Capital punishment and protection from error

[triumphguy]

If he wrote that, he would be in error, because he would be contradicting the historical teachings of the Church. Again, that was my concern here.

Maybe Church teaching on this point was wrong, or rather may have been right in the context of the day but is wrong now? And maybe this is OK doctrinally since we are not talking about the Trinity, or the Real Presence, or the Virginity of Mary. And there may be precedents: Did the Church change it’s teaching on slavery for instance?

 

[sw85]

I apologize, but I feel I must try to explain my view again. It seems like people support this for the sake of “justice,” but the very word seems to imply a transaction. Something was done, so it must be paid for according to this law, in this way. I don’t see human life, or human beings, as capable of being transacted. A brother or sister in Christ should not be treated like a subhuman, and killed for their crimes. Isn’t it our Christian duty to give counsel and healing to this person, and not make them into a somehow inhuman concept? Your brother could suddenly go insane and kill someone, and then you would respond by killing him in…what? A sense of justice? A form of legal revenge, of a repayment of debt? A life for a life?

Jesus refuted the law of “an eye for an eye” in the Gospel, and charged us that we should not forgive our brother seven times, but seven times seven times. If we are struck across the face, turn the other cheek. If we are forced to go one mile, go two with him who forced you. If you are sued for your shirt, give the man your cloak also. I simply can’t reconcile these constant teachings of Jesus and the Church with the idea of hard-lining and killing someone for a crime, no matter what.

I am fairly confident you are required to give full assent of faith to the Church’s moral teachings, including the historical teaching (still honored today) that the state may licitly execute criminals for the sake of justice. None of Christ’s teachings reversed that principle, nor could they have – God cannot change any more than His Church can. It is only on prudential judgments that you are free to disagree with the Church’s assessments.

Maybe Church teaching on this point was wrong,

That’s supposed to be impossible. It’s possible for the Church’s teachings to be incomplete (such that there can be a development of them) but they can never positively be wrong (in the sense that development would require positive contradiction of earlier teachings).

or rather may have been right in the context of the day but is wrong now?

Prudentially, sure. But the basis for moral judgments is human nature, and human nature has not changed in the last 2000 years. So we can say that the circumstances of society have changed such that it is no longer wise to use the death penalty, but we cannot say that human nature has changed such that it’s no longer morally permissible to do so.

And maybe this is OK doctrinally since we are not talking about the Trinity, or the Real Presence, or the Virginity of Mary. And there may be precedents: Did the Church change it’s teaching on slavery for instance?

You’re thinking of dogmas. Neither dogmas nor doctrines can change – both are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. If, for some strange reason, a dogma or doctrine were repudiated, we would have to question the liceity of that change, since it could not possibly be a change for the better.

 

[triumphguy]

Human behaviour might not have changed, but human societies sure have, and that predicates what is acceptable in human behaviour at a given time!

We don’t burn heretics or drown witches for example. We don’t allow child labour or slavery. We don’t allow the rule of thumb which deemed beating one’s wife was OK as long as the rod was thinner than a man’s thumb. We don’t stone adulterers to death. We don’t banish single mothers. We don’t beat children in school. We don’t cast out lepers.

So I would say that human behaviour has changed.

 

[Ender]

It seems like people support this for the sake of “justice,” …

Yes, this is exactly right. More specifically, this is what the Church teaches. Justice involves treating people as they deserve to be treated and a person’s deserts are determined by his actions.*We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. *(Aquinas)

…but the very word seems to imply a transaction. Something was done, so it must be paid for according to this law, in this way.

True again. Sin demands punishment.the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)

I don’t see human life, or human beings, as capable of being transacted. A brother or sister in Christ should not be treated like a subhuman, and killed for their crimes.

To hold a person responsible for his actions is to treat him as fully human. It is in not holding him accountable that we act against his dignity.But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. (JPII)

Jesus refuted the law of “an eye for an eye” in the Gospel, and charged us that we should not forgive our brother seven times, but seven times seven times.

The individual has the obligation to forgive offenses but the State has the duty to punish them (CCC 2266).

I simply can’t reconcile these constant teachings of Jesus and the Church with the idea of hard-lining and killing someone for a crime, no matter what.

The Church sees it differently.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4) *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Human behaviour might not have changed, but human societies sure have, and that predicates what is acceptable in human behaviour at a given time!

The Church’s teachings on capital punishment have not been based on what was acceptable to different societies and different times as morality does not change with time or place. If the death penalty was a just punishment for the crime of murder in the past then it is equally just today. If it is unjust today then it has been wrong forever and the Church has accepted injustice for 2000 years. That’s a hard position to support.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

The Church sees it differently.

If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4) (Cardinal Dulles)

Ender

You are misquoting Avery Dulles:

Avery Dulles finds no rupture in the development of Catholic teaching on the death penalty. The Jesuit cardinal distinguishes between theological affirmations, which allow for the death penalty in certain instances, and their practical application to contemporary contexts.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8506&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=827725

And the USCCB doesn’t agree with your position…

Over the last 30-plus years, the interventions of the U.S. bishops on the question of the death penalty follow a pattern similar to that of the Catholic Church in other regions. The intent has been the same, namely, to limit, restrain or end the use of society’s ultimate punishment.

Since the first comprehensive statement on capital punishment in 1980, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has continued to call for an end to the use of the death penalty in our country.(25) In 1999 the bishops again made an appeal to abolish the death penalty, which was followed in 2000 by the document “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” This latter statement concludes by “renewing our call to end the death penalty.” Most recently, in 2005 the bishops began a national Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty, which sought to educate Catholics and non-Catholics and to inform state and congressional legislators as well as the courts about the church’s teaching.(26) catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8506&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=827725

 

[triumphguy]

The Church’s teachings on capital punishment have not been based on what was acceptable to different societies and different times as morality does not change with time or place. If the death penalty was a just punishment for the crime of murder in the past then it is equally just today. If it is unjust today then it has been wrong forever and the Church has accepted injustice for 2000 years. That’s a hard position to support.

Ender

Has the Church changed it’s position on slavery? On the disenfranchisement of Jewish populations in Catholic states?

 

[sw85]

You are misquoting Avery Dulles:

No, I’m afraid he isn’t. That’s a word-for-word quote directly from his own words.

Dulles may have been anti-death penalty, but it was a position borne (he himself acknowledged) of prudential concerns, not moral ones.

No one’s saying the bishops aren’t anti-death penalty. What is being said is that their position is prudential, not doctrinal. They are not teaching that the death penalty is bad in principle, they are saying that it is unwise for the state to use it presently. No one is obliged to endorse their prudential judgments. We are, however, require to endorse their doctrinal teachings. And the doctrinal teaching is what it has always been: that the death penalty is morally licit, in principle.

Has the Church changed it’s position on slavery? On the disenfranchisement of Jewish populations in Catholic states?

Can you point to a doctrinal teaching of the historical Church to the effect that slavery is OK?

 

[triumphguy]

No, I’m afraid he isn’t. That’s a word-for-word quote directly from his own words.

**You;re right - I should have said out of context.
**
Dulles may have been anti-death penalty, but it was a position borne (he himself acknowledged) of prudential concerns, not moral ones.

Avery Dulles finds no rupture in the development of Catholic teaching on the death penalty. The Jesuit cardinal distinguishes between theological affirmations, which allow for the death penalty in certain instances, and their practical application to contemporary contexts.catholicculture.org/cultu…earchid=827725

Can you point to a doctrinal teaching of the historical Church to the effect that slavery is OK?

Romanus Pontifex January 8, 1455,

invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery

I know, you’re going to say it was not doctrinal, but that was the position of the Church at the time. And the position of the Church on slavery has changed.

 

[Ender]

You are misquoting Avery Dulles:

Nonsense, that was precisely what he said and in the context in which he said it. You are correct though in claiming that Dulles found “no rupture in the development of Catholic teaching on the death penalty” but this was because he understood the new position in the catechism to be an example of prudential opinion. Since it is not doctrine itself it cannot contradict the doctrine that had developed over the previous 2000 years.

And the USCCB doesn’t agree with your position…

First, it is pretty irrelevant what the USCCB believes since they don’t have any teaching authority. Second, and more to the point, even they don’t believe the new position is doctrine. I recognize that they disapprove of the use of capital punishment but that says nothing whatever about whether they claim its use to be immoral. They believe it to be ill-advised. Here is what they said in 2005:“The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation…”
Can you even for a moment believe they would say something like this about any doctrine of the Church? They obviously have no problem offering judgment and condemnation regarding other doctrines, the teaching on euthanasia for example.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

Of course the USCCB have a teaching role.

And they teach that the death penalty is not appropriate in the USA.

 

[sw85]

Romanus Pontifex January 8, 1455,

I know, you’re going to say it was not doctrinal, but that was the position of the Church at the time. And the position of the Church on slavery has changed.

You’re right that I’m going to say that, because it wasn’t in fact a doctrinal teaching. Romanus Pontifex was a papal bull.

Doctrinal teachings cannot change. Because doctrinal teachings are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Whatever isn’t a doctrinal or dogmatic teaching isn’t protected from error and so is capable of change. What about this is hard to understand?

 

[triumphguy]

I suppose I’m saying that there IS a hermenuetic of continuity, to quote the OP, and that Church teaching has developed, solidified, become more clear whatever, on the issue of Capital Punishment.

And when the Church teaches and allows prudential judgment it is NOT saying that the individual should decide according to their own preference. It means that keeping in mind the teaching of the Church there may be times and places where that teaching might not fit: in a war zone for example.

It does not mean that the Church prefers that capital punishment is abolished but we individuals can decide what we like. It means that we, along with the Church, as expressed locally by the teaching of the local bishop, work together in particular circumstances to reach a common approach.

Prudential judgment is not an individual assertion, but a collective voice within the Church in response to time and place.

In a way therefore it is the prophetic voice of the Church as we see, judge and act on the events before us.

So: if more poor, under-educated people are being executed than richer better educated people for the same crime, prudential judgment may require the local Catholic Church to stand and say this is wrong and should be stopped.

 

[Ender]

Of course the USCCB have a teaching role.

Not exactly.*“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” *(Cardinal Ratzinger)

And they teach that the death penalty is not appropriate in the USA.

If by teaching you mean that they are of the opinion that capital punishment should not be used then I agree with you that this is their position, but that is a practical judgment, not a moral doctrine, and it is one with which I disagree.*Any Catholic is entitled to question the hierarchy’s prudential judgments about anything, as long as it is done in good faith and good taste. *(Msgr George Kelly)
Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

The Church’s teachings on capital punishment have not been based on what was acceptable to different societies and different times as morality does not change with time or place. If the death penalty was a just punishment for the crime of murder in the past then it is equally just today. If it is unjust today then it has been wrong forever and the Church has accepted injustice for 2000 years. That’s a hard position to support.

Ender

Quite correct. However, the current teaching is an emphasis on mercy, not a denial of justice.

We say we want to protect life from conception to natural death. That includes not only the unborn, elderly and infirmed, but all human life. Even those whose lives are forfeit.

Personally, I think we should retain the sentence of death but simply not carry it out so long as we can maintain permanent incarceration. If prudence later demands reinstating the practice of execution, those under the sentence can then be executed.

 

[Ender]

… the current teaching is an emphasis on mercy, not a denial of justice.

I don’t think anyone in the Magisterium has actually made that argument, nor do I expect them to as it raises other difficulties.

First, blanket mercy to all murderers is not appropriate. Mercy has limits too. Here is Aquinas quoting Augustine on this point:Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) “obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant.”
Mercy is conditional on safeguarding justice and there is no reason to believe that granting it to everyone accomplishes that. Aquinas makes this point more explicitly:*
*There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy.
It needs to be recognized that the punishment for murder is one of those matters “determined in accordance with Divine” laws as the Church has based her position on capital punishment on the divine law expressed in Gen 9:6.

Second, what you are referring to is really not mercy but clemency.Mercy and clemency concur in this, that both shun and recoil from another’s unhappiness, but in different ways. For it belongs to mercy [Cf.30, 1] to relieve another’s unhappiness by a beneficent action, while it belongs to clemency to mitigate another’s unhappiness by the cessation of punishment.
It should also be recognized that we cannot eliminate the just punishment due a person for his sins. We may choose to grant clemency but that will not expiate the sin; only the sinner’s acceptance of a just punishment will suffice for that and there is no reason to believe that we do the criminal a favor by putting off his day of justice.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

Not exactly.*“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” *(Cardinal Ratzinger)
If by teaching you mean that they are of the opinion that capital punishment should not be used then I agree with you that this is their position, but that is a practical judgment, not a moral doctrine, and it is one with which I disagree.*Any Catholic is entitled to question the hierarchy’s prudential judgments about anything, as long as it is done in good faith and good taste. *(Msgr George Kelly)
Ender

What does “save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops” mean? It means if the Bishops consent then the episcopal conference has authority. It means if they do not consent then there is no intrinsic authority. So the USCCB does have authority when its bishops agree, it merely means that no one can speak with authenticity as the "USCCB if the bishops have not given consent.

And it’s interesting that you are using cardinal Ratizinger to back your argument in this case, but are dismissing the teaching of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict on capital punishment!

 

[Ender]

What does “save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops” mean? It means if the Bishops consent then the episcopal conference has authority. It means if they do not consent then there is no intrinsic authority. So the USCCB does have authority when its bishops agree."

It absolutely does mean they have no intrinsic authority. It means that nothing that comes from the USCCB has any authority at all unless your particular bishop says it does. The mere fact that a committee of the USCCB issues a document means nothing. This is why when the* Faithful Citizenship* document was issued in 2007, even though all of the bishops voted on it (although they did not all vote for it) the Bishop of Scranton was justified in rejecting it and stating that the USCCB did not speak for him. I am unaware of any particular document from the USCCB that my bishop has specifically endorsed so for me they have no authority at all.

And it’s interesting that you are using cardinal Ratizinger to back your argument in this case, but are dismissing the teaching of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict on capital punishment!

I have not dismissed anyone’s comments on capital punishment (alright, except for the USCCB). I have been at pains to point out that the Magisterium’s statements on the subject reflect their prudential judgment, are not doctrine, and do not require our assent. It is the very same position Cardinal Dulles took with the exception that he agreed with that judgment and I don’t.

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t think anyone in the Magisterium has actually made that argument, nor do I expect them to as it raises other difficulties.

First, blanket mercy to all murderers is not appropriate. Mercy has limits too. Here is Aquinas quoting Augustine on this point:Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) “obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant.”
Mercy is conditional on safeguarding justice and there is no reason to believe that granting it to everyone accomplishes that. Aquinas makes this point more explicitly:*
*There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy.
It needs to be recognized that the punishment for murder is one of those matters “determined in accordance with Divine” laws as the Church has based her position on capital punishment on the divine law expressed in Gen 9:6.

Why omit “or human”? It obfuscates matters when you write on one and omit the other.

“Mercy is conditional on safeguarding justice.”
I suspect the writer would agree that if the perpetrator can be assured to never harm another person then justice is safeguarded and mercy can be afforded.

Second, what you are referring to is really not mercy but clemency.Mercy and clemency concur in this, that both shun and recoil from another’s unhappiness, but in different ways. For it belongs to mercy [Cf.30, 1] to relieve another’s unhappiness by a beneficent action, while it belongs to clemency to mitigate another’s unhappiness by the cessation of punishment.
It should also be recognized that we cannot eliminate the just punishment due a person for his sins. We may choose to grant clemency but that will not expiate the sin; only the sinner’s acceptance of a just punishment will suffice for that and there is no reason to believe that we do the criminal a favor by putting off his day of justice.

Ender

You are misrepresenting the punishment of life imprisonment. It is certainly not clement. It is an ongoing punishment.

 

[triumphguy]

*Any Catholic is entitled to question the hierarchy’s prudential judgments about anything, as long as it is done in good faith and good taste. *(Msgr George Kelly)
Ender

“Good faith and good taste” doesn’t mean that I can have a discussion about my beliefs at the coffee shop with Jo Schmo and argue myself into the conviction that even though the Bishops and the Popes are against capital punishment that’s fine, I don’t agree.

No one may act against his convictions, as Saint Paul had already said (Rom 14:23). But the fact that the conviction a person has come to certainly binds in the moment of acting, does not signify a canonization of subjectivity. It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being. The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper—not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth. ewtn.com/library/curia/ratzcons.htm

Cardinal Ratzinger here says that “all of our judgments must be examined in the light of truth and the Gospel. All of our judgments require a rigorous process of conscience formation in which we gather all relevant information, examine in detail the context, learn and consider the applicable Christian tradition and teachings before we can make a prudential judgment. Prudential judgment should not be understood in a modern voluntaristic way; it should be understood within this framework of the good, truth, and formation of conscience.” catholicmoraltheology.com/prudential-judgment-101-a-theological-roundtable/

How do we form our conscience? Church teaching is a good place to start. As is the Church position on current issues like capital punishment.

On the authority of the Episcopal Conference (of which they seem to have quite a lot when they speak as one):vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos_en.html

1. The joint exercise of the episcopal ministry also involves the teaching office. The Code of Canon Law establishes the fundamental norm in this regard: “Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the Bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in Conferences of Bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own Bishops with a sense of religious respect (religioso animi obsequio)”.

The concerted voice of the Bishops of a determined territory, when, in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they jointly proclaim the catholic truth in matters of faith and morals, can reach their people more effectively and can make it easier for their faithful to adhere to the magisterium with a sense of religious respect.

when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves, and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religious respect to that authentic magisterium of their own Bishops.