Capital punishment and protection from error

[JNdoum]

It is difficult for me to say that I must agree with JReducation’s explanation, because I personally have always agreed with something like it beforehand. However, as he has a reputation for accuracy and knowledge on church teachings, I am inclined to trust him due to this. Besides this, unlike the other arguments I have heard, his arguments actually make sense. I can concede that the state has a duty to prevent crime, which in turn is a right to execute; however what I have learned in the Church about mercy always contradicted the murder of anyone, even a criminal. Until I am revealed some new information by a more reliable source, I am inclined to agree with JR. Thank you for your post.

 

[SonCatcher]

We are not speaking of laws here but of moral truth, which is not determined by the opinion of popes.

You were writing earlier about “divine law.” What changed?

Either execution is a just punishment for murder or it is not. The answer to that question is not something they may change, make, abrogate or restate.

Ender

I don’t think anyone here argued that execution is not a just punishment. Merely that other punishments are now feasible to render justice and that society has a responsibility to reevaluate punishment periodically.

 

[triumphguy]

So which position are you taking - is the right of the state to employ capital punishment changed or not?
What are you referring to when you say “this point”?
So if papal teachings don’t outlive the men who expressed them should we consider ourselves bound by what JPII said? You go way too far in trying to dismiss 2000 years of Church teaching on this subject. If five previous catechisms disagree with the current one - are we to ignore them? If a half dozen prior popes have taken the opposite position should we reject them all? If a common position was taken by virtually all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church is the proper response really “So what”?
We are not speaking of laws here but of moral truth, which is not determined by the opinion of popes. Either execution is a just punishment for murder or it is not. The answer to that question is not something they may change, make, abrogate or restate.

Ender

I can’t speak for JR who is far more eloquent and learned than me, but I’ll take a stab at some of these.

1. No-one has said that papal teaching does not outlive the man, but that a Pope is not bound by the previous popes when they have not taught infallibly or on matters of faith and doctrine.
2. Many teachings have changed or developed over the 2000 years of LIVING tradition that is the Catholic Church. The tradition that we* tradere* (hand on) is not a codified book of rules but the teachings of the living Christ who still speaks to us today through the Living Word, and who’s voice is always prophetic. It is Christ we hand on, not rules: the Truth not truths.
3. You can only follow the lead of the Pope who is alive. This Pope is the Rock for our time and place, the one on whom the Church was built. Each pope is a pope in and of their own time.

And each pope speaks the Universal Truth for the Church.

It’s the times and contexts that change not the Truth.

The Church is not a Church of either/or but both/and.

1. If the Popes cannot proclaim on moral truth then who can? And when the Popes proclaim we should listen.

 

[triumphguy]

Just to clarify: I’m not saying that we (ie., the Church) don’t hand on traditions, truth, teachings etc., but that the core of what we hand on is the Living Christ himself, who is made manifest always and forever in the Eucharist, and who teaches anew every day in scripture.

 

[triumphguy]

I apologize for taking up so much space, but:

I’ve been re-reading the original post, and so have done some reading on the “hermeneutic of continuity.” Eg.,
adoremus.org/1107BXVI_122205.html
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=296

This is Pope Benedict’s call: for a “hermeneutic of continuity” rather than a “hermeneutic of rupture.” Hermenuetics is the discipline of examining texts in order to understand the meaning.

Pope Benedict knows that there were paradigm shifts during Vatican II and he is trying to express the continuity in the texts pre and post Vatican II rather than searching for differences. Often we find what we are looking for.

A major expression of this desire of Pope Benedict has been his work with the SSPX.

In the same vein he has reiterated Pope John Paul II’s teaching on capital punishment.

I believe that this hermenuetic of continuity pervades Br JR’s recent posts.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Thank you Br. JR for a great answer.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

That’s a fair question but you should note that most of the comments on this topic are about the morality of capital punishment; there is very little said about why it is or is not helpful. As long as people insist there is a moral as opposed to practical argument against capital punishment these debates will continue … or at least I will continue to participate in them.

Here is Dulles with a reasoned explanation of JPII’s opposition to capital punishment:*Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice. *For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.
If the claim is to be made that we should just accept JPII’s prudential opinion then some argument like this one needs to be made and defended, but so far no one has chosen that approach. The preference is to argue that the death penalty is evil.

Ender

Yeah, I hesitated when typing that because I felt it was a little off topic.

 

[Brendan]

Divine punishment occurs after this life. It it not at the hands of temporal humans.

St. Paul would disagree with you that Divine punishment only happens in the next life.

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

Romans 13:3-4

When the secular authority rewards good, or punishes evil, it does so as “God’s Servant”

Of course, it is up to the Church, as the Moral authority, to define what is evil and what is good, but the wrath inflicted against those who do what the Church has declared to be evil are, in fact, done by the State in God’s name

 

[triumphguy]

St. Paul would disagree with you that Divine punishment only happens in the next life.

Romans 13:3-4

When the secular authority rewards good, or punishes evil, it does so as “God’s Servant”

Of course, it is up to the Church, as the Moral authority, to define what is evil and what is good, but the wrath inflicted against those who do what the Church has declared to be evil are, in fact, done by the State in God’s name

What about abortion then? The state has defined abortion as a “good.” I can be arrested by the state for protesting outside an abortion clinic in Canada (and I have done BTW). Am I morally wrong then?

 

[JReducation]

I apologize for taking up so much space, but:

I’ve been re-reading the original post, and so have done some reading on the “hermeneutic of continuity.” Eg.,
adoremus.org/1107BXVI_122205.html
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=296

This is Pope Benedict’s call: for a “hermeneutic of continuity” rather than a “hermeneutic of rupture.” Hermenuetics is the discipline of examining texts in order to understand the meaning.

Pope Benedict knows that there were paradigm shifts during Vatican II and he is trying to express the continuity in the texts pre and post Vatican II rather than searching for differences. Often we find what we are looking for.

A major expression of this desire of Pope Benedict has been his work with the SSPX.

In the same vein he has reiterated Pope John Paul II’s teaching on capital punishment.

I believe that this hermenuetic of continuity pervades Br JR’s recent posts.

Thank you. You got that perfectly correct. I will add to this that the Church’s teachings are on a hierarchy. The doctrine on the State’s right to execute is not on the same plane as the Immaculate Conception. In other words, it does not have to be embraced without a modification.

We cannot modify the Immaculate Conception. It is what it is. The pope can certainly modify the rule that governs how and when the state exercises the right to execute.

If the Church were found to accept a blanket statement that says, “The state has a right to execute.” She would be sanctioning many evils such as

• Muslim governments that execute people for converting – because it’s a criminal offense
• Muslim and African governments that execute people for being gay – because it’s a criminal offense
• Communist governments that execute people for political dissent – because it’s a criminal offense
• Other governments who use the death penalty as a quick solution to a problem, without any due consideration to human dignity, the value of human life, the possibility of conversion, or the Will of God – because God, human dignity and the sacredness of life are not considered in discerning whether to execute or not.

Today’s pope most certainly has the right to say that he espouses the same principles as his predecessors, but that those principles cannot be exercised as they were once exercised, because the conditions have changed. When they were dictated, the speakers were speaking to Catholic Europe. Today, neither Europe nor most of the world is Catholic. Therefore, the faith places little or no restraint on how the State uses or abuses the death penalty.

The fact that it is abused, gives the papacy the right to dictate the moral rules under which the State can execute. That’s what Bl. John Paul II did. Anyone who wants to understand his rules has to read Evengelium Vitae. The CCC quotes one paragraph. The notation refers you to the entire document. Pope Benedict recently quoted the same document when he also spoke out against the use of the death penalty.

There is no break with the past, if the principle is preserved. When the statement was codified by Trent, it was not codified as an infallible doctrine, but as a moral right. However, one forfeits certain rights, if one violates the rules that go with those rights. This is the case with today’s governments. In addition, one has certain moral rights as long as the conditions exist. If the conditions no longer exist, the right no longer exist. This is why the Catholic Church today says that the use of the death penalty is rarely necessary, if at all. Today’s penal systems and institutions should be better than those of the 1500s. If they’re not, then society is in serious trouble.

It is audacious to think that Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI whimsically pulled something out of their sleeves and chucked every pope and council under the bed. If they move away from something that was said in the past it’s for two reasons:

• They know that they have the right to do so.
• They believe that it’s the best thing to do.

The fact that the pope has the right to change rules, implies that we have a duty to follow the new rules.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

St. Paul would disagree with you that Divine punishment only happens in the next life.

Romans 13:3-4

When the secular authority rewards good, or punishes evil, it does so as “God’s Servant”

Of course, it is up to the Church, as the Moral authority, to define what is evil and what is good, but the wrath inflicted against those who do what the Church has declared to be evil are, in fact, done by the State in God’s name

But Brendan, we have to understand what had happened here. The Roman Government had issued a decree that people were free from the Law. Of course they were referring to the Law as espoused by Israel, not their law. Rome was also interweaving the rights of the state with the rights of certain pagan deities.

Paul has to come to terms with this new law so as not to get the Christians killed. He goes back to Wisdom 6:1-3 that sets the precedent. The monarch rules in the name of God.

Then Paul takes you forward in 6:4-21 where he explains that the monarch is to be obeyed, only because he rules in the name of God. When the monarch violates God’s rights, the monarch forfeits his authority.

Human life is part of God’s life. When the monarch looks at human life as disposable, the monarch is no longer governing with the mind of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Brendan]

Today, we have nations that execute people who have dissenting political opinions, who commit adultery, who are caught in homosexual acts, who convert to Christianity and other such situations for which people were not executed and for whom the death penalty is a grave injustice. These people are not a thread to innocent citizens. You get into the issue of disproportionality.

We also have legal systems that are broken. There is no guarantee of real justice. It seems that those who have money also have influence. People who have committed heinous crimes are out on parole in a short time, without necessarily undergoing a conversion. This raises the question whether or not execution has become the easy way of dealing with crime rather than fix the legal system. If that’s the case, which in many countries, including our own, it is, that raises serious questions about the moral right to execute…

Brother, my question is, has the situation really changed. Everything you outlined, the injust executions, the dispartity in justice between rich and poor, the well connected, etc… has existed for as long as the Church has existed. The points are nothing new.

How is this different from when Aquinas, Duns Scotus and previous Popes have spoken on, and supported, the Death Penalty.

 

[Brendan]

But Brendan, we have to understand what had happened here. The Roman Government had issued a decree that people were free from the Law. Of course they were referring to the Law as espoused by Israel, not their law. Rome was also interweaving the rights of the state with the rights of certain pagan deities.

Paul has to come to terms with this new law so as not to get the Christians killed. He goes back to Wisdom 6:1-3 that sets the precedent. The monarch rules in the name of God.

Then Paul takes you forward in 6:4-21 where he explains that the monarch is to be obeyed, only because he rules in the name of God. When the monarch violates God’s rights, the monarch forfeits his authority.

Human life is part of God’s life. When the monarch looks at human life as disposable, the monarch is no longer governing with the mind of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I understand that a monarch may excercise the power unjustly, and St. Paul includes this when he speaks of good and evil, which can only be correctly in light of the Church’s Moral Theology.

But it remains that when a monarch, or State, excercises punishment in cases where evil ( as understood by the Church) has been done, it IS done in God’s name. Pope Innocent III clarified this as well:

The secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation

The execution for grave crimes would not be a violation of God’s Will, and would be a example of Divine Justice, would it not? Which was my point

 

[Brendan]

I also found this statement from Cardinal Dulles to be rather insightful.

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. When death came to be understood as the ultimate evil rather than as a stage on the way to eternal life, utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham found it easy to dismiss capital punishment as “useless annihilation.”

Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith. The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel.

The comments I was attempting to address seemed to be to be part of that general evaporation of the sense of retributive justice that Cardinal Dulles spoke of.

 

[M-Dent]

I also found this statement from Cardinal Dulles to be rather insightful.

I’m not sure any have articulated the authentic teaching on this matter better than the good Cardiinal.

Bottom line, Capital Punishment is not an Intrinsic Evil. We know this from divine revelation. This erronous idea has been peddled as Catholic thought over the past few decades. I do believe this is part of the OP’s concern with this topic? Yet, saying this, the conditions today appear to have changed to make the application of Capital Punishment a very bad idea.

 

[triumphguy]

I’m not sure any have articulated the authentic teaching on this matter better than the good Cardiinal.

Bottom line, Capital Punishment is not an Intrinsic Evil. We know this from divine revelation. This erronous idea has been **peddled **as Catholic thought over the past few decades. I do believe this is part of the OP’s concern with this topic? Yet, saying this, the conditions today appear to have changed to make the application of Capital Punishment a very bad idea.

peddled?

I see the individuals right to self defence, and a state’s right (and maybe duty sometimes) to participate in a just war as part of a continuum. The right to self defence is more easily argued, while a Just War would require, I think, far more justification. The right to execute criminals falls somewhere in between. However, the modern context (including issues of justice, questions of demographics, and the reality of the modern state) have led to Church teaching which calls for a more prophetic stance than previously.

For what it’s worth: I’ve worked in prisons, I know first hand how horrible individuals can be. They still remain “little ones” in the eyes of God, and have a dignity based on their creation by a good God. And how we treat the least is how we are going to be judged.

I don’t mean least in the sense of little like lambs, but least in the sense of most despicable, ugliest, moral lepers, psychopaths, killers, sex offenders - the least worthy.

 

[triumphguy]

I’m not sure any have articulated the authentic teaching on this matter better than the good Cardiinal.

Bottom line, Capital Punishment is not an Intrinsic Evil. We know this from divine revelation. This erronous idea has been peddled as Catholic thought over the past few decades. I do believe this is part of the OP’s concern with this topic? Yet, saying this, the conditions today appear to have changed to make the application of Capital Punishment a very bad idea.

And Cardinal Dulles says:

The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.

Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

 

[Brendan]

And Cardinal Dulles says:

The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

That is most certainly true. But the question then becomes: To whom does the Church recognize as the arbitrator of these? Who determines if a solution accomplishes the purpose of punishment equally or better than bloodless means ( and I also note that the Cardinal addresses something that the Catechism does not: the purpose of punishment vs self defense alone)

Who does the Church see as the authority entrusted in with the decision on the seriousnes of any negative effects on society?

All of those seem to be subjective determinations.

 

[JReducation]

I understand that a monarch may excercise the power unjustly, and St. Paul includes this when he speaks of good and evil, which can only be correctly in light of the Church’s Moral Theology.

But it remains that when a monarch, or State, excercises punishment in cases where evil ( as understood by the Church) has been done, it IS done in God’s name. Pope Innocent III clarified this as well:

The execution for grave crimes would not be a violation of God’s Will, and would be a example of Divine Justice, would it not? Which was my point

Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict say, “Rarely.” They don’t rule it out, bu they don’t subscribe to it always being the case, because it is not necessary and because the Church no longer authorizes the state to act in God’s name.

That’s been the big change. During Pope Innocent III’s reign, the pope dictated to the state. Not only the pope, there are letters written by St. Francis calling the monarchs on the carpet. They had to bite the bullet or end up in a conflict with Rome.

Today, that relationship is no longer there. The state is secular. The Church does not entrust certain things to the state and this is one of the things that Pope John Paul pulled from the state in Evangelium Vitae.

Cardinal Dulles’ opinion has been used quite often. I knew him when he was Fr. Dulles. He was my scripture prof. He was a very holy man and very intelligent too. That being said, Pope John Paul disagreed with him and so does Pope Benedict. We have to go with the two senior theologians and hierarchy. Pope John Paul spells things out differently in Evangelium Vitate, from how Cardinal Dulles did. I have to emphasize the DID. Cardinal Dulles never spoke about capital punishment again after his opinion was disregarded by Pope John Paul. He was a very humble and obedient man.

I also found this statement from Cardinal Dulles to be rather insightful.

The comments I was attempting to address seemed to be to be part of that general evaporation of the sense of retributive justice that Cardinal Dulles spoke of.

Retributive justice is what Pope John Paul wrote out and Pope Benedict has seconded it. That’s why Cardinal Dulles never spoke on the issue again. Many other obedient theologians never said another word. Pope John Paul had spoken and that was it.

If you have not read the first three chapters of Evangelium Vitae, I strongly recommend it, because it helps put into context why Pope John Paul moved us away from that concept, without denying truth.

There is a common misunderstanding too that Pope Benedict addresses in one of his books on the OT. The fact that the OT mentions capital punishment does not bind the Church. People keep referring to it as Divine Revelation, because it’s in the bible. There are many things in the bible that are not longer binding.

I have to paraphrase it, because I don’t have the book. But the pope is trying to say that there were parts of the Old Law that were no longer necessary in the New Covenant. He points to the fact that Jesus intervenes in the case of the woman caught in adultery. The NT is very strong on justice and mercy. The Jewish Law was strong on justice and short on mercy. It’s a clever distinction that he makes, but an important one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Brendan]

What about abortion then? The state has defined abortion as a “good.” I can be arrested by the state for protesting outside an abortion clinic in Canada (and I have done BTW). Am I morally wrong then?

Please reread my posts, I noted that the definition of good and evil belong to the Church, the temporal punishment of what is evil ( which is defined by the Church) belongs to the State.

Of course, it is up to the Church, as the Moral authority, to define what is evil and what is good,

When the State attempts to extract punishment on acts that the Church has not defined as evil, the State is in error. When the State denies punshment on those who commit moral evil ( such as abortion) it is in error. When the State extracts punishment on those who commit what the Church has recognized as evil,and the punishment is consitent with the crime, the State acts in the name God.