Capital punishment and protection from error

[sw85]

Hello all,

I’ve been thinking about the death penalty recently and genuinely wrestling with the issue.

On the one hand, until fairly recently, the teachings of the Church seem to have been pretty consistently pro-death penalty, authorizing the state to execute criminals not merely out of necessity but out of simple justice. This support extends at least as far back as the Council of Trent and probably further; Pius XII seemed to echo this position. The historical Church has, moreover, produced pretty sound exegesis and theological exposition to support this position.

On the other hand, the present magisterium is nearly entirely opposed to it, including seemingly all the American bishops, and the Catechism contains qualifications apparently absent and seemingly in opposition to prior teachings on the topic.

I am struggling specifically to reconcile these two facts with the Church’s protection from error by the Holy Spirit. I want to be a good Catholic, but to do that I need to know clearly what is expected of me with respect to this issue and frankly no two Catholic sources are giving me the same answer.

So is there a “hermeneutic of continuity” by which we can reconcile what the Church presently teaches with what it has historically taught, and more importantly with the fact of the Church’s protection from error?

Regards,

sw85

 

[SonCatcher]

I think part of the issue is that the ability to detain dangerous criminals permanently is a relatively recent development. Until recent times, there was a great risk that a killer could escape to kill again. With the development of the modern penal system, it has become possible to revisit the teaching and refine it.

To be clear, all persons who are justly condemned for capital crimes “deserve” death. Mercy is desired whenever possible, however, since a condemned person has less chance for repentance before death than a person incarcerated until natural death.

 

[JNdoum]

Just as a sidenote, I don’t like capital punishment in general because it seems to me that no sane person could ever commit a capital crime (or else they’d do so very rarely). People who seemed pegged for them most of the time seem to be people like serial killers (who are clearly insane), and people who commit crimes to children (again, clearly mentally ill). I don’t think any right-thinking person could decide to kill another, unless they were in a horrendous situation.

Besides this, I question the authority of the state to take a person’s life. The state of Rome claimed this right over Jesus and thousands of the early church martyrs. Who knows how many people the state has “justly” killed? Another issue with me is that killing a killer makes you no better than he, makes you a killer yourself. But I suppose there is little one can do about it at the moment.

 

[sw85]

I think part of the issue is that the ability to detain dangerous criminals permanently is a relatively recent development. Until recent times, there was a great risk that a killer could escape to kill again. With the development of the modern penal system, it has become possible to revisit the teaching and refine it.

This is how I reconciled the problem with myself, but I realized it’s not a very satisfactory answer. For one thing, the historical Church’s stance was not that capital punishment was a regrettable necessity borne of our inability to otherwise protect society from certain classes of criminals. Their stance was that capital punishment is a legitimate vehicle for enacting justice. The present Catechism, and the Bishops generally, do not seem to think this at all.

To be clear, all persons who are justly condemned for capital crimes “deserve” death. Mercy is desired whenever possible, however, since a condemned person has less chance for repentance before death than a person incarcerated until natural death.

This certainly seems a popular argument among death penalty abolitionists, but it, too, is not historically representative of the Church’s teachings, which seem to be that forgiveness of the harm done is the sole provenance of the victim of the harm and that the state’s duty in this regard is simply to discharge the debt of justice which accrues as a result of the act. Obviously, replacing capital punishment with, say, life imprisonment is not really mercy (in the sense we traditionally think of it, i.e., the total erasure of the debt of justice owed to us) but merely a commutation of it.

Just as a sidenote, I don’t like capital punishment in general because it seems to me that no sane person could ever commit a capital crime (or else they’d do so very rarely). People who seemed pegged for them most of the time seem to be people like serial killers (who are clearly insane), and people who commit crimes to children (again, clearly mentally ill). I don’t think any right-thinking person could decide to kill another, unless they were in a horrendous situation.

Besides this, I question the authority of the state to take a person’s life. The state of Rome claimed this right over Jesus and thousands of the early church martyrs. Who knows how many people the state has “justly” killed? Another issue with me is that killing a killer makes you no better than he, makes you a killer yourself. But I suppose there is little one can do about it at the moment.

But again, this sentiment is radically divergent from the Church’s historical teachings, and at best potentially consistent with its present teachings (hard to say, given that its present teachings in this respect are somewhat incomprehensible).

 

[thistle]

This is how I reconciled the problem with myself, but I realized it’s not a very satisfactory answer.** For one thing, the historical Church’s stance was not that capital punishment was a regrettable necessity borne of our inability to otherwise protect society from certain classes of criminals. Their stance was that capital punishment is a legitimate vehicle for enacting justice.** The present Catechism, and the Bishops generally, do not seem to think this at all.

This certainly seems a popular argument among death penalty abolitionists, but it, too, is not historically representative of the Church’s teachings, which seem to be that forgiveness of the harm done is the sole provenance of the victim of the harm and that the state’s duty in this regard is simply to discharge the debt of justice which accrues as a result of the act. Obviously, replacing capital punishment with, say, life imprisonment is not really mercy (in the sense we traditionally think of it, i.e., the total erasure of the debt of justice owed to us) but merely a commutation of it.

But again, this sentiment is radically divergent from the Church’s historical teachings, and at best potentially consistent with its present teachings (hard to say, given that its present teachings in this respect are somewhat incomprehensible).

I would be interested in reading the Church documents that support your claim (the part I highlighted and underlined).

 

[sw85]

A major question mark here for me is what form “protection from error” is supposed to take.

Let’s consider two possible forms of it: “strong” and “weak.” Let’s define “strong protection from error” as the idea that “the Church will never formally teach error.” Let’s define “weak protection from error” as the idea that “divergences from truth will ultimately be corrected by the Holy Spirit,” i.e., “the Church will never formally teach error for long.” There are some obvious implications to this latter understanding of it.

If the Holy Spirit’s protection is of the latter sort then, in the event of apparent contradictions in the Church’s teachings over time, we must always assume that which has been taught for the bulk of its history is probably accurate and that diverges from that are temporary aberrations soon to be corrected. In other words, it’s not that the Church cannot “teach” error in the sense of proclaiming it as truth, but that when it proclaims error as truth that proclamation cannot be binding on Catholics. This seems to be the position of, for instance, the SSPX.

In other words, according to the “strong” model, contradiction should be impossible. According to the “weak” model, contradiction is possible but only because revisions to traditional teachings are false, invalid, etc.

I suppose something like the “weak” model is potentially true, but given that it introduces a radical level of doubt, I don’t think this is the sort of protection Christ had in mind when He promised it. On the other hand, the only way we can salvage the “strong” model is by confirming that there is in fact a way to reconcile these two sets of teachings – despite (apparently) extremely different teachings over time.

 

[sw85]

I would be interested in reading the Church documents that support your claim (the part I highlighted and underlined).

To give just one example, the Roman Catechism, issued by the Council of Trent:
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

The remarks of subsequent Popes up to and including Pius XII seem to be in conformity with these principles. I can find no analogues to the Church’s present teachings on death penalty prior to the pontificate of JPII.

 

[thistle]

To give just one example, the Roman Catechism, issued by the Council of Trent:
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

The remarks of subsequent Popes up to and including Pius XII seem to be in conformity with these principles. I can find no analogues to the Church’s present teachings on death penalty prior to the pontificate of JPII.

I don’t see any contradiction between what was said then and now.

 

[porthos11]

The difference between the morality and application of capital punishment.

The death penalty, as a matter of principle, is not immoral or evil, and the Church can never declare it so (and contrary to those who resort to it, the current CCC still upholds the inherent morality of the death penalty) without contradicting itself on a matter of morals.

However, as to whether capital punishment ought to be applied in the light of current sociological studies is open to varying opinions, and it seems that our bishops have tended towards not exercising this power, recommending instead mercy. It is on this point where Catholics in good faith may disagree and those who still favour the death penalty are not excluded from Holy Communion, as per our Holy Father.

 

[sw85]

I don’t see any contradiction between what was said then and now.

You don’t see any whatsoever?

The Roman Catechism states quite clearly that the state may legitimately make recourse to the death penalty in order to enact justice. No qualifications there.

The present Catechism echoes this principle (less firmly), then goes on to say (in CCC 2267) that technology is presently sufficient to protect society from criminals without the need to execute them, so it should never be used. But this is a gross non sequitur at best. Capital punishment does not solely serve the purpose of protecting society from criminals but also enacting justice. So who cares if technology is sufficient to otherwise protect society from criminals? Clearly the qualification doesn’t do anything but muddy the waters, which is why so many Catholics are stridently anti-death penalty.

So the issue may be clear for you, but it’s obviously not for many Catholics (including myself, up until now).

So if there is indeed continuity between the Roman and present Catechisms with respect to this issue, that continuity is buried under a spaghetti-tangle of incoherent, confused, and ugly language – as is common, seemingly, with Church documents nowadays. The closest way to reconcile the two that I’ve found was offered by Ender in this thread, informed by this article by Avery Cardinal Dulles, that CCC 2267 is not doctrinal but prudential and that Catholics are not bound to endorse such a prudential judgment.

As Ender wrote in the other thread:

The more you read about what the Church has taught on this issue the more difficult it will be to accept 2267 as doctrine as it diverges so greatly from the traditional teaching. This subject cannot be addressed simply by citing that one section of the Catechism as if it was all that needed to be considered.

But this is precisely what many Catholics, including at least some of the bishops, do!

But whatever, the principles Card. Dulles outlined sound good to me. Barring further direction from Rome this is the position I’m going to endorse – that we must acknowledge there is a natural right of the state to execute criminals, but we can disagree prudentially about whether it’s wise for the state to enact that right – as most consistent with the Church’s moral teachings.

 

[Brofessor]

I struggle with this a great deal. I don’t really agree with modern Church teaching that the death penalty was once valid; I can’t ever see it as being valid, especially since Christ himself was executed. There’s always a better way.

 

[thistle]

You don’t see any whatsoever?

The Roman Catechism states quite clearly that the state may legitimately make recourse to the death penalty in order to enact justice. No qualifications there.

The present Catechism echoes this principle (less firmly), then goes on to say (in CCC 2267) that technology is presently sufficient to protect society from criminals without the need to execute them, so it should never be used. But this is a gross non sequitur at best. Capital punishment does not solely serve the purpose of protecting society from criminals but also enacting justice. So who cares if technology is sufficient to otherwise protect society from criminals? Clearly the qualification doesn’t do anything but muddy the waters, which is why so many Catholics are stridently anti-death penalty.

So the issue may be clear for you, but it’s obviously not for many Catholics (including myself, up until now).

So if there is indeed continuity between the Roman and present Catechisms with respect to this issue, that continuity is buried under a spaghetti-tangle of incoherent, confused, and ugly language – as is common, seemingly, with Church documents nowadays. The closest way to reconcile the two that I’ve found was offered by Ender in this thread, informed by this article by Avery Cardinal Dulles, that CCC 2267 is not doctrinal but prudential and that Catholics are not bound to endorse such a prudential judgment.

As Ender wrote in the other thread:

But this is precisely what many Catholics, including at least some of the bishops, do!

But whatever, the principles Card. Dulles outlined sound good to me. Barring further direction from Rome this is the position I’m going to endorse – that we must acknowledge there is a natural right of the state to execute criminals, but we can disagree prudentially about whether it’s wise for the state to enact that right – as most consistent with the Church’s moral teachings.

Just to repeat that I do not see any contradiction, and by the way Catholics are free to support or oppose the death penalty. Nothing unclear about that.

 

[Ender]

On the one hand, until fairly recently, the teachings of the Church seem to have been pretty consistently pro-death penalty, authorizing the state to execute criminals not merely out of necessity but out of simple justice. This support extends at least as far back as the Council of Trent and probably further; Pius XII seemed to echo this position. The historical Church has, moreover, produced pretty sound exegesis and theological exposition to support this position.

As you said, the Church’s teaching on capital punishment has been consistent and goes back to the Early Fathers - who almost universally approved of it. The Catechism of Trent provides probably the best explanation for the Church’s understanding of the issue (which is based primarily on Gen 9:6 and Rom 13:1-4).

On the other hand, the present magisterium is nearly entirely opposed to it, including seemingly all the American bishops, and the Catechism contains qualifications apparently absent and seemingly in opposition to prior teachings on the topic.

This is also true. In fact, if you are aware of the traditional teaching of the Church you will also be aware that the first claim in 2267 regarding the traditional teaching is incorrect. The restriction it describes never existed.

I am struggling specifically to reconcile these two facts with the Church’s protection from error by the Holy Spirit.

This is the right question: how to reconcile two apparently contradictory positions? It is not enough simply to dismiss one in favor of the other. The only way I am able to reconcile them is by understanding 2267 to be the prudential opinion of the pope and the Magisterium and not doctrine. I believe it to be their recommendation that capital punishment as it is understood by most modern societies causes more problems than it solves and as a practical matter should be avoided whenever possible.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I think part of the issue is that the ability to detain dangerous criminals permanently is a relatively recent development. Until recent times, there was a great risk that a killer could escape to kill again. With the development of the modern penal system, it has become possible to revisit the teaching and refine it.

I know this is the claim being made but I don’t believe the evidence supports it. The Romans didn’t appear to have much trouble with the prisoners they sent to the mines or the galleys and, the Count of Monte Christo notwithstanding, I suspect there weren’t many escapes from the dungeons of the middle ages. We can be very sure they weren’t communicating via lawyers or cell phones with their gangs on the outside ordering murders and other crimes, something known to happen even from within maximum security prisons today.

To be clear, all persons who are justly condemned for capital crimes “deserve” death. Mercy is desired whenever possible, however, since a condemned person has less chance for repentance before death than a person incarcerated until natural death.

*The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. *(Aquinas)

Ender**
**

 

[Ender]

Besides this, I question the authority of the state to take a person’s life.

*In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). 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)

Another issue with me is that killing a killer makes you no better than he, makes you a killer yourself.

"Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.” It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God…" (Catechism of St. Thomas)
Ender

 

[Ender]

I struggle with this a great deal. I don’t really agree with modern Church teaching that the death penalty was once valid; I can’t ever see it as being valid, especially since Christ himself was executed. There’s always a better way.

I think what has gotten lost in modern discussions of capital punishment is an appreciation for the enormity of the sin of murder. Discussions on this topic are almost solely from the perspective of rehabilitating the murderer and safeguarding the public. The concept of justice for the crime against the victim (and the public) is simply forgotten and ignored and unless this point is understood there is no possibility of appreciating, let alone accepting, the Church’s position on the issue. I think this is why you find it so hard to believe the Church “once” accepted the validity of capital punishment.

The key to understanding all of this is recognition of the theological basis of the Church’s position … Gen 9:6.
Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
This is not some random passage I have cherry picked, it is the passage the Church refers to, most notably in the Catechism of Trent.Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. 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.[1] And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. [1] Gn 9:5-6
Having lost our sense of the enormity of the sin of murder we have lost any appreciation for what constitutes a commensurate punishment.

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

I know this is the claim being made but I don’t believe the evidence supports it. The Romans didn’t appear to have much trouble with the prisoners they sent to the mines or the galleys and, the Count of Monte Christo notwithstanding, I suspect there weren’t many escapes from the dungeons of the middle ages. We can be very sure they weren’t communicating via lawyers or cell phones with their gangs on the outside ordering murders and other crimes, something known to happen even from within maximum security prisons today.
*The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. *(Aquinas)

Ender**
**

I don’t think that violent criminals have been sent so much to the galleys and mines. They were executed.

It was impractical to attempt to house violent criminals long term since prisons were very small and unsecured in comparison to today’s. At best, any attempt would have limited them to the prison population to prey upon.

I don’t think St. Thomas Aquinas’ opinion is at all a contradiction of the current teaching. This is because the current teaching does indeed allow for the death penalty to be carried out.

 

[M-Dent]

I think what has gotten lost in modern discussions of capital punishment is an appreciation for the enormity of the sin of murder. Discussions on this topic are almost solely from the perspective of rehabilitating the murderer and safeguarding the public. The concept of justice for the crime against the victim (and the public) is simply forgotten and ignored and unless this point is understood there is no possibility of appreciating, let alone accepting, the Church’s position on the issue. I think this is why you find it so hard to believe the Church “once” accepted the validity of capital punishment.

I find the late Avery Cardinal Dulles adequately summizes the current position of the magisterium .

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

 

[JNdoum]

I think what has gotten lost in modern discussions of capital punishment is an appreciation for the enormity of the sin of murder. Discussions on this topic are almost solely from the perspective of rehabilitating the murderer and safeguarding the public. The concept of justice for the crime against the victim (and the public) is simply forgotten and ignored and unless this point is understood there is no possibility of appreciating, let alone accepting, the Church’s position on the issue. I think this is why you find it so hard to believe the Church “once” accepted the validity of capital punishment.

The key to understanding all of this is recognition of the theological basis of the Church’s position … Gen 9:6.
Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
This is not some random passage I have cherry picked, it is the passage the Church refers to, most notably in the Catechism of Trent.Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. 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.[1] And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. [1] Gn 9:5-6
Having lost our sense of the enormity of the sin of murder we have lost any appreciation for what constitutes a commensurate punishment.

Ender

Thank you for responding to my message, and I apprechiate what you put there. I understand a bit more now, but I still feel the same. How does one death justify another death? I would not feel that justice had been served to find that two (or even more) people were killed. I see justice as more of a thing left to God, really. But, I can understand the feeling of necessity of justice. I simply feel I could never feel a murder justified through further death, or feel able to send another human being to his death, or condemn him to it in any way.

 

[Ender]

It was impractical to attempt to house violent criminals long term since prisons were very small and unsecured in comparison to today’s.

Life in prison has been common for centuries.
*…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. *(Fifth Lateran Council, 1512)

I don’t think St. Thomas Aquinas’ opinion is at all a contradiction of the current teaching. This is because the current teaching does indeed allow for the death penalty to be carried out.

His comment contradicted the argument that capital punishment should not be used because it would reduce the amount of time a man had to repent of his crimes.

Ender