something else because that passage has nothing to do with the Mosaic statutes. In that passage God is speaking to Noah, not Moses. One would really like to believe the archbishop knows at least that.
Does he provide any explanation as to why we should ignore the plain meaning of the sentence? What could the passage even mean if it doesn’t mean what it says? What is the pedagogical meaning? I find this interpretation incomprehensible and I think it is clearly not the traditional interpretation. Gen 9:5 says:Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it.
This passage applies the same condemnation to animals for killing a man as 9:6 does to man for killing a man. Wouldn’t you expect these two passages to be interpreted the same way - either both literal or both “poetical”? Here is how 9:5 was interpreted by the Catechism of Trent:So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.
I see no justification for the assertion that Gen 9:6 is merely poetical when it is clear from Traditional teaching that it was interpreted literally. Under Archbishop Gregory’s interpretation, what could 2260 possibly mean? How can a teaching remain “necessary for all time” if it doesn’t even have a particular meaning?

If Gen 9:6 doesn’t mean what it says, what does it mean?

Ender

Dear Ender,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said - splendid (name removed by moderator)ut, if I may say. As someone said, concerning the proper elucidation of Holy Writ, “When the plain and obvious sense makes good sense be careful not to make it nonsense”.

The argument that men oppose the death penalty for murder because they value the sanctity of life is just plainly wrong. It is, in point of fact, the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the heinous crime of murder (Gen. 9: 6) and the state is armed with the ‘sword’ to discharge this duty as a ‘minister of God’ (cf. Rom. 13: 4).

Unfortunately, in the degenerate days in which our lot is cast, the poison of secular humanism has directed sympathy to the criminal instead of the victim and tends to equate retributive justice with sinful vengeance, which is simply incorrect. Nothing evinces the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life and it is this same atrophy of moral fibre that continual appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ender]

Again, you’re looking at a lot of this technically,first of all …

I’ve been quoting the church, not Blackstone or the Constitution, so I don’t think this criticism is accurate.

…and secondly, you’re taking the view of what’s allowed. It’s a deficit view, i.m.o. And that’s why I say Christianity calls us to more than that as long as protection of society is not endangered.

No one disputes that the church allows capital punishment; I’m not really arguing a point that’s been settled. I’m discussing whether it *should *be used, not whether it may be used. I’m also responding to what I see as weak arguments, such as this claim about what Christianity calls us to do. If this claim is correct then it took Christianity nearly 2000 years to discover it and every Doctor of the Church who spoke on this issue got it wrong.

I want to make clear that I am not confused about the dual principles of legal justice and moral justice.

I’m not sure I’m willing to make this distinction.If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas)

The Catholic Restorative Justice movement seeks to assimilate moral considerations into the sentencing process, both positively and negatively, and that has to do with three things: justice for victims, justice for the criminal, and justice for society.

I agree with this.*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. *(Aquinas)

Justice is not the same thing as revenge, and justice is not limited to punishment.

Justice may not be limited to punishment only but it does include punishment and vengeance is typically misunderstood.*The evil of natural defect, or of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils are attached. Thus in willing justice He wills punishment *(Aquinas)

Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Aquinas)
Ender

 

[Ender]

That was my bad on the copy and pasting. He was talking about certain passages like “an eye for an eye…” before.

That makes more sense, but I would still argue with his interpretation of that passage. * when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis* (St. Bellarmine)

When Cain killed Abel, God did not end Cain’s life. Instead, he sent Cain into exile, not only sparing his life but protecting it by putting “a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight” (Gn :5).

This episode cannot be used as an argument against capital punishment because the church has never interpreted it that way. If it is seen as opposing capital punishment then how are we to interpret the incident in Acts where God kills Ananias and Sapphira?

My thinking (and this is just my opinion, so take it for what it’s worth) is that since life is sacred attempts to harm or destroy that life has consequences. Punishment must be commensurate with the crime of murder.

This question is the very center of the debate. Life is sacred. What punishment is of a severity commensurate with wrongly taking a life? What does incarceration for the purpose of protecting ourselves say about our concern for the life that has already been taken?

Ender

 

[Ender]

As someone said, concerning the proper elucidation of Holy Writ, “When the plain and obvious sense makes good sense be careful not to make it nonsense”.

The argument that Gn 9:6 doesn’t mean what it clearly says can have little traction against the traditional interpretation the church has always given that passage.

The argument that men oppose the death penalty for murder because they value the sanctity of life is just plainly wrong.

This argument has always bothered me. Genesis says that the reason the life of a murderer is forfeit is because the life of the victim was sacred. This interpretation reverses that and says because the life of the murderer is sacred his life is spared. What gets lost is any sense of the heinousness of the crime.

Nothing evinces the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life and it is this same atrophy of moral fibre that continual appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty.

*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[shocktrooper]

The argument that Gn 9:6 doesn’t mean what it clearly says can have little traction against the traditional interpretation the church has always given that passage.
This argument has always bothered me. Genesis says that the reason the life of a murderer is forfeit is because the life of the victim was sacred. This interpretation reverses that and says because the life of the murderer is sacred his life is spared. What gets lost is any sense of the heinousness of the crime.
*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

Ender,

I have been following this debate since it unfolded and I appreciate the comments you have made and the quotes you have provided. I also appreciate the arguments made on the other side. For me, the quote above sums the whole problem up in a nut shell. The faith of Catholic Americans and abroad has suffered greatly. Whenever I hear the priest, in Mass, ask God to “look not upon our sins but on the faith of the Church”, I kind of cringe a little.

Pax Christi