Capital punishment never justified, Pope argues [CC]

[graciew]

And hence, my question: what is so distinct about ‘nowadays’ that makes the death penalty [virtually] inadmissible versus 50 years ago, or even just 30 years ago. What EXACTLY is it that changed that merits a shift in the Church’s position on this issue?

Ireaneus , the commandment is Do not kill.
The Church moves from there to begin with.( and love God and thy neighbour as yourself first.)
Is it necessary for self defense ? All right.
Is it necessary to kill sb.when prisons are highly safe and.more technologically equipped
? Is it necessary when psychology and medicine have advanced to control any.amount of psychological disorders inclu. Aggressive behaviour ?
Is it necessary to hold a person in death.row for years ? What is the option now he/she is neutralilized : kill them.sooner or work towards rehabilitation ?
Do not kill.
And this is mine : how can you plead for sb s life in other parts of the world where death is justified under religious beliefs and we.consider it atrocious when/if at the same time , we uphold the same.beliefs high and consider it is necessary TODAY and we are.not in the middle ages technology and scientifically speaking?
If the most powerful nation on earth cannot handle a handful of cases nowadays without recurring to CP,what is left for the rest of us ?
Totalitarian regimes are using it.too to kill opposition. And we.know it today instantly.
So by what moral.authority are we to.speak for those in the mlst vulnerable.situation now everywhere else on earth ?
And nowadays we know everything that is going on instantly , stonings ,beheadings…
I keep saying it is applying church teaching to present circumstamces carefully evaluated by the last popes. And they are prudential.
The Vatican has already abolished it as a State and its right is still.contemplated in the CCC
That is how I see it .

 

[LongingSoul]

I never said it did. I was just curious why the Church was behind the ‘pagan’ world in understanding the moral implications of imposing the death penalty in modern society? How could a lost world figure it out before a Holy Spirit led Church?

It’s not a ‘lost world’. There is the practice of abortion and euthanasia which are certainly ungodly, but there are some wonderful advances in respect for people regardless of class, race, religion that were not valued highly in the past. In the past, the poor were marginalized and forgotten. My own family history story has accounts of how appallingly the Irish and aboriginals were treated by ‘the State’ just a mere 150 years back. The world has gained so much godly ground in respect the dignity of all people equally. Pope Francis early on after his election reminded us that abortion and contraception and the like are not the only issues that need addressing and that while we want to curb the culture of death in these practices, we have to face the reality that the death penalty is not helping.

That’s simply not true. Just 50+ years ago, the Church was clearly and unambiguously stating the moral licitness of the States’ right to impose the death penalty. Then, within the last 20 years, certain Church leaders, including JPII, said well, ok, the State has a right, but it should be quite rare now, to most recently, Pope Francis stating that recourse to the death penalty is inadmissible.

As I’ve said before, I don’t sense the Church is making a sudden ‘new’ announcement about capital punishment… she is reacting to the strong argument mainly coming out of America, that the death penalty can’t be abolished by a secular state without being a travesty of justice and ungodly. That’s simply not the case. The Church is speaking out to reeducate people in Church doctrine so that they don’t mistakenly think that the state has no right to abolish the death penalty in service to the common good.

I told you why I’m having the problem. Because it appears that Church teaching is changing, and no one has put forward a valid reason why. Like I said before, all the reasons that have been proposed to justify the apparent shift in teaching were true 50, 75, 100, 1000 years ago. What is so significant about post-1985 or so?

Most first world Christian countries have been abolishing the death penalty over the last century. The Church has never stepped in to stop abolition or reinforce some divine obligation to retain it. She is stepping in now because of the unusual argument for eternal retention of the DP that is claiming to be Christian. But it isn’t.

I don’t know what ‘outside the knowledge of the Church’ means. There was never a time when the Church was not aware of the States’ right to impose the death penalty.

By outside knowledge of the Church I mean in cultures that didn’t know of the Church teaching but did know that by natural law they could have recourse to execution in the interests of protecting the welfare of the tribe or community. The prophets and the Church did not teach them this new ‘commandment’ from God. It was a recourse that existed as a practice serving the common good for probably ever.

Why are you creating a dichotomy where there is none? They (the Old Testament and then the Church of Jesus was established) were addressing an act that already existed given by God.

Yes Gods will can be known through the natural law which is why the state has the authority to act in the interests of the common good.

 

[graciew]

What else has changed in these last 100 ,50 years ?
I visited a prison in the southernmost city on earth. It is a museum now.
The prison used to be on an island quite close to.Antarctica by the way. It was closed in 1899 due to its inhumane conditions. Prisoners , serial killers among them ,died of cold and diseases due to the climate and moisture there.
Some managed to escape once and were caught and even then,at that time , taken back to the island.
Ultimately it was closed both for inhumane conditions and cause their was.nothing productive to do on the island.
Eventually ,a prison was built on mainland and the prisoners built the railways.
Maybe the island close to Antarctica was a punishment proportionate to the crime of many prisoners , and dying of cold and diseases too… after several years of physical and mental pain…would it be fair enough ?
What would any developed nation say if we re opened it ?
It would be a right…
Is it admissible today ?

 

[irenaeus1]

What else has changed in these last 100 ,50 years ?
I visited a prison in the southernmost city on earth. It is a museum now.
The prison used to be on an island quite close to.Antarctica by the way. It was closed in 1899 due to its inhumane conditions. Prisoners , serial killers among them ,died of cold and diseases due to the climate and moisture there.
Some managed to escape once and were caught and even then,at that time , taken back to the island.
Ultimately it was closed both for inhumane conditions and cause their was.nothing productive to do on the island.
Eventually ,a prison was built on mainland and the prisoners built the railways.
Maybe the island close to Antarctica was a punishment proportionate to the crime of many prisoners , and dying of cold and diseases too… after several years of physical and mental pain…would it be fair enough ?
What would any developed nation say if we re opened it ?
It would be a right…
Is it admissible today ?

So is your argument that previously, prisons were so inhumane that it was more humane to execute the prisoner? In other words, are you saying the Church did not have a problem with the death penalty 100 years ago because prisons were more inhumane than today, but now that the prison system is more humane, there is currently no reason for the State to execute the unjust aggressor? I’m just trying to understand you reasoning here.

 

[irenaeus1]

As I’ve said before, I don’t sense the Church is making a sudden ‘new’ announcement about capital punishment…

Considering that the teaching was unchanged for nearly 2000 years and only recently has such a push to shift position within the last 30 years or so is actually quite sudden.

she [the Church] is reacting to the strong argument mainly coming out of America, that the death penalty can’t be abolished by a secular state without being a travesty of justice and ungodly. That’s simply not the case. The Church is speaking out to reeducate people in Church doctrine so that they don’t mistakenly think that the state has no right to abolish the death penalty in service to the common good.

Why the focus on America? America has only about 5% of the world’s Catholics. And if this address being a particular appeal to America, then this only begs the question, what of the rest of the world? I’ve never heard any Church leader advocate for the lesser developed societies to retain the right to impose the death penalty.

Most first world Christian countries have been abolishing the death penalty over the last century. The Church has never stepped in to stop abolition or reinforce some divine obligation to retain it. She is stepping in now because of the unusual argument for eternal retention of the DP that is claiming to be Christian. But it isn’t.

Please cite any evidence you may have that the Church is “stepping in now because of the unusual argument for eternal retention of the DP that is claiming to be Christian”, because I have never heard this argument from a bishop. And clearly, Pope Pius XII did not think it unChristian to openly teach, not only the States’ right to impose the death penalty, but the reason that it’s morally licit to do so.

By outside knowledge of the Church I mean in cultures that didn’t know of the Church teaching but did know that by natural law they could have recourse to execution in the interests of protecting the welfare of the tribe or community. The prophets and the Church did not teach them this new ‘commandment’ from God. It was a recourse that existed as a practice serving the common good for probably ever.

I agree that this can be known by natural law, but it is also revealed through divine revelation. We know that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil because God Himself often sanctioned it. Now some may cry foul regarding legal and disciplinary requirements of the Old Testament that no longer hold for us today, but one only need look at Gen 9:6 which was part of the Noahic covenant which PRECEDED the Law; i.e., “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” predates Israel and the Levitical Law and would seem to be binding for all peoples and times. Even under the Law, murder seems to be the only crime for which no restitution was possible (Num 35: 31, 33). This is why the Church has recognized the right of public authority to have recourse the the death penalty. Nothing here with regard to the condition of a society’s penal system.

 

[graciew]

So is your argument that previously, prisons were so inhumane that it was more humane to execute the prisoner? In other words, are you saying the Church did not have a problem with the death penalty 100 years ago because prisons were more inhumane than today, but now that the prison system is more humane, there is currently no reason for the State to execute the unjust aggressor? I’m just trying to understand you reasoning here.

No ,Irenaeus.
I am just trying to say that "inadmissible " implies that which can be solved in a.different way and it is unnecessary, and how striking it is to go back to what can.be and has improved by saying it is.proportionate and claiming right.
And if I refer to US is out of respect .

 

[JimG]

Even though I’m mostly opposed to the death penalty, it is true that prison confinement does not necessarily protect the population. Criminal gangs can be and have been organized and directed from prison, with murders ordered by someone in prison and carried out by lieutenants on the outside. Those imprisoned for murder, even multiple murder, can be paroled, and can go on to kill again. Some prisons are effectively controlled and operated by powerful inmates. (I remember reading a case recently in which a prisoner had a number of children whose mothers were various prison guards. Could be a conflict of interest there.) But essentially, life in prison does not necessarily protect society from the one serving the time.

I think that the Holy Father has also mentioned being opposed to life sentences as being in them selves “a sort of death sentence.” So it sounds as though he may be opposed to life sentences as well as death sentences.

 

[irenaeus1]

No ,Irenaeus.
I am just trying to say that "inadmissible " implies that which can be solved in a.different way and it is unnecessary, and how striking it is to go back to what can.be and has improved by saying it is.proportionate and claiming right.
And if I refer to US is out of respect .

So again, did this “different way” not exist in 1980, or 1970, or 1950, or 1920, or whenever, because the Church never used such language regarding the death penalty as it does today. What is it EXACTLY that changed?

 

[irenaeus1]

As I’ve said before, I don’t sense the Church is making a sudden ‘new’ announcement about capital punishment…

Of course you don’t sense it… you didn’t think the Church made a peep about it in the last century. However, many of us have heard the ‘chirping’ and it now sounds like its coming from a different bird.

Listen, LongingSoul, from the other posts I’ve seen from you on these forums, I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with anything you’ve said. On this particular topic, I think everyone agrees that the Church has shifted its position on this, but I’m trying to wrap my head around exactly what has changed to warrant this shift. And all the reasons that you and other have proposed were more or less true many years ago, which is why the argument seems flimsy and quite weak. I don’t mean to sound sharp or mean-spirited, but I’m simply, with all sincerity, trying to drill down to the REAL reason.

 

[LongingSoul]

Of course you don’t… you didn’t think the Church made a peep about it in the last century. However, many of us have heard the ‘chirping’ and it now sounds like its coming from a different bird.

Why don’t you think the Church has come out to condemn the progressive ‘rollback’ of the death penalty around the world over the last century?

 

[irenaeus1]

Why don’t you think the Church has come out to condemn the progressive ‘rollback’ of the death penalty around the world over the last century?

But I asked you first, why don’t you think the Church has come out to condemn the use of the death penalty around the world prior to about 1985 or 1990?

 

[estesbob]

Of course you don’t sense it… you didn’t think the Church made a peep about it in the last century. However, many of us have heard the ‘chirping’ and it now sounds like its coming from a different bird.

Listen, LongingSoul, from the other posts I’ve seen from you on these forums, I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with anything you’ve said. On this particular topic, I think everyone agrees that the Church has shifted its position on this, but I’m trying to wrap my head around exactly what has changed to warrant this shift. And all the reasons that you and other have proposed were more or less true many years ago, which is why the argument seems flimsy and quite weak. I don’t mean to sound sharp or mean-spirited, but I’m simply, with all sincerity, trying to drill down to the REAL reason.

The Popes comments upset me also. The logic used is the exact same logic used but those denominations that now support abortion and homosexual marriage. Somehow we are more enlightened than those who went before us?. But doesn’t that mean the Spirit let us live in error for 2,000 years? I keep waiting for someone to tell us the letter was mistranslated or for the Pope to clarify what he said but absent that it is very , very disturbing.

 

[LongingSoul]

Listen, LongingSoul, from the other posts I’ve seen from you on these forums, I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with anything you’ve said. On this particular topic, I think everyone agrees that the Church has shifted its position on this, but I’m trying to wrap my head around exactly what has changed to warrant this shift. And all the reasons that you and other have proposed were more or less true many years ago, which is why the argument seems flimsy and quite weak. I don’t mean to sound sharp or mean-spirited, but I’m simply, with all sincerity, trying to drill down to the REAL reason.

What I’ve tried to contribute to the death penalty debate, is the perspective from outside the US where the death penalty is a distant memory in civil law. Here it is viewed as a thing that served a purpose historically and legitimately but with increased sensitivity to the value and dignity of human beings, it could be recognised that we had a choice with regards to its use and decided that it was doing more harm than good within society ie. to the common good.

With a new perspective like this, when you re read Aquinas and the Church Fathers treatises regarding the death penalty, there is new light shed on the fullness of the Church teaching. For example, the death penalty has always been dealt with as an extension of the fifth commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. It has always been justified by the welfare of the community or common good first and foremost and in service to that, is symbolic of divine justice.

Those nuances were implicit but hidden by the needs, conditions and circumstances in the past. For example, we know that human life is valuable because we are made in the image of God… yet the Church of the day still supported the class, racial, ethnic divides that society was built on at the time. Today we don’t tolerate those sorts of divides. The laws and mores of society reflect a universal equality among all men and peoples right to freedom to own property and receive fare wages linked to a national standard etc.

We are more aware of the scope of humans capacity to esteem each other as equally valuable in so many more spheres of life. This changes the way we see Church teaching. Not actual the teachings themselves, but gives them deeper richer dimensions to work with.

In that light, the death penalty is being seen as no longer necessary to protect community and therefore no longer having the implicit natural law justification. The Church now reflects that aspect of her teaching by confirming that abolition in serving the common good is the best for justice.

 

[LongingSoul]

But I asked you first, why don’t you think the Church has come out to condemn the use of the death penalty around the world prior to about 1985 or 1990?

Because it was a natural and good evolution of human justice. She is speaking out now not to direct the way of civil law… but to counter the false impressions of the Church teaching on use of the death penalty that have arisen amidst the debate in the US. When the death penalty was slipping out of favour over here, there were questions from Christians regarding the Church teaching but they were quickly sorted. I’ve posted this article from the Australian Catholic newspaper of 1924, a few times in this debate. It is the Freemans Journal which still operates today under the name The Catholic Weekly. It gives some idea of how it was explained to the Catholics of the day who were worried that we had no right to abolish the death penalty…

**"Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?

This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system. Since it was difficult to arrest highway robbers, firebugs, etc., those that were actually caught were punished the more drastically. Whether fewer, such criminals now escape arrest and full punishment than formerly, especially if they are rich, may be questioned. But the fact remains that what we now call the police system was extremely primitive in the days of old. Robbery on a grand scale, formerly conducted by a liberal use of physical violence, is now carried on in a more refined manner, though the effect is the same. It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether. So much seems to be sure, that the number of those has not died out who will be deterred from committing great crimes by nothing short of death."**

Freeman’s Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932) (Later to become the Catholic Weekly still being printed today)
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/123253640

 

[irenaeus1]

What I’ve tried to contribute to the death penalty debate, is the perspective from outside the US where the death penalty is a distant memory in civil law. Here it is viewed as a thing that served a purpose historically and legitimately but with increased sensitivity to the value and dignity of human beings, it could be recognised that we had a choice with regards to its use and decided that it was doing more harm than good within society ie. to the common good.

With a new perspective like this, when you re read Aquinas and the Church Fathers treatises regarding the death penalty, there is new light shed on the fullness of the Church teaching. For example, the death penalty has always been dealt with as an extension of the fifth commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. It has always been justified by the welfare of the community or common good first and foremost and in service to that, is symbolic of divine justice.

Those nuances were implicit but hidden by the needs, conditions and circumstances in the past. For example, we know that human life is valuable because we are made in the image of God… yet the Church of the day still supported the class, racial, ethnic divides that society was built on at the time. Today we don’t tolerate those sorts of divides. The laws and mores of society reflect a universal equality among all men and peoples right to freedom to own property and receive fare wages linked to a national standard etc.

We are more aware of the scope of humans capacity to esteem each other as equally valuable in so many more spheres of life. This changes the way we see Church teaching. Not actual the teachings themselves, but gives them deeper richer dimensions to work with.

In that light, the death penalty is being seen as no longer necessary to protect community and therefore no longer having the implicit natural law justification. The Church now reflects that aspect of her teaching by confirming that abolition in serving the common good is the best for justice.

This is actually one of the better attempts I’ve heard at trying to explain the reason for the shift. But you continue to say ‘we’. Who is ‘we’? … only those in more advanced societies? What about less-developed nations who may care less about the cultural issues of more advanced nations? There are many societies that are decades (or more) behind many ‘advanced’ nations. So being that the Catholic Church is just that, ‘universal’, why is EVERY society held to the standard set by the most advanced? Why are they not allowed to hold to what was ‘true’ for us even just 25 years ago. Also, given that these so-called ‘advanced’ nations are falling apart everywhere else with regard to morality (e.g., acceptance of adultery or promiscuity in general, abortion, homosexual behavior, euthanasia, etc.), I certainly would not use ‘advanced’ societies’ laws and mores for direction in morality

 

[graciew]

So again, did this “different way” not exist in 1980, or 1970, or 1950, or 1920, or whenever, because the Church never used such language regarding the death penalty as it does today. What is it EXACTLY that changed?

The Pope has changed.This is Pope Francis.
" May recourse to …" is a possibility , which the Sovereign Pontiff considers unnecesary nowadays. And I trust that he has seen more ,knows more and is so close to Mary ,that his heart is being guided by the Holy Spirit.
He has stated he is a son of the Church , a sinner who has been looked upon by God.
So for all these resons I consider what he is saying in a filial and accepting light.
Capital Punishment is not the greater good to chose nowadays. Life has been across the ages.
I don t think I can squeeze my limited brain.any further.than all that Pope Francis has been.saying about a culture of life. In line with his predecessors.
If I have any better contribution , I will post it ,Iraeneus.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is actually one of the better attempts I’ve heard at trying to explain the reason for the shift. But you continue to say ‘we’. Who is ‘we’? … only those in more advanced societies? What about less-developed nations who may care less about the cultural issues of more advanced nations? There are many societies that are decades (or more) behind many ‘advanced’ nations. So being that the Catholic Church is just that, ‘universal’, why is EVERY society held to the standard set by the most advanced? Why are they not allowed to hold to what was ‘true’ for us even just 25 years ago. Also, given that these so-called ‘advanced’ nations are falling apart everywhere else with regard to morality (e.g., acceptance of adultery or promiscuity in general, abortion, homosexual behavior, euthanasia, etc.), I certainly would not use ‘advanced’ societies’ laws and mores for direction in morality

The rapid advances in technology especially communication technology and the consequent globalisation of the world over the last century, have created a new cross cultural identity for human beings. There are negative aspects of globalisation for sure, but there is also a forum for sharing ideas and especially ideologies regardless of wealth and cultural traditions. If you look at the global canvas of death penalty use, it reveals a divide between the world in general and places with distinctly anti Christian ideologies. The red indicates countries actively engaging in use of the DP and apart from the US, there is a clear pattern.

i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/Trishyliz/Capital_punishment_zpsgw07dnjg.png

Because of the forum of the internet, people can develop a very strong new cultural identity with one another that transcends the traditional identity. That also makes it a very big concern that terrorist idealogues have adopted this avenue to create a violent global community of marginalised misfits looking for a clan.

 

[irenaeus1]

The Pope has changed.This is Pope Francis.

That cannot be the reason. Otherwise what you are saying is that doctrine is at the whim of the pope. One pope teaches one thing, and another pope can later teach the opposite - merely because, as you say, ‘the pope has changed.’

 

[irenaeus1]

Because it was a natural and good evolution of human justice. She is speaking out now not to direct the way of civil law… but to counter the false impressions of the Church teaching on use of the death penalty that have arisen amidst the debate in the US. When the death penalty was slipping out of favour over here, there were questions from Christians regarding the Church teaching but they were quickly sorted. I’ve posted this article from the Australian Catholic newspaper of 1924, a few times in this debate. It is the Freemans Journal which still operates today under the name The Catholic Weekly. It gives some idea of how it was explained to the Catholics of the day who were worried that we had no right to abolish the death penalty…

**"Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?

This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system. Since it was difficult to arrest highway robbers, firebugs, etc., those that were actually caught were punished the more drastically. Whether fewer, such criminals now escape arrest and full punishment than formerly, especially if they are rich, may be questioned. But the fact remains that what we now call the police system was extremely primitive in the days of old. Robbery on a grand scale, formerly conducted by a liberal use of physical violence, is now carried on in a more refined manner, though the effect is the same. It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether. So much seems to be sure, that the number of those has not died out who will be deterred from committing great crimes by nothing short of death."**

Freeman’s Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932) (Later to become the Catholic Weekly still being printed today)
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/123253640

That’s actually a good article. However, what I understand from that is already the position I take as consistent with traditional Church teaching; namely, the State has the right to impose the death penalty (which means the State also has the right, I suppose, to not exercise its right). But that’s different than the Church now admonishing the State that it cannot exercise its own right to impose the death penalty.

 

[graciew]

That cannot be the reason. Otherwise what you are saying is that doctrine is at the whim of the pope. One pope teaches one thing, and another pope can later teach the opposite - merely because, as you say, ‘the pope has changed.’

No ! I just could not think of anything else that had changed that I had not posted.
And I said it was prudential judgement .