Capital Punishment is Pro-life

[Benjamin]

Southernrich:

Perhaps slavery. Although the Church always strove to ameliorate the sufferings of slaves, the practice was not condemned until 1462 when Pius II called it a “great crime.”

Come on now! Slavery was once considered to be moral! I will agree that it was never condemned, but to say that slavery was held up as good moral example, please. Show me Missouri.

Benjamin

 

[Neo_Canaan]

rubbish and confusing

 

[Timoteo_H]

Could it not be said that if you supported the death penalty for murderers you are thereby protecting the lives of other potential victims? In that case pro-death panalty = pro-life.
However I feel there are probably better ways of protecting the innocent. :twocents:

One can protect other potential victims without killing the person. You make it sound like without the death penalty, the murderer would be a free man!

 

[Ender]

One can protect other potential victims without killing the person. You make it sound like without the death penalty, the murderer would be a free man!

Protection is only one aspect of punishment, and a secondary one at that. The primary reason for all punishment, including capital punishment, is that justice demands it.

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

Justice demands it?
What exactly do you mean by that?
Because really you’re just begging the question.
The justification for punishment rests on several grounds.

 

[tafan]

Protection is only one aspect of punishment, and a secondary one at that. The primary reason for all punishment, including capital punishment, is that justice demands it.

Ender

But not for capital punishment. It is only acceptable by the church if protection of society justifies it.

CCC 2267

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

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

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

I do not think a Catholic in the United States with a well-formed conscience can support capital punishment.

 

[camerong]

You know, one great thing about being Catholic is we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Death penalty? Pretty much never. Homosexuality? Not a choice, but a sin to act on. Gay marriage? Under no circumstances. Divorce? Not if it was a valid marriage. These things are clear and established, and require no more evaluation.

So many Catholics cling to their political ideologies and fight the Church. Conservative Catholics often assert that teachings about death penalty and homosexuals are not inerrant, and so they can reject them. Liberal Catholics claim that sexuality is a revolving concept, and we can’t expect 2,000 year-old ideas to govern us today. They really aren’t different–just clinging to their own world views instead of following the Church.

 

[pnewton]

One can protect other potential victims without killing the person. You make it sound like without the death penalty, the murderer would be a free man!

Not always. Incarcerated people can occassionally still be a threat to the lives and safety of others. Also, they do not always stay incarcerated forever.

 

[Ender]

Justice demands it? What exactly do you mean by that? Because really you’re just begging the question. The justification for punishment rests on several grounds.

The Church recognizes four purposes of punishment: protection, retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. The primary objective, however, is retribution - viz. justice.

The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (2266)

tafan:

But not for capital punishment. It is only acceptable by the church if protection of society justifies it.

One of the several problems with 2267 is that it ignores what was just said in 2266 and is in fact inconsistent with what the Church has historically taught and even with what she teaches today. The primary objective of punishment - of all punishment - is justice.

I do not think a Catholic in the United States with a well-formed conscience can support capital punishment.

I don’t think a Catholic who actually understands what the Church teaches on this and related subjects - that is, anyone who knows more about the subject than merely 2267 - can oppose it.

camerong:

Conservative Catholics often assert that teachings about death penalty and homosexuals are not inerrant, and so they can reject them. Liberal Catholics claim that sexuality is a revolving concept, and we can’t expect 2,000 year-old ideas to govern us today. They really aren’t different–just clinging to their own world views instead of following the Church.

Yes, the “cafeteria Catholic” charge. Typically insults are reserved for later in the debate when other arguments have proven ineffectual. Apparently you never had an argument to begin with.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Death penalty? Pretty much never.

That is not exactly the way the Church has put it. Also, it allows in this case that “pretty much” as you put it, can be an area of disagreement, as to how much is too much. Capital punishment is not a grave evil in Catholic moral theology. That is the difference, and a significant one, between it and your other two examples.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Which justifications the Church recognizes are irrelevant; the Church has no special expertise in jurisprudence. I’m surprised that denunciation is not there. I would have thought the Church would have felt that was quite a high priority?

Incidentally, since justice is the province of God, how can the criminal justice system claim to administer justice? If the earthly punishment achieves justice, why does God give further punishment?

How can “justice” be the aim of punishments that don’t conform to the natural law? Although since justice is formally defined as the upholding of rights, and the punishment of wrongs, by the law - so saying the “aim” of punishment is justice is not really helpful. It is just rearranging the definition of justice.

 

[pnewton]

Which justifications the Church recognizes are irrelevant; the Church has no special expertise in jurisprudence. I’m surprised that denunciation is not there.

This is not a discussion of law. If you went to a legal forum, you would have a point. However, this is a Catholic forum for discussing topics in the arena of moral theology - Catholic moral theology. To sat that Catholic moral teaching is irrelevant to Catholic moral theology is odd.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law. The Catholic church has its own position, but it has to draw on experts in the field and apply its own moral judgments.
Can you really say that the Church doesn’t agree that punishment is also denunciation? You are kidding, right?

 

[camerong]

Yes, the “cafeteria Catholic” charge. Typically insults are reserved for later in the debate when other arguments have proven ineffectual. Apparently you never had an argument to begin with.

I’m not intending to insult, but to show an inconsistency in the position of anyone who is Catholic and yet declines to follow the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. The Church’s statement on the death penalty virtually never being acceptable could not be clearer. Its not tenable to follow the Church on some teachings but not this one.

 

[pnewton]

Can you really say that the Church doesn’t agree that punishment is also denunciation?

Yes, and no. Consider this:

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

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

The use of capital punishment,** as opposed to other means of punishment,** is limited to the need to protect and defend society. It is only this specific choice with a narrow focus. Obviously no one can be executed without commiting a crime regarless of perceived threat, so punishment, as a whole, is used only to redress injustice. Therefore, capital punishment redresses an injustice. However, the choice to use it is limited to the need to protect society.

 

[Ender]

I’m not intending to insult, but to show an inconsistency in the position of anyone who is Catholic and yet declines to follow the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. The Church’s statement on the death penalty virtually never being acceptable could not be clearer. Its not tenable to follow the Church on some teachings but not this one.

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is anything but clear; it is in fact a complete muddle. As I said, if you’re only familiar with 2267, it might seem straightforward, but if you’re familiar with the previous 2000 years of teaching you get a very different impression. If you doubt this see if you can find a single statement the Church has ever made that supports what 2267 teaches.

Ender

 

[Doc_Keele]

The Church uses its law to denunciate immoral acts - so surely the same principle has to apply to criminal laws???

Th Church has an incoherent position on execution. I can’t think of anyone who couldn’t be incapacitated via a whole life tariff and a suitable high security prison. In which case the Church should state that capital punishment is illicit.

 

[Ender]

Which justifications the Church recognizes are irrelevant; the Church has no special expertise in jurisprudence. I’m surprised that denunciation is not there.

What does “which” mean in your first sentence?
Are you saying you think that “denunciation” is or should be an objective of punishment?

Incidentally, since justice is the province of God, how can the criminal justice system claim to administer justice? If the earthly punishment achieves justice, why does God give further punishment?

If justice was meant for God alone it wouldn’t be considered one of the cardinal virtues.

In the first place a man’s nature is subject to the order of his own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters . . . .thirdly, it is subject to the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience; another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God. (Aquinas ST I/II 87,1)

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. (Id. II/II 58,12)

How can “justice” be the aim of punishments that don’t conform to the natural law?

Are you suggesting that the death penalty doesn’t conform to the natural law? On what do you base that assumption?

Although since justice is formally defined as the upholding of rights, and the punishment of wrongs, by the law - so saying the “aim” of punishment is justice is not really helpful. It is just rearranging the definition of justice.

I don’t think this is a good understanding of justice … but then neither am I sure I understand what you mean here. Punishment is the effect of justice. A person who sins deserves punishment; he incurs a debt that can only be paid by his punishment and justice is not satisfied until that debt is paid.

Ender

 

[CatofAlexandria]

I can’t think of anyone who couldn’t be incapacitated via a whole life tariff and a suitable high security prison. In which case the Church should state that capital punishment is illicit.

Many people murder while in prison. It’s a rare thing, but it happens from time to time: that someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted to interact with other inmates, guards, medical staff, etc. In this case, the execution, short of a permanent drugged state, disfigurement, or some other extreme measure would be the only act of self defense for the prison community.

Likewise, in many developing nations, the prisons are not as they are in the U.S., the U.K., and other regions.

Rare executions as a measure of societal self defense in the face of honestly appraised dangerousness and as a last resort is a perfectly coherent position for the Church to take. It’s almost like just war theory, but on a smaller scale.

 

[Ender]

CCC 2267 …Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

This statement is simply incorrect. It was never part of Church teaching that capital punishment was limited by whether or not it was necessary for protection. In fact the Church had always based her support of capital punishment on God’s covenant with Noah, where God said: “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, because man is made in the image of God.” (Gen 9:6) The concept of protection was never used to justify the death penalty.

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

This seems exactly backwards. It is precisely because of man’s dignity - because he is made in the image of God - that the punishment for murder is nothing less than the life of the murderer. This is why the Catechism of Trent said:

"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."

Trent bases its entire explanation of the use of the death penalty on Genesis 9:6; the basis that man is made in the image of God.

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

This comment has absolutely nothing to do with any moral question; it is an entirely prudential opinion as to the capabilities of modern penal systems and there can be no question that there is no obligation to agree with this opinion.

Ender