Catholic Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

[Ender]

If a state’s laws are such that it would be impossible, and I mean impossible, for a malice murderer to be kept behind bars for the rest of his natural life then and only then would I even consider the DP. I think most states have closed that sentencing loophole, but I can’t be sure of it.

Even assuming prisoners cannot escape this also assumes they cannot kill others while in prison or communicate with those on the outside to kill for them. All three of these situations are known to have happened. As I said, there is no solution where no innocent person is at risk. We have to choose which option seems to present the least risk and accept that, despite our best intentions, someone may well die as a result of that choice.

Ender

 

[LokisMom]

This is an ungenerous characterization. I have spent a considerable amount of time researching church teaching on this point and so far I am unable to come up with a single source opposing capital punishment (other those noted below). There were among the Fathers some who opposed its use in particular cases, or personally preferred it not be used, but only Lactantius and Tertullian actually came out against it doctrinally.

How is it that searching through 2000 years of church teaching is dismissed as “try[ing] to find loopholes”? When did the teaching of past Doctors, Fathers, popes, councils, and catechisms become irrelevant? If you can provide sources to support your position, provide them and I will respond to the points being made. The fact that nothing in her history supports most of the comments being made about capital punishment should be a fairly strong indicator that there may be something amiss with those interpretations.

Lol you’re being extremely defensive and I’m not sure why. My post wasn’t an attack on you, it was simply a response to your assertion that it isn’t enough for me to go by what the CCC says. You asked me about what to make of what past clergy members and what past catechisms have said concerning the DP, and I simply responded that I’m completely satisfied with following the current catechism and the current popes and the current bishops. I (not talking about you here, just me) don’t have the need to look beyond those things to find answers that I feel are more in line with some opposing personal opinion I may have about something. That is all.

You might want to consider the implications of disagreeing with the church taught in the past, especially as morality does not change with time or place.

I’m going to ask you the same question I asked dudely shark. Are you saying that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, the current CCC, and the USCCB are all going against church teaching by believing that the death penalty is no longer necessary to keep society safe, and thus being against it?

Because my opinion on this issue is perfectly inline with theirs. No different. So if you’re telling me to “consider the implications of disagreeing with the church” then you’re directly giving off that same exact attitude to all of them.

The section below in bold.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

Gotcha. Like I said, I don’t feel the need to exasperate over what may or may not have been written in some catechism from centuries ago. I have absolutely 0 need or interest in doing that.

 

[LokisMom]

You might want to consider the implications of disagreeing with the church taught in the past, especially as morality does not change with time or place.

Lol, this line is particularly comical to me because even if my views on this weren’t shared by the popes/bishops/CCC, I highly doubt it would be morally wrong of me to believe the DP should only be used when necessary for safety. As though I need to fear God’s wrath for having such an immoral opinion.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Lol, this line is particularly comical to me because even if my views on this weren’t shared by the popes/bishops/CCC, I highly doubt it would be morally wrong of me to believe the DP should only be used when necessary to keep society safe. As though I need to fear God’s wrath for thinking something so illicit and immoral or something.

Lokis mom,

Welcome to the forums! You have done well on this thread. I very much appreciated your posts! Keep it up!

Jon

 

[LokisMom]

Lokis mom,

Welcome to the forums! You have done well on this thread. I very much appreciated your posts! Keep it up!

Jon

Thanks Jon! It’s good to be here. You had some great posts on this thread.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

The wrongful execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, 144 men and women have been released from death row nationally.

That is an argument for the correction of the justice system, not an argument against the death penalty.

If the justice system is so flawed that it can try and execute innocent people, then as Catholics correction of that - and the penal system in which people routinely die from lack of medical care - should be a higher priority for us than the repeal of the death penalty.

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

If capital punishment is used for the reason that it is the ONLY avenue available to prevent an evil person from taking the life of someone else, a Catholic can support it…the argument that will go on is whether something as simple as life in prison, in isolation, without parole, mitigates this fear, and therefore a Catholic might have justifiable hesitation to support it.

A Catholic may support the death penalty in cases where only the death penalty would provide justice.

The CCC also states that penalties should be commensurate with the crime; the primary purpose of any penalty is the redress of the injustice.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

The death penalty was abolished in my Australian state 100 years ago and in the whole of Australia by 50 years ago. It was recognised as ‘unjust’ and an uncivilised measure, In no way is that considered to be a temporary measure until we can crank up the old guillotines in a blaze of glory again.

That’s not really a Catholic argument. It seems more likely that a state which considers the death penalty as unjust and uncivilized but makes abortion legal is an example of what can occur when secular values are substituted for the natural law.

The U.S. has a number of states exhibiting the very same aberration.

.

 

[dudleysharp]

That is an argument for the correction of the justice system, not an argument against the death penalty.

If the justice system is so flawed that it can try and execute innocent people, then as Catholics correction of that - and the penal system in which people routinely die from lack of medical care - should be a higher priority for us than the repeal of the death penalty.
.

Squall was also inaccurate.

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

In addition, innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP Since 1972 almost 200 people have languished on death row who were later found innocent, some with a set execution date. How anyone can support this practice with this in mind just escapes me.

I know no source which supports that statement.

Possibly, from 25-44 actual innocents have been identified and released from death row (0.4% of those so sentenced) since 1972.

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

In addition, innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

 

[Jon_S_1]

I know no source which supports that statement.

Possibly, from 25-44 actual innocents have been identified and released from death row (0.4% of those so sentenced) since 1972.

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

In addition, innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

Your blog is not a source.

This is though.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

 

[dudleysharp]

LM:

Based upon the comments of Ender and others, myself included, both tradition and eternal teachings are of huge importance to the Church and the faithful, claims which all agree with.

If folks have a concern about teachings it would be unfaithful not to discuss them, particularly ,when others feel no “need to exasperate over what may or may not have been written in some catechism from centuries ago.”, even when it is easy to see conflict which, again, it would be unfaithful not to discuss.

In that vain, we have this:

This from a scholar and Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ." (7)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(7)

Is that important? Of course.

“Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics andCulture (University of Notre Dame)
legacy.avemarialaw.edu/lr/assets/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf

 

[dudleysharp]

Your blog is not a source.

This is though.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

My blog is a source, just one you do not like, possibly without the benefit of fact checking.

I would recommend that you fact check both sources, always the preferred method.

The 144 “exonerated” is based within a completely revised definition of the term “exonerated”, which allows for the overwhelming majority of cases to be included with no evidence for innocence and or having no connection to the the real definition of exonerated.

You would only know that if you fact checked, which I presume you have not.

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s not really a Catholic argument. It seems more likely that a state which considers the death penalty as unjust and uncivilized but makes abortion legal is an example of what can occur when secular values are substituted for the natural law.

The U.S. has a number of states exhibiting the very same aberration.

.

At the time that Queensland abolished the death penalty, the debate was happening across settled Australia. Remember the Church doesn’t make civil laws, she gives her position on those laws for the sake of the Catholic voter and politician. The Catholic newspaper in 1924 offered this towards the discussion…

"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

The Catholic position is to promote the sanctity of human life. Pope StJPII wrote in Evangelium Vitae…

“Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but “non-violent” means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”

The Church affirms that the public distaste for the death penalty is a positive movement towards valuing human life more highly.

 

[LongingSoul]

My blog is a source, just one you do not like, possibly without the benefit of fact checking.

I would recommend that you fact check both sources, always the preferred method.

The 144 “exonerated” is based within a completely revised definition of the term “exonerated”, which allows for the overwhelming majority of cases to be included with no evidence for innocence and or having no connection to the the real definition of exonerated.

You would only know that if you fact checked, which I presume you have not.

It doesn’t matter what source you use, your position is not a Catholic one. It’s irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Ender]

I’m going to ask you the same question I asked dudely shark. Are you saying that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, the current CCC, and the USCCB are all going against church teaching by believing that the death penalty is no longer necessary to keep society safe, and thus being against it?

I addressed this question in post #243.* If it was assumed that the comments of JPII et al were doctrinal then it would be a repudiation of what the church taught for nearly her entire existence. If, however, their comments are understood as prudential then the doctrines remain unchanged as they have been developed through church history and there is no contradiction.*

Because my opinion on this issue is perfectly inline with theirs. No different. So if you’re telling me to “consider the implications of disagreeing with the church” then you’re directly giving off that same exact attitude to all of them.

I understand their position to be prudential, which I have already said raises no issues. If you consider the position to be doctrinal, however, then it raises some serious problems - such as the repudiation of the church’s Traditional teaching.

Like I said, I don’t feel the need to exasperate over what may or may not have been written in some catechism from centuries ago. I have absolutely 0 need or interest in doing that.

Fair enough, but at least recognize the problem in believing that the church can reverse her doctrines and go from supporting something to condemning it. You should also recognize that my listing of older catechisms was in response to a specific statement made by LongingSoul about what the early catechisms taught. I was challenging a particular assertion.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It doesn’t matter what source you use, your position is not a Catholic one. It’s irrelevant to this thread.

There is no such thing as a Catholic position on statistics. As for his arguments touching on doctrines, if his sources are Catholic then his position is as Catholic as yours or anyone else’s. He has clearly done his homework.

Ender

 

[LokisMom]

LM:

Based upon the comments of Ender and others, myself included, both tradition and eternal teachings are of huge importance to the Church and the faithful, claims which all agree with.

If folks have a concern about teachings it would be unfaithful not to discuss them, particularly ,when others feel no “need to exasperate over what may or may not have been written in some catechism from centuries ago.”, even when it is easy to see conflict which, again, it would be unfaithful not to discuss.

In that vain, we have this:

This from a scholar and Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ." (7)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(7)

Is that important? Of course.

“Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics andCulture (University of Notre Dame)
legacy.avemarialaw.edu/lr/assets/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf

Yeah, I don’t know how else to tell you this but ummm… I tend to trust the judgement of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, the USCCB, the CCC, and myself… more so than I trust the judgement of 2 anonymous strangers on the internet. :-/

Hope that doesn’t offend you.

 

[LokisMom]

If, however, their comments are understood as prudential then the doctrines remain unchanged as they have been developed through church history and there is no contradiction.

I don’t understand what this means. You know what the popes, the USCCB, and the CCC say on the subject. Are they or are they not going against Church teaching by saying what they say? I’m not asking about how it’s “understood”. I am asking whether or not they are able to make the claims that they have made regarding the DP. If the answer is yes, then I have no idea why you are arguing with me on this subject.

 

[LokisMom]

Fair enough, but at least recognize the problem in believing that the church can reverse her doctrines and go from supporting something to condemning it. You should also recognize that my listing of older catechisms was in response to a specific statement made by LongingSoul about what the early catechisms taught. I was challenging a particular assertion.

Ender

I dont believe the Church has ever “reversed” her doctrine. Maybe some things have evolved, maybe some things have been added on for more precise understanding, maybe you are wrong in how you are interpreting them. I don’t know because like I said, I haven’t and won’t read old catechisms. I see no need to. I trust in the current CCC and have faith in the popes and the Bishops and the Church as they stand.