Capital punishment never justified, Pope argues [CC]

[irenaeus1]

Some acts are intrinsically evil like abortion. They can never be approved of. Some acts like the death sentence are permissible if they serve the common good in the administration of justice. The pope has said that nowadays the death penalty is inadmissible because it is not serving the order of justice and is harming mans grasp of human dignity.

I’m to the point, that I just don’t get you guys. I don’t get why this is so confusing to you.

I think where I personally struggle with the Church’s drift in position on the death penalty is what EXACTLY is it about modern society that has changed to merit such a shift in position? And keeping in mind that society having sufficient means to render the unjust aggressor harmless against others is difficult to define. How do we know when a society and its penal code is sufficiently advanced? And who’s society are we talking about anyway? The United States or Swaziland? Are we talking about Japan or Syria? Some societies are decades or even centuries behind certain advanced nations, so is the death penalty permissible in these less-advanced or underdeveloped societies?

And some of the other reasons being proposed to oppose the death penalty, such as the dignity of the human person, lack of deterrent effect, of no benefit to the victim or his healing, etc. are really not valid reasons considering that these same reasons could have been proposed as holding true 100 years ago. Or 75 years ago. Or even 50 years ago. Did the Church really not fully understand the dignity of the human person until just a few decades ago?

 

[white_sheep]

As does Pope Francis. Nowhere has Pope Francis or any other member of the magistrium said that a Catholic cannot support the death penalty. It would be easy enough for him to do so . instead, as a good pastor, he expresses his opinion that there are no circumstances where it is appropriate - however Catholics who are grounded in their faith know that we are not bound by every utterance of the pope . We rely on the three pillars of church teachings . Scripture , tradition and the teachings of the magisterium . All three of those allow for the death penalty and have for the last 2000 years . The question is not whether the death penalty can be used , the question is when . The last three popes have made it clear that in their opinion it is never justified. But none of them said that their opinion was binding upon all Catholics -in fact one of them went out of his way to say it was not.

You’re wrong about your first sentence. The pope said that every Christian and man of good will is obligated to oppose the death penalty and advocate for more comfy prison accommodations.

zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-letter-to-international-commission-against-the-death-penalty

All Christians and all men of good will are obliged not only to fight for the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, and in all its forms, but also for prison conditions to be better, in respect of the human dignity of the persons deprived of freedom.

Having read the letter I can’t find a way that he is speaking merely of present conditions being such that the death penalty should not be used. It appears that he is contradicting Church teaching and saying that the death penalty is immoral in and of itself.

 

[estesbob]

You’re wrong about your first sentence. The pope said that every Christian and man of good will is obligated to oppose the death penalty and advocate for more comfy prison accommodations.

zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-letter-to-international-commission-against-the-death-penalty

Having read the letter I can’t find a way that he is speaking merely of present conditions being such that the death penalty should not be used. It appears that he is contradicting Church teaching and saying that the death penalty is immoral in and of itself.

It does indeed. He is implying the church has been wrong for 2,000 years, How can that be? What else has the Church been wrong about? the divinity of Christ? The resurrection?

 

[LongingSoul]

I think where I personally struggle with the Church’s drift in position on the death penalty is what EXACTLY is it about modern society that has changed to merit such a shift in position? And keeping in mind that society having sufficient means to render the unjust aggressor harmless against others is difficult to define. How do we know when a society and its penal code is sufficiently advanced? And who’s society are we talking about anyway? The United States or Swaziland? Are we talking about Japan or Syria? Some societies are decades or even centuries behind certain advanced nations, so is the death penalty permissible in these less-advanced or underdeveloped societies?

And some of the other reasons being proposed to oppose the death penalty, such as the dignity of the human person, lack of deterrent effect, of no benefit to the victim or his healing, etc. are really not valid reasons considering that these same reasons could have been proposed as holding true 100 years ago. Or 75 years ago. Or even 50 years ago. Did the Church really not fully understand the dignity of the human person until just a few decades ago?

The way that it appears to me as a non American from a place that abolished the death penalty a century ago… is that the Churchs approach to the issue now may be being tailored to the American situation. There is a strong resistance to abolition over there that claims to be defending Church teaching but really looks more like defense of the American *institution *of the capital punishment… as a god given right of the American people.

When the death penalty was abandoned in places like Aus, NZ the UK… it was more a response to its uncivilised nature. Some people were actually liking it too much and relishing the entertainment value and blood lust. It was also recognised that the State is rarely noble enough to have recourse to the power to kill and the sense that the over representation of marginalised groups wearing the noose was not a way forward for human development.

As the death penalty has been abandoned around the developed world over the last century, the Church has never before felt it necessary to step in with any contribution to this natural development of civil justice… and she even quietly abolished the death penalty from Vatican law in 1969. This seems to be proof that the Church doesn’t regard abolition as a backwards step for humanity or blow for human justice. I see her approach now as less a positive instruction to abolish the death penalty, but an urgent defense against the forces of resistance that claim to be divine but which are really very human in origin.

 

[irenaeus1]

The way that it appears to me as a non American from a place that abolished the death penalty a century ago… is that the Churchs approach to the issue now may be being tailored to the American situation. There is a strong resistance to abolition over there that claims to be defending Church teaching but really looks more like defense of the American *institution *of the capital punishment… as a god given right of the American people.

When the death penalty was abandoned in places like Aus, NZ the UK… it was more a response to its uncivilised nature. Some people were actually liking it too much and relishing the entertainment value and blood lust. It was also recognised that the State is rarely noble enough to have recourse to the power to kill and the sense that the over representation of marginalised groups wearing the noose was not a way forward for human development.

As the death penalty has been abandoned around the developed world over the last century, the Church has never before felt it necessary to step in with any contribution to this natural development of civil justice… and she even quietly abolished the death penalty from Vatican law in 1969. This seems to be proof that the Church doesn’t regard abolition as a backwards step for humanity or blow for human justice. I see her approach now as less a positive instruction to abolish the death penalty, but an urgent defense against the forces of resistance that claim to be divine but which are really very human in origin.

I appreciate the well-thought out response, and it does make some sense to me, so I appreciate the help. But note that Pope Pius XII was not an American, and yet in 1952, he stated,“Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” So regardless of the state of a society’s penal code system, the man, by reason of his crime, has forfeited his life, and the public authority has the right to deprive him of it.

 

[Brendan]

The way that it appears to me as a non American from a place that abolished the death penalty a century ago… is that the Churchs approach to the issue now may be being tailored to the American situation. There is a strong resistance to abolition over there that claims to be defending Church teaching but really looks more like defense of the American *institution *of the capital punishment… as a god given right of the American people…

I live in Michigan. We were the first English speaking government to abolish the death penalty. Coming up on 200 years ago.

I am quite glad we do not have it.

What I am concerned about is people misrepresenting what the Church teaches.

Case in point, technically it IS a God given right to the governing authorities.

This IS exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about capital punishment.

It just happens to be one that a government is obligated to exercise.

 

[Elena321]

One thing to keep in mind is that it is not just the public outside the prisons who are to be protected, but guards and other inmates as well.

Good point.However there’s many many innovative things that can be done to change the jail system to make it safer without resorting to the death penalty.

To all:the Pope is right and I’m sure he would have thought thoroughly about it.
In Australia we don’t have the death penalty and I’ve noticed that many Americans that agree with the death penalty do so due to their emotional reaction to the horrific crimes that have been commited.
Even though these emotions get evoked we don’t have the right to “play God” and take another persons right.Its not our place.
We don’t have the right to do that due to our own fears,anger,or not knowing what else to do.
It’s faulty reasoning and emotion based reasoning when instead our reasoning needs to come from an objective place-ie: objectively,asking ourselves how do we keep the community safe.

To believe we have the right to take a life-even a horrible persons life-makes us the same as them.

The answer instead needs to be reforming the prison system and parole system etc and fixing human errors.
For example, as mentioned,there have been murderers who have done horrific crimes who have been let out on day passes (and killed again).
This is immense human stupidity (extreme poor judgment error ) and with the magnitude of their crime they should never have been let out for a day pass into the community-ever.

The culture in prisons need huge changing too.
For example: prisoners should not be allowed to workout with weights/weightlifting and they should not be allowed to hang around together in gangs or according to nationalities etc.
Gangs should be separated.

There’s huge problems but so much could be changed with innovation.
Yes,it all takes money but it’s extremely rarely justifiable to choose the death penalty instead due to cost cutting.

 

[LongingSoul]

I live in Michigan. We were the first English speaking government to abolish the death penalty. Coming up on 200 years ago.

I am quite glad we do not have it.

What I am concerned about is people misrepresenting what the Church teaches.

Case in point, technically it IS a God given right to the governing authorities.

This IS exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about capital punishment.

It just happens to be one that a government is obligated to exercise.

It’s a permission. Not a right in the way you mean ie. inalienable right.

 

[JackVk]

Say what you want about the death penalty. “More comfortable prison arrangements” seems to defeat the purpose of prison. Prison is supposed to be a punishment. It’s not just meant for the hoodrats, but also for sociopathic white-collar crooks who bilk old ladies out of their life savings to fund their lavish lifestyles.

If you make prisons “more comfortable”, then you’re making prison a reward: a decades-long vacation at the expense of taxpayers. Francis, though he means well, seems to have forgotten that you do not be merciful when it teaches someone that crime and/or sin pays.

 

[graciew]

You’re wrong about your first sentence. The pope said that every Christian and man of good will is obligated to oppose the death penalty and advocate for more comfy prison accommodations.

zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-letter-to-international-commission-against-the-death-penalty

Having read the letter I can’t find a way that he is speaking merely of present conditions being such that the death penalty should not be used. It appears that he is contradicting Church teaching and saying that the death penalty is immoral in and of itself.

As I read it what I can hear him do is precisely teach catholic doctrine to those states that do not “know” it.
He is adressing their right ,not denying it and addressing it is circumstancially unnecesary nowadays ( he uses this word:nowadays). He explains how some regimes use it to deal with opposition and how.more advanced societies already can neutralize criminals…Since the cathecism addresses cases are rare if non existent ,he is teaching the Church does not think the right is unlimited .
He also explains how it is dealt with today.
Note he stresses self defense and addresses misinterpretation( he uses this word).
Prudential. Even the time spent in prison between capture and capital punishment and our view on human dignity is applied teaching for me.
Try and read it in that light. Thinking you are not Catholic or did not know.
I may be wrong of course ,but this was my reading.

 

[irenaeus1]

Even though these emotions get evoked we don’t have the right to “play God” and take another persons right.Its not our place.
We don’t have the right to do that due to our own fears,anger,or not knowing what else to do.
It’s faulty reasoning and emotion based reasoning when instead our reasoning needs to come from an objective place-ie: objectively,asking ourselves how do we keep the community safe.

This is good reasoning, but my question is how is this any different than, say, just 75 or even 50 years ago? And no one has claimed here that we (as individuals) have the right to “play God” and take another person’s right. Its not our place as individuals. The argument is that rightful public authority has the right and duty to impose the death penalty - Scripture says so, as well as the Church, at least it did up until about 50 years ago. So again, EXACTLY what has changed? That is my question.

To believe we have the right to take a life-even a horrible persons life-makes us the same as them.

Huh? When did this become true?

 

[LongingSoul]

This is good reasoning, but my question is how is this any different than, say, just 75 or even 50 years ago? And no one has claimed here that we (as individuals) have the right to “play God” and take another person’s right. Its not our place as individuals. The argument is that rightful public authority has the right and duty to impose the death penalty - Scripture says so, as well as the Church, at least it did up until about 50 years ago. So again, EXACTLY what has changed? That is my question.

There’s always been a discomfort/revulsion for the death penalty within the Catholic experience… St Ambrose representing that most notably in theological evidence.

Human experience in general associates those who rejoice in the death of others with less human qualities. For humans, inflicting death on another is the avenue of last recourse and a defensive measure. We are at a point of being ready to let it go and forge a new way of addressing crime.

 

[Brendan]

It’s a permission. Not a right in the way you mean ie. inalienable right.

Hmmm, there are a number of people that disagree with you

Cardinal Dulles

In the New Testament the right of the State to put criminals to death seems to be taken for granted. Jesus himself refrains from using violence.

firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment

EWTN

The Catechism and the Pope state that the state has the right to exact the death penalty

ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm

Even Priests for Life

While the Church has not denied its traditional position that the state has the right to employ capital punishment, many Catholic bishops, together with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, have spoken against the exercise of that right by the state.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/indianadeathpenalty.htm

And, of course, the US Bishops

The Church has long acknowledged the right of the
state to use the death penalty in order to protect society…

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/upload/5-723DEATHBI.pdf

They all seem to consider it to be a right of the State.

 

[ProVobis]

So again, EXACTLY what has changed? That is my question.

Fair question. Perhaps it was the recent botched executions that prompted this discussion now.

 

[irenaeus1]

Fair question. Perhaps it was the recent botched executions that prompted this discussion now.

It’s not like there has never been a botched execution in the past. Were passed botched executions somehow lost on the Magisterium of the Church?

 

[irenaeus1]

There’s always been a discomfort/revulsion for the death penalty within the Catholic experience… St Ambrose representing that most notably in theological evidence.

But doesn’t this just proves my point?… If “there has always been” doesn’t sound like a change specific to today. Did the discomfort or revulsion only reach a certain threshold today?

Human experience in general associates those who rejoice in the death of others with less human qualities. For humans, inflicting death on another is the avenue of last recourse and a defensive measure. We are at a point of being ready to let it go and forge a new way of addressing crime.

But “inadmissible” (as Pope Francis states) is not the same as “last recourse”, and whether certain people rejoice in the death of others is immaterial to the moral licitness of public authority legitimately having recourse to the death penalty. Again, there will always be and have been certain individuals who take pleasure in the death of a known criminal who has committed a grave crime, so again, this is not new; this was true 50, 75, 100, 1000 years ago. What EXACTLY has changed in modern times that merits a shift in the Church’s position?

 

[Ender]

Again, there will always be and have been certain individuals who take pleasure in the death of a known criminal who has committed a grave crime, so again, this is not new; this was true 50, 75, 100, 1000 years ago. What EXACTLY has changed in modern times that merits a shift in the Church’s position?

Either Francis is saying essentially the same thing JPII and BXVI said, or he is saying something new. If it is something new then it can only be an assertion that capital punishment is intrinsically wrong…after all, what else is left? What else goes beyond what JPII said? In that case, however, it would be a repudiation of 2000 years of Catholic teaching on the subject, which is not a position we should be willing to accept.*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput)
Now, if Francis is not saying anything new then he is reiterating in his own words what JPII said, which is to announce his personal opposition to the use of capital punishment. He may well be right that it is a mistake to use it, but his position is no more binding than the opinions expressed by his predecessors and, as several others have pointed out, is not doctrine and does not oblige our assent. Anyone may agree with his comments, but it should be understood that that position is personal, not doctrinal.It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. And, if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. (Christopher Ferrera, Crisis Magazine)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

But doesn’t this just proves my point?… If “there has always been” doesn’t sound like a change specific to today. Did the discomfort or revulsion only reach a certain threshold today?

Pope StJPII identified a ‘growing moral sensititivy’ to human dignity in Evangelium Vitae…

On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class.

A mere hundred years ago there was a general view in the world that black people were fundamentally lesser than whites. There was no concept of international aid or a financial welfare budget.

We have developed in those areas with the knowledge afforded us through mans natural pursuit of meaning and purpose.

The growth away from recourse to the death penalty has developed the same way. Over the last century it has been gradually abandoned in the first world as not fitting for civil justice. There are numerous aspects identified as to why it is no longer necessary, but really they are aspects that support the most significant reason and that is that across the world, it just doesn’t seem appropriate anymore.

But “inadmissible” (as Pope Francis states) is not the same as “last recourse”, and whether certain people rejoice in the death of others is immaterial to the moral licitness of public authority legitimately having recourse to the death penalty. Again, there will always be and have been certain individuals who take pleasure in the death of a known criminal who has committed a grave crime, so again, this is not new; this was true 50, 75, 100, 1000 years ago. What EXACTLY has changed in modern times that merits a shift in the Church’s position?

The Church says that the DP is not intrinsically evil. That means that as an act it is subject to the normal fonts of morality to determine licitness… so it is entirely up to the external circumstances affecting civil justice as to whether it is positive for the common good or not.

The question from my end is rather if the majority of the world is abandoning the practice and striving to have a non lethal justice system… if the Catholic Church affirms this movement as godly and an advance in quest for a culture of life… why do yourself and certain others want to keep it so much? What is it that makes you sad to see it go or makes you defend it as an old friend? That seems to me the bigger problem to be tackled here.

 

[irenaeus1]

Pope StJPII identified a ‘growing moral sensititivy’ to human dignity in Evangelium Vitae…

On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class.

A mere hundred years ago there was a general view in the world that black people were fundamentally lesser than whites. There was no concept of international aid or a financial welfare budget.

We have developed in those areas with the knowledge afforded us through mans natural pursuit of meaning and purpose.

The growth away from recourse to the death penalty has developed the same way. Over the last century it has been gradually abandoned in the first world as not fitting for civil justice. There are numerous aspects identified as to why it is no longer necessary, but really they are aspects that support the most significant reason and that is that across the world, it just doesn’t seem appropriate anymore.

The Church says that the DP is not intrinsically evil. That means that as an act it is subject to the normal fonts of morality to determine licitness… so it is entirely up to the external circumstances affecting civil justice as to whether it is positive for the common good or not.

The question from my end is rather if the majority of the world is abandoning the practice and striving to have a non lethal justice system… if the Catholic Church affirms this movement as godly and an advance in quest for a culture of life… why do yourself and certain others want to keep it so much? What is it that makes you sad to see it go or makes you defend it as an old friend? That seems to me the bigger problem to be tackled here.

Why in the world would the Church follow the “advancement” of the world in this particular area? You mean to tell me that the ‘pagan’ and ‘ungodly’ world got it right first, and only then the Church began to realize it after following public opinion of first world nations? If that is your reasoning, it’s simply a matter of time that the Church wake up to modernity and accept abortion, the homosexual lifestyle, pre-marital sexual behavior, and a whole host of other immoral behavior.

Please keep in mind that I am not saying that certain bishops and other Church leaders are wrong in pleading for an end to the death penalty. And it’s not so much me wanting to keep it as much as I, being a loyal son of the Church, am in complete agreement with 2000 years of Church’s teaching on the death penalty and am trying to wrap my head around the reason for the change.

To say that the Church only now understands more fully the dignity of the human person seems rather flimsy to me. Again, the world correctly understood this first? I find that hard to believe. Secondly, the dignity of the human person is precisely the reason Scripture uses FOR the imposition of the death penalty. So if anything, that reason has already been taken by Scripture, and the Church needs to find a different reason to use.

 

[Brendan]

To say that the Church only now understands more fully the dignity of the human person seems rather flimsy to me. .

Or if the remarks are in regards to the world in general, I have difficulty seeing that as well. Abortion and contraception are rampant.

Genocide is just as, if not more, common place than in centuries past. We have Al Queda and ISIS, hardly paragons of human respect.