Capital punishment never justified, Pope argues [CC]

[Ender]

Whenever I see threads like this with posters advocating for the Death Penalty I always have to ask why God let Cain live after he killed Able.

I have never suggested that the death penalty is mandatory for every murderer; the church has always recognized exceptions to the rule. Regarding Cain, the church has not referred to this incident in explaining her position on capital punishment.

One explanation I have read goes to the question of who is authorized to inflict punishments. Specifically, only a legitimate government has that authority. Vengeance is denied the individual but it is the obligation of the state, but since there were no legitimate governments at that time there was no one who had the authority to execute Cain.

How can an offender regain the exercise of his or her freedom if they are dead?

Obviously he cannot, but returning criminals to society is not the primary objective of punishment. Your objection pertains to life sentences as well; do you object to them on the same grounds?

If you can help me understand I might be able to understand were you are coming from better.

The simple answer is that punishment is an obligation of justice, and the more severe the crime the more severe the punishment must be.

Ender

 

[Elena321]

That might be your objective, but it is not what the church teaches. Sin demands punishment in retribution for the sin, and not merely to protect society.*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. *(Aquinas)
Even rehabilitating someone does not necessarily excuse him from the punishment he owes for his crime.*At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. *(JPII)

• The primary*** purpose of the punishment** which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. (JPII)
  Ender

Ender,

I’m in complete agreeance with Pope John Paul 11 's words.
I’m not sure I interpret them how you do though.

If both Pope Francis and Pope John Paul 11 said the need for using the death penalty was pretty non existant in today’s developed countries and also the Us Bishops have called for the abolition of it and most Australian priests don’t agree with the death penalty…
if after all them thought/said that -being guided by the Holy Spirit and speaking in reference to and reflection of our times- and I was still couldn’t see the wisdom,Honestly I would examine my thoughts and emotions as to is there something within my feelings or reasoning that I’m not seeing that is putting me at odds with them.

Also,if public protection wasn’t the primary motive then why would Pope Francis state "…“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…”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404377.htm

 

[Ender]

If both Pope Francis and Pope John Paul 11 said the need for using the death penalty was pretty non existant in today’s developed countries and also the Us Bishops have called for the abolition of it and most Australian priests don’t agree with the death penalty…

That is a prudential judgment, and we are not obliged to agree with it.*Their [the pope and the bishops] prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)

…if after all them thought/said that -being guided by the Holy Spirit and speaking in reference to and reflection of our times- and I was still couldn’t see the wisdom,Honestly I would examine my thoughts and emotions as to is there something within my feelings or reasoning that I’m not seeing that is putting me at odds with them.

Judgments are not necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit, otherwise we would be obligated to assent to them. As for being at odds with the last three popes on this issue, mostly what I have done is dispute the arguments being presented about punishment, retribution, mercy, forgiveness, etc. Most, by the way, are not arguments the pontiffs themselves have made, and they are not supported by what the church has said about those matters.

Also,if public protection wasn’t the primary motive then why would Pope Francis state "…“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…”

Those are not actually Pope Francis’ words; that is from the first sentence in CCC 2267, and it appears not to be accurate. In any event we are told what the primary objective of punishment is in 2266: “*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *Preventing future crimes has absolutely nothing to do with redressing the disorder caused by crimes already committed. Whatever else may be true of protection, it cannot possibly be considered the primary objective of punishment.

Ender

 

[RosslynV]

Sts Thomas Aquinas and Augustine was pro capital punishment. They were misguided. The conciliar church gets it right again!

 

[simple_soul]

I have never suggested that the death penalty is mandatory for every murderer; the church has always recognized exceptions to the rule. Regarding Cain, the church has not referred to this incident in explaining her position on capital punishment.

One explanation I have read goes to the question of who is authorized to inflict punishments. Specifically, only a legitimate government has that authority. Vengeance is denied the individual but it is the obligation of the state, but since there were no legitimate governments at that time there was no one who had the authority to execute Cain.
Obviously he cannot, but returning criminals to society is not the primary objective of punishment. Your objection pertains to life sentences as well; do you object to them on the same grounds?
The simple answer is that punishment is an obligation of justice, and the more severe the crime the more severe the punishment must be.

Ender

I’m wondering if the problem I’m having in understanding you is in not understanding adequately what you believe the “adequate” punishment should be. Or maybe it is more like we just have different understandings as to what kind of punishment is adequate.

 

[Ender]

Sts Thomas Aquinas and Augustine was pro capital punishment. They were misguided. The conciliar church gets it right again!

Aquinas and Augustine were hardly alone in taking that position.*Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment. *(Cardinal Dulles)
It needs to be recognized that the church has always recognized the validity of capital punishment. It was in fact held to be a heresy to assert that states did not have the moral right to employ it. Opposition to capital punishment within the church is in fact a very recent phenomenon.*Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful. *(Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)
Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m wondering if the problem I’m having in understanding you is in not understanding adequately what you believe the “adequate” punishment should be. Or maybe it is more like we just have different understandings as to what kind of punishment is adequate.

We are told (2266) that a just punishment is one that is “*commensurate with the gravity of the crime”, *and that not only does the state have a right to impose such a penalty but has the duty to do so. What penalty then is commensurate with the gravity of the crime of murder? The church has discussed this as well.*So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. *

*The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. … he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself! *(Catechism of Trent)
It seems very clear to me that execution is the just punishment for murder, a position the church has taken throughout her entire existence. This is not “my” position, it is that of the church, which can be seen from 2000 years of writing on the subject.

Ender

 

[philipl]

The Church is adopting a gradually serious language which has given people time to re-orient their perspective in places where capital punishment was mistakenly thought to be a divine command and intrinsically indispensable. I’ve observed that gradual transformation over the last 15 or so years via the internet discussion medium.

So the Church and the Pope were wrong in the past?

 

[philipl]

“Nowadays the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed,” Pope Francis said at a March 20 meeting with members of the International Committee against the …

More…

I support the death penalty, but would be willing to look at alternatives. I disagree with his positon that life sentences are wrong. We need many more to serve life sentences. Far too often those who go to jail serve their time, go out and recommit crimes. Everyone would have been better off had they stayed in jail

 

[philipl]

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.

So if the next Pope says that capital punishment is ok in very rare cases, you would agree?

 

[J_Peterson]

The simple answer is that punishment is an obligation of justice, and the more severe the crime the more severe the punishment must be.

Ender

It sounds like eye for an eye to me. Would you support amputation of a theif’s hands if they can’t keep from stealing? Would rape be an appropriate response to rape (or perhaps forced amputation of the penis)?

 

[livingwordunity]

It sounds like eye for an eye to me. Would you support amputation of a theif’s hands if they can’t keep from stealing? Would rape be an appropriate response to rape (or perhaps forced amputation of the penis)?

The teaching of the Catholic Church that capital punishment for a murderer can be justifiable is based on God’s divine revelation. There has never been any revelation from God that rape is an appropriate response to rape. And putting a convicted murderer to death is not the same as murder. The definition of murder is the deliberate killing of someone who is innocent. “Thou shall not kill” means that we should not commit murder. Killing an animal or an insect, capital punishment, or killing in self-defense is not murder. But when a baby is aborted it is murder because it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human life. Capital punishment can be a murder if it is known that the person was innocent when he is put to death. For example, it was murder when capital punishment was applied to Jesus since he was put to death even with everyone knowing that he was innocent. The crowd that wanted to crucify Jesus was the same crowd that wanted to set free the one that everyone knew was a murderer. It’s a strange paradox that is still true of how the world is today.

 

[simple_soul]

We are told (2266) that a just punishment is one that is “*commensurate with the gravity of the crime”, *and that not only does the state have a right to impose such a penalty but has the duty to do so. What penalty then is commensurate with the gravity of the crime of murder? The church has discussed this as well.*So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. *

*The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. … he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself! *(Catechism of Trent)
It seems very clear to me that execution is the just punishment for murder, a position the church has taken throughout her entire existence. This is not “my” position, it is that of the church, which can be seen from 2000 years of writing on the subject.

Ender

All a I can ask then is why then was not mankind anielated for murdering God Himself, Jesus Christ?

 

[Ender]

It sounds like eye for an eye to me.

In a sense that is exactly what it is; it is the meaning of retributive justice. It is also what the church teaches, and she has never repudiated that concept.*when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. *(St. Bellarmine)

Would you support amputation of a theif’s hands if they can’t keep from stealing? Would rape be an appropriate response to rape (or perhaps forced amputation of the penis)?

Of course not. It is not the barbarity of the crime that needs to be matched, just its severity. Again, this is what the church teaches; this is not my personal interpretation.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. ***(CCC 2266)

Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. (Aquinas)
Ender

 

[Ender]

All a I can ask then is why then was not mankind annihilated for murdering God Himself, Jesus Christ?

I don’t think your argument is with me. All I have done is cite what the church has taught about capital punishment. You might consider the possibility that it is your position that doesn’t correlate with what the church actually teaches.

Ender

 

[simple_soul]

I don’t think your argument is with me. All I have done is cite what the church has taught about capital punishment. You might consider the possibility that it is your position that doesn’t correlate with what the church actually teaches.

Ender

If you say so.

But as far and in as much as I understand it my position does not contradict what the Church has taught and is currently teaching.

But then again I am a work in progress .

 

[livingwordunity]

I want to add something to what I said about the killing of animals. Although killing an animal is not the same as killing a human, I think it can be a mortal sin if someone is deliberately cruel to an animal or kills an animal with cruel intent as opposed to when an animal is killed in a humane manner for the necessity of food. I base my opinion on Numbers 22.

 

[LongingSoul]

So the Church and the Pope were wrong in the past?

No, the Church and the Popes of the past were perfectly orthodox… its just that some misguided laymen believed that capital punishment was a divine command or inalienable right of the state when in fact God permits its use in the course of civil justice if that is the best medicine for the common good. That means that if the practice is actually detrimental to the common good, it is morally wrong to retain it as an inalienable ‘principle of justice’ alone. The decision to use capital punishment is very much a moral issue …not merely a matter of taste.

That is why the Church has taken different positions on the application of the death penalty at different times, but are all within the scope of the doctrine.

 

[LongingSoul]

So if the next Pope says that capital punishment is ok in very rare cases, you would agree?

If another Pope in communion with the Bishops were to defend say the US right to retain the practice, I would orient my position to match that despite having a personal repulsion for the death penalty. I would do that because I believe the Church is my trusted moral guide with my souls welfare at heart. I can’t imagine having any contrary position to the Magisterium.

 

[Ender]

That is why the Church has taken different positions on the application of the death penalty at different times, but are all within the scope of the doctrine.

It is misleading to suggest the church has taken “different positions” on any issue. She has always had one and only one doctrine regarding capital punishment, which is that a state has a moral right to use it. That is, if you will, the rule. She has also acknowledged that its use may be constrained by circumstances; that is, she recognizes that there may be exceptions to the rule.

The opposition to its use today represents an exception to the rule. The current Magisterium opposes it because they believe its use is detrimental to the society that employs it. This assumption may be true, and it may not, but it does not represent a different “position” on capital punishment. It represents a judgment about its usefulness.Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender