Capital punishment

[LongingSoul]

Yes. I do not take this to mean, however, that the state should forgo retribution simply because it is imperfect. Retribution by the state remains not just a right but an obligation. As Dulles said:

• …the common good demands it. Justice is the proper relationship of one man to another and and a man to the community.*
  Ender

That was actually my comment prior to the Card. Dulles quote.

Nowhere ever has anyone argued that all punishment should be forgone. The common good demands that justice be done and justice is the proper relationship of one man to another and of a man to the community.

The State also exists in order to serve the common good. It serves the common good and is accountable to the common good. It evaluates the types of punishments it will use in the system and if one type of punishment is deemed harmful to the common good, it abandons that for another type. For the State to say that the common good is only secondary to its own interpretation of divine law… is to exceed its capabilities. The Church being ‘Christ with us’ has a duty to inform its flock in matters of justice and mercy as its service to the common good… and that’s what we have today with EV and the CCC which give clear guidance regarding the use of capital punishment in our times.

If the common good is being undermined by the use of capital punishment as a sentence, it has no place in human justice. We have evolved to a degree where it is rarely warranted for the practical purposes of punishment and *is actually feeding *the culture of death that has consumed the people. It is toxic to the common good. The State, as have the States in many other countries, has a duty to abandon it.

 

[loveandlight]

All execution does in the modern world is take away Gods gift of life and ends a life before Gods grace.

We have no need to kill to protect the public and killing does not act as a deterrent.

We should protect all life even the life of the most heinous of sinners.

 

[nmgauss]

All execution does in the modern world is take away Gods gift of life and ends a life before Gods grace.

We have no need to kill to protect the public and killing does not act as a deterrent.

We should protect all life even the life of the most heinous of sinners.

You are assuming that the life of a miserable person is a gift. For me and some of my family members, it is an ordeal.

Is killing a murderer supposed to act as a deterrent? Is there evidence to this effect? When a policeman shoots to defend himself or to stop a fleeing murderer, is this justified?

Killing a murderer removes that person as a threat to society. What is wrong with that? Of course, exile on a desert island is a way to remove a murderer from society. If the island is tropical and full of food, then there is no expense to society.

When you say, “We should protect all life”, what is the consequence of not protecting all life? Does all life mean only human life, or does it include four-footed creatures and birds?

 

[LongingSoul]

Of course, exile on a desert island is a way to remove a murderer from society. If the island is tropical and full of food, then there is no expense to society.

Hey you are talking about Australia here! Exile worked brilliantly for the English when they abolished capital punishment. We are the criminals that became a garden of loveliness by the mercy of God.:harp:

 

[Ender]

That was actually my comment prior to the Card. Dulles quote.

Well there you go; we’ve agreed on something.

Nowhere ever has anyone argued that all punishment should be forgone.

It is not a question of whether any punishment is applied but of whether the punishment is just. That is, it is neither too harsh … nor too lenient.

The common good demands that justice be done and justice is the proper relationship of one man to another and of a man to the community.

This is true, but it begs the question of what “proper” means in this context.

The State … evaluates the types of punishments it will use in the system and if one type of punishment is deemed harmful to the common good, it abandons that for another type.

True, the application of prudential judgment is the responsibility of the State.

The Church being ‘Christ with us’ has a duty to inform its flock in matters of justice and mercy as its service to the common good… and that’s what we have today with EV and the CCC which give clear guidance regarding the use of capital punishment in our times.

Well, whether it is the church or the state who decides what is best in a particular situation, it is still a prudential judgment.

If the common good is being undermined by the use of capital punishment as a sentence, it has no place in human justice.

This assumes that all the effects of an action can be foreseen. There is certainly nothing unjust about acting in good faith even if the action turns out catastrophically. That you (or the clergy) believe that capital punishment undermines the common good doesn’t change an opinion into a fact. And it doesn’t make it unjust of me to believe otherwise.

We have evolved to a degree where it is rarely warranted for the practical purposes of punishment…

This is wrong. The nature of punishment cannot “evolve”.

… and *is actually feeding *the culture of death that has consumed the people. It is toxic to the common good. The State, as have the States in many other countries, has a duty to abandon it.

This is a reasonable (and debatable) position, but it is entirely prudential. It is your opinion and represents a temporary objection to the use of capital punishment. As I keep pointing out, this is not a moral bar to the use of the death penalty; it is practical objection to its use in current societies.

Ender

 

[nmgauss]

Hey you are talking about Australia here! Exile worked brilliantly for the English when they abolished capital punishment. We are the criminals that became a garden of loveliness by the mercy of God.:harp:

Aren’t you glad that a whole continent was devoted to exile? Whatever criminal tendencies existed in those being exiled worked themselves out. The murderers either continued to murder, were murdered themselves, or stopped murdering. The thieves stole from their fellow exiled or were killed in the process. Fortunately, a large region with excellent resources provided a base from which to expand the colony. If the place of exile was the size of Tasmania and was isolated in the middle of the ocean, such a flourishing of culture might have been curtailed.

 

[Ender]

All execution does in the modern world is take away Gods gift of life and ends a life before Gods grace.

Man cannot thwart God’s purposes.*Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. *(Romano Amerio)

We have no need to kill to protect the public …

Just based on the (US) statistics, it appears that the public is in fact better protected when killers are executed.

…killing does not act as a deterrent.

Sure it does. There may be debate as to how much of a deterrent it is but there really should be no debate at all that some are deterred.*Homicide is rare among slaves because of their dread and fear of capital punishment, whereas among the rich it is constantly committed because of their confident hope of immunity. *(Salvian)
Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is perhaps the strongest statement I have seen in defense of the position that capital punishment depends on historical circumstances. Against this, however, is Pius XII’s comments

What specifically did the Pope say?

I am not aware of what Amerio is referring to with regard to the comments of Augustine and Aquinas.

Of course it will be impossible for us to know specifically what comments he is talking about, this comment from St. Augustine seems to take into account historical circumstances:

(the) punishment of those people, though they have confessed to such great crimes, may not involve the death penalty both on account of our conscience and for the sake of emphasizing Catholic gentleness. (Letter 139 to Marcellinus)

Another one similar would be this one:

• For, although we can deny any responsibility for the death of those who are seen to have been handed over for judgment, not due to the accusations of ours, but because of the indictment of those who have charge of the defense of the public peace, we still do not want the sufferings of the servants of God to be avenged by punishments equal to those sufferings, as by the law requiring an eye for an eye. It is not that we would prevent criminals from losing the freedom to commit crimes, but we want it rather to be sufficient either that, alive and with no part of the body mutilated, they be taken from their restlessness and steered to the peace of good health by the restraints of law or that they be assigned to some useful work away from their evil works. This is, of course, called condemnation, but who does not understand that it should be called a benefit rather than a punishment when their bold fierceness is restrained and the remedy of repentance is not withdrawn?* (Letter 133 to Marcellinus, 1.1)

Note the similar wording to 2267 when Augustine says “defense of the public peace”.

Perhaps Amerio thinks historical circumstances are implied in Aquinas’ thoughts on the death penalty, since according to St. Thomas “it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good”

It is debatable whether capital punishment can or should be considered as an aspect of self defense. We know, for example, that while one may kill in self defense, such killing must not be intentional. In the case of capital punishment, however, the killing is very much intended; that is the purpose of the punishment, not some unintended effect.

I’m not entirely sure about this. It seems we have to see all punishment in a way as a kind of societal self-defense, or phrased differently, as a (self) defense for the common good. St. Thomas says, “It is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good,” (Article 7). If Evangelium Vitae says we should see capital punishment as an aspect of self-defense, we ought to.

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Humani Generis 20)

This is another troubling quote about which there is some debate.

The Holy Father is obviously invoking the principle of double effect in the passage, for his concern is to deny that the “fatal outcome” is attributable to the self-defender’s intention; accordingly, he cites Part II-II, Question 64, Article 7 of the Summa at this point. Paragraph 56 then begins with the remark, “It is in this context that the question of capital punishment arises.” But this is false, at least historically, for the question was never considered by the Church within that context. (Kevin L. Flannery, S.J., Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)
​

I think that interpretation is too narrow. All punishment is in some form self-defense.

I don’t think this is supportable; that is simply not what the words mean. One might consider deterrence to be defense by other means, but defense carries no concept of retribution or rehabilitation.

Traditional scholastic terminology isn’t used, but I don’t think it is far-fetched to believe that the same concept is being communicating using non-Thomistic/non-traditional language. Keep in mind Ratzinger played a major role in forming and revising the Catechism.

Dulles at least recognizes the problem, just as he recognizes that the wording of the relevant sections in EV and the catechism is at best confusing, but I’m not sure Professor Long provides much support for the positions those documents put forth.

I didn’t mean to use Long as support for the wording of the Catechism, but more to show that we don’t need to assume only physical defense is meant by defense.​

 

[Ender]

What specifically did the Pope say?

*Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2). *(Fr. John Hardon)

Of course it will be impossible for us to know specifically what comments he is talking about, this comment from St. Augustine seems to take into account historical circumstances:

Certainly circumstances affect the decision to employ capital punishment, but as I’ve said the exception does not invalidate the rule. As for St. Augustine, he opposed the use of capital punishment for those who committed crimes against Christians. He did not oppose its use against others as the letter to Marcellinus shows (my translation is different than yours):For although* we might silently pass over the execution of criminals who may be regarded as brought up for trial not upon an accusation of our**s, but by an indictment presented by those to whose vigilance the preservation of the public peace is entrusted, we do not wish to have the sufferings of the servants of God avenged by the infliction of precisely similar injuries in the way of retaliation. *

It seems we have to see all punishment in a way as a kind of societal self-defense, or phrased differently, as a (self) defense for the common good. St. Thomas says, “It is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good,” (Article 7). If Evangelium Vitae says we should see capital punishment as an aspect of self-defense, we ought to.

This approach seems to completely change the church’s understanding of the nature of punishment (as I perceive it). The primary objective of punishment has never been defense; it has always been - and remains so today - retribution, that is, retributive justice. It is justice, not defense, that must be served first.

But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Humani Generis 20)

This quote doesn’t seem to apply as the matter has never been under dispute … at least not before 1995. This is one of the problems with the idea that this doctrine has changed or can ever be changed.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)

All punishment is in some form self-defense.

Punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and defense. It is equally true to say that punishment is in some form rehabilitation and deterrence, but this does not change the fact that punishment is first of all intended to redress the disorder of a past offense, not the prevention of new ones.

Traditional scholastic terminology isn’t used, but I don’t think it is far-fetched to believe that the same concept is being communicating using non-Thomistic/non-traditional language. Keep in mind Ratzinger played a major role in forming and revising the Catechism.

I will agree that the wording is confusing at best. As far as Ratzinger’s involvement, here are his comments on the changes:“You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear.

“In my statements during the presentation of the encyclical to the press, I sought to elucidate these elements, and noted the importance of taking such circumstantial considerations into account. It is in this sense that the Catechism may be rewritten, naturally without any modification of the relevant doctrinal principles."
“The death penalty may be permitted to disappear” and “the death penalty is a violation of man’s dignity” are completely different perspectives. I don’t get too involved in debates about capital punishment being unhelpful, but I jump in with both feet where there is a moral objection to its use.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This approach seems to completely change the church’s understanding of the nature of punishment (as I perceive it). The primary objective of punishment has never been defense; it has always been - and remains so today - retribution, that is, retributive justice. It is justice, not defense, that must be served first.

That old strawman nugget. Nobody is saying punishment should be abolished… just this particular sentence which is not serving the purpose for which it was allowed and is in fact causing the very opposite result against the common good.

Aquinas talks about the death sentence in relation to self defense here…

"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. " - Summa Theologica

Note… that is not a statement where you can transpose ‘punishment’ over ‘capital punishment’ and make sense. It addresses a very specific sentence that serves a purpose and that purpose is ‘self defense’. The primary purpose of eating is bodily nutrition, but it does not follow that the primary purpose of *eating chocolate *is bodily nutrition. The first is the broad truth of a thing… the second is a specific aspect that can sometimes actually go against the broad truth to the point where it should be eliminated from the diet altogether.

 

[CrossofChrist]

*Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2). *(Fr. John Hardon)

I’m not saying the teaching is conditioned by historical circumstances, but that the application of that teaching is.

Certainly circumstances affect the decision to employ capital punishment, but as I’ve said the exception does not invalidate the rule. As for St. Augustine, he opposed the use of capital punishment for those who committed crimes against Christians. He did not oppose its use against others as the letter to Marcellinus shows

I’m not opposed to its use per se, but it ought not to be used.

This approach seems to completely change the church’s understanding of the nature of punishment (as I perceive it). The primary objective of punishment has never been defense; it has always been - and remains so today - retribution, that is, retributive justice. It is justice, not defense, that must be served first.

The primary objective of punishment is retribution, yes. But the common good must always be promoted/defended, so the application of punishments xyz is limited by whatever best defends society (the common good).

As far as Ratzinger’s involvement, here are his comments on the changes:“You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear.

“In my statements during the presentation of the encyclical to the press, I sought to elucidate these elements, and noted the importance of taking such circumstantial considerations into account. It is in this sense that the Catechism may be rewritten, naturally without any modification of the relevant doctrinal principles."

This is what I’ve been trying to say. If the Holy Father didn’t alter doctrinal principles as they are presented in the Catechism, then it seems to be incorrect to say that the beginning of 2267 says something contrary to the traditional doctrine. Because of this, “defending human lives” seems to mean more than mere physical defense, and perhaps means as Ratzinger says in your quote, “the self-defense of society”.

“The death penalty may be permitted to disappear” and “the death penalty is a violation of man’s dignity” are completely different perspectives.

Agreed. I think the Catechism is saying though that the death penalty being used today, because of “the concrete conditions of the common good”, doesn’t effectively show forth the Gospel of Life (“the dignity of the human person”).

 

[Ender]

Aquinas talks about the death sentence in relation to self defense here…

"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. "

You missed the point Aquinas was making, which was that, unlike the individual who is forbidden to intend to kill in self defense, the minister of the state (e.g. policeman) may intend to kill in the execution of his duties of defending the state. The issue he was addressing was the matter of intent.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m not saying the teaching is conditioned by historical circumstances, but that the application of that teaching is.

I grant that circumstances determine whether its use is wise, just not that they determine whether its use is moral.

I’m not opposed to its use per se, but it ought not to be used.

Why? Because it is unwise or because it is improper?

The primary objective of punishment is retribution, yes. But the common good must always be promoted/defended, so the application of punishments xyz is limited by whatever best defends society (the common good).

“Defends society” can be a vague and misleading phrase, especially as “defend” has come to mean for most people physical defense only. Pius XII said:*this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself.
*If defending society includes this perspective then I can agree with you, especially as the Catechism of Trent observed that:Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *
It was the concern about forming a “just conception of the wickedness of murder” that was the basis for Trent’s support of capital punishment. After allIs it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? * (J. Budziszewski)

This is what I’ve been trying to say. If the Holy Father didn’t alter doctrinal principles as they are presented in the Catechism, then it seems to be incorrect to say that the beginning of 2267 says something contrary to the traditional doctrine.
Because of this, “defending human lives” seems to mean more than mere physical defense, and perhaps means as Ratzinger says in your quote, “the self-defense of society”.

Perhaps, but it seems a real stretch to suggest that “defending lives” really means “defending lives…and society as a whole.” I am disturbed by the need to force a meaning onto the words as written in order to get the desired result.

I think the Catechism is saying though that the death penalty being used today, because of “the concrete conditions of the common good”, doesn’t effectively show forth the Gospel of Life (“the dignity of the human person”).

Perhaps we can at least agree on this:*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L)
Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

Why? Because it is unwise or because it is improper?

It is unwise.

“Defends society” can be a vague and misleading phrase, especially as “defend” has come to mean for most people physical defense only.

True, but in the Catechism the Church is trying to teach people how we should view other persons and society. So it makes sense to include more than mere physicality in “defense”.

CCC 1880: A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future. By means of society, each man is established as an “heir” and receives certain “talents” that enrich his identity and whose fruits he must develop.3 He rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part and respect to those in authority who have charge of the common good.

If defending society includes this perspective then I can agree with you

Then it seems we don’t really disagree, except of course that I don’t think the death penalty should be used.

Perhaps, but it seems a real stretch to suggest that “defending lives” really means “defending lives…and society as a whole.” I am disturbed by the need to force a meaning onto the words as written in order to get the desired result.

I don’t think its that big of a deal; the same concept is being presented, just in a different way than it traditionally has been (at least since 1000 A.D).

Perhaps we can at least agree on this:*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L)
Ender

People are definitely confused, but hopefully that will be overcome soon enough.

 

[Paleocon]

There are many wars going on right now.

If the leaders in those countries were executed, would that not be just?

I believe in the way Jesus Christ lived and died, so I wouldn’t be part of it.

But for those leaders that cause so many deaths–would it not be justice to them?

Waging war is not capital.