Capital Punishment

[flower_lady]

Is or is not capital punishment considered right or moral in the Catholic Church even though it is premeditated murder by human beings. Who gives them the right to kill. Jesus surely does not, or can you show me where He does in the bible. I understand in war it is legal to kill, but I can not see why other than war or self defense it would be justifiable.
Thank you for your answers. Brenda

 

[1ke]

Is or is not capital punishment considered right or moral in the Catholic Church

What the Church teaches about capital punishment can be found in the Catechism under the Fifth Commandment:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

It is not intrinsically evil, and can therefore be used when necessary, but neither is it necessary in most situations in modern circumstances.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

even though it is premeditated murder by human beings.

Murder is a crime against the innocent. Those who commmit capital crimes are not innocent.

Who gives them the right to kill.

Jesus acknowledged the legitimate authority of civil government. All authority does ultimately come from God. What the Church teaches about civil authority can be found here, under the Fourth Commandment:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7W.HTM

That does not mean we must support the death penalty as it is currently administered in our country or in others.

 

[jlhargus]

Is or is not capital punishment considered right or moral in the Catholic Church even though it is premeditated murder by human beings. Who gives them the right to kill. Jesus surely does not, or can you show me where He does in the bible. I understand in war it is legal to kill, but I can not see why other than war or self defense it would be justifiable. Thank you for your answers. Brenda

[Rms13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For **there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.]

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution… Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

CCC 2238 Footnote #43 Rms13:1-2

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Several popes have called for the abolition of capital punishment but i am done arguing about that.

They should just put in the catachism.

Dont reply.
PM if you have a question.

 

[jlhargus]

Several popes have called for the abolition of capital punishment but i am done arguing about that.

They should just put in the catachism.

Dont reply. PM if you have a question.

It is a teaching now as the Church no longer views it as necessary or acceptable.

 

[mVitus]

When necessary to protect the lives of others, the death penalty is moral. But it’s so unnecessary in most modern situations for modern countries that such a stance could hardly be considered an endorsement to any extent.

So while in the US, for example a murderer can be locked away without threat to society, a remote village in Africa without access to a secure prison or whatnot is indeed able to use the death penalty to prevent a murderer from killing more innocents. But it is preferred we don’t execute the death penalty in unnecessary cases, depriving a person the chance to repent.

 

[mikekle]

Jesus acknowledged the legitimate authority of civil government. All authority does ultimately come from God. What the Church teaches about civil authority can be found here, under the Fourth Commandment:

That is true, but this does not mean we should just accept anything and everything a civil secular govt imposes or asks of us, it is possible for a govt to loose its ‘legitimacy’ or overstep their bounds, like we see with the US govt today, they have a hand in almost every aspect of our lives, imo, that is not right and definitely not legitimate.

When Jesus told us to ‘give caesar what is caesars, and God what is Gods’, this does not mean, ‘give’ caesar EVERYTHING he asks of you…its only what they are due, so this could lead to huge differences in what they are due and what they ask of us. Example, Govt has no business being involved in marriages, but they are, so this is something they are asking of us, but something we should not give them/ not comply with or obey, or if we found out taxpayer money was going towards abortion, that is something they are not due, and we should not contribute to this, no matter what the secular consequences are.

Besides that, Jesus warned christians, the secular authorities would hate us, due to his name, in order for them to hate us, we would have to be saying and doing things they disagree with, or is not beneficial to them…if every christian obeyed every single thing they asked and did not cause any problems for them, what reason would they have to hate us so badly?
.

 

[neophyte]

Is or is not capital punishment considered right or moral in the Catholic Church even though it is premeditated murder by human beings.

So God comitted a moral evil when he commanded that capital punishment be done in Israel? Is that really what you think?

 

[1ke]

That is true, but this does not mean we should just accept anything and everything a civil secular govt imposes or asks of us,

Please show me where I suggested that we should.

 

[Rau]

Is or is not capital punishment considered right or moral in the Catholic Church even though it is premeditated murder by human beings.

Neither capital punishment, nor lethal acts of self defence, nor lethal acts of war can be equated - a priori - to premeditated murder.

Individual acts of these kinds can all be moral acts. And (other) individual acts which are (or appear to be) of these kinds can be immoral.

 

[mikekle]

Dont you find it curious interpretations and statements like this tend to never negatively effect a secular authority(govt)?

I may be in the minority, but I get very suspicious when the church and secular govt are in agreement on so many things.

 

[Rau]

Dont you find it curious interpretations and statements like this tend to never negatively effect a secular authority(govt)?

I may be in the minority, but I get very suspicious when the church and secular govt are in agreement on so many things.

Not sure I understand you. The capital punishment laws in, say, the USA are not in accord with what the Church proposes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Neither capital punishment, nor lethal acts of self defence, nor lethal acts of war can be equated - a priori - to premeditated murder.

Individual acts of these kinds can all be moral acts. And (other) individual acts which are (or appear to be) of these kinds can be immoral.

As in self defence, even the State must be careful to intend the good/reform of the executed criminal and that there be no other reasonable means of protecting society.
One still may not murder (ie directly intend to destroy) even the guilty, let alone the innocent.

In this day and age the Church considers permanent incarceration a reasonable possibility.
For that reason Popes in recent times have considered CP immoral in practice.

 

[Rau]

…
In this day and age the Church considers permanent incarceration a reasonable possibility.
For that reason Popes in recent times have considered CP immoral in practice.

Indeed. I take the view that the judgement being made is that CP as practiced does more harm than good. It may also be argued that it is improperly motivated. Regrettably, that would only scratch the surface of the deficiencies of the correctional system.

 

[mikekle]

Not sure I understand you. The capital punishment laws in, say, the USA are not in accord with what the Church proposes.

True, but has that fact caused any problems for the church or the secular Govt at anytime?

What Im trying to say is, the secular Govt does not seem to be too worried about the church and what it is teaching the laypeople (the church not seen as a real threat). If it was, we would see the Govt fiercely going after the church.

When your enemy is not actively trying to destroy you or frightened of you, there is probably a reason (see what Im saying?)

 

[Rau]

…I may be in the minority, but I get very suspicious when the church and secular govt are in agreement on so many things.

Perhaps if you explained the above statement your point would become clearer?

 

[Peebo]

True, but has that fact caused any problems for the church or the secular Govt at anytime?

What Im trying to say is, the secular Govt does not seem to be too worried about the church and what it is teaching the laypeople (the church not seen as a real threat). If it was, we would see the Govt fiercely going after the church.

When your enemy is not actively trying to destroy you or frightened of you, there is probably a reason (see what Im saying?)

I get your point…(I think) although we did see this to a degree with the previous administration on abortion when it was clear from Obama…and Clinton down…that they had pretty strident opposing views against what the Catholic church in particular teaches…I think that the Democrat party is a decidedly pro-choice party…in regards to capital government…unfortunately even with the last 3 Popes opposition to it…it just doesn’t generate the same type of emotion here in the US as is the case with abortion

 

[JoeFreedom]

There was a fantastic article in the most recent Catholic Answers magazine, which I do not have readily available at the moment. If I recall correctly, the two authors arguing several compelling reasons that the death penalty is in fact a morally upright action and is quite biblical in nature, and should be employed in more cases, and should not be restricted by the fact that we can prevent further recurrences of the crimes committed by the prisoner simply by locking them up for life. I’ll have to go back for particulars, but in general, serial murderers who violently torture and murder their victims who is put away for life is not being punished with a commensurate nor appropriate punishment to the crimes committed. Additionally, instituting capital punishment and following through should be a deterrent, and a hopeful method for bringing the person to repent of the crimes and ultimately back to God.

 

[Ender]

Indeed. I take the view that the judgement being made is that CP as practiced does more harm than good. It may also be argued that it is improperly motivated. Regrettably, that would only scratch the surface of the deficiencies of the correctional system.

It is reasonable to argue that today the use of capital punishment does more harm than good. If so, that would be a good reason to refrain from employing it, but that is a practical judgment, not a moral one, and it is one which each of us is free to make for himself, even though it is a position taken by the last three popes.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The problem with the argument that capital punishment is valid only when it is needed for the defense of society is that it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Doesn’t it seem odd that it permits the execution of a person who threatens to kill, but not the person who actually kills? Can we really justify a more severe punishment for the threat than the act?

That’s only a minor objection though, the real problem is that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment, and it is the primary objective that determines the extent of the punishment.*natural law requires that an object under consideration must have a primary end. The very fabric of natural law itself necessitates this. This is not unique to marriage. While something may have more than one end, all other ends are necessarily subordinate to whatever is the primary end. *(Roman Rota)
Punishment has four ends, but the primary end is not protection, rather it is this:
*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)
That is, the primary end of punishment, to which all other ends are subordinate, is retributive justice.

Ender