Catholic Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

[Ender]

I don’t understand what this means.

A prudential objection to capital punishment would be this: it is unwise to use it. A doctrinal objection would be: it is immoral to use it. The church allows disagreement about prudential claims but not about moral doctrines, so we may validly disagree about capital punishment if our disagreement is prudential.

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?

• “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their 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)
  There is a significant difference between a teaching (feed the hungry) and the application of that teaching (increase food stamps). The former is a doctrinal obligation, the latter is a prudential opinion. Neither supporting nor opposing food stamp subsidies is a doctrinal issue. In just the same way, opposing the use of capital punishment today raises no doctrinal questions and cannot be said to be contrary to church teaching. Even though church doctrine has always recognized the legitimacy of a state’s right to use capital punishment, opposing that use for prudential reasons is legitimate (whether it is accurate is a different issue).

Ender

 

[Ender]

I dont believe the Church has ever “reversed” her doctrine.

I don’t believe so either, and the significance to this issue is that her teaching on capital punishment has also not been reversed, so whatever was taught in the past is equally valid today. It is important to understand that church doctrines formulated in the past cannot go out of date and simply be replaced. This is why we cannot just ignore whatever was said earlier and form our positions as if none of it ever existed.

If there appears to be a conflict between what was said in the past and what is being said today we need to find some appropriate way to reconcile that apparent conflict. Dismissing earlier teachings is not that way.

I trust in the current CCC and have faith in the popes and the Bishops and the Church as they stand.

Actually, what you are trusting is that your personal interpretation of the catechism is accurate, because none of this is as plain as you believe it to be. How, for example, do you understand section 2260 and the comment that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”? What teaching is being referred to here?

Ender

 

[LokisMom]

A prudential objection to capital punishment would be this: it is unwise to use it. A doctrinal objection would be: it is immoral to use it. The church allows disagreement about prudential claims but not about moral doctrines, so we may validly disagree about capital punishment if our disagreement is prudential.

• “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their 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)
  There is a significant difference between a teaching (feed the hungry) and the application of that teaching (increase food stamps). The former is a doctrinal obligation, the latter is a prudential opinion. Neither supporting nor opposing food stamp subsidies is a doctrinal issue. In just the same way, opposing the use of capital punishment today raises no doctrinal questions and cannot be said to be contrary to church teaching. Even though church doctrine has always recognized the legitimacy of a state’s right to use capital punishment, opposing that use for prudential reasons is legitimate (whether it is accurate is a different issue).

Ender

I know what prudential means. My question was simple. Are they able to make the claims they have made? Or are they going against church teaching? (per your opinion of course)

 

[LokisMom]

I don’t believe so either, and the significance to this issue is that her teaching on capital punishment has also not been reversed, so whatever was taught in the past is equally valid today. It is important to understand that church doctrines formulated in the past cannot go out of date and simply be replaced. This is why we cannot just ignore whatever was said earlier and form our positions as if none of it ever existed.

If there appears to be a conflict between what was said in the past and what is being said today we need to find some appropriate way to reconcile that apparent conflict. Dismissing earlier teachings is not that way.
Actually, what you are trusting is that your personal interpretation of the catechism is accurate, because none of this is as plain as you believe it to be. How, for example, do you understand section 2260 and the comment that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”? What teaching is being referred to here?

Ender

Actually, what I am trusting are the words of the popes, the bishops, and the CCC. I say the same EXACT things as those sources have said. Nothing different.

 

[LokisMom]

If someone asked me if I, as a Catholic, was for or against the DP, I would say exactly this:

**“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.””

And then I would go on to say that I believe the DP is no longer absolutely necessary, and that I thus oppose it as we currently stand.**

So, would my answer be going against church teaching?

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

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.

Which remains the case to this day.

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.

That is not precisely correct. The Church teaches that the punishment should be commensurate or proportionate with the crime. The Church does not leave “it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers”.

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

St Pope John Paul II, not the Church, affirmed that a public distaste for the death penalty might be a positive movement towards valuing human life more highly. That is in the nature of a personal opinion, not a teaching.

The simultaneous opposition to the death penalty and liberalization of abortion and divorce in Western Europe and the Commonwealth could be construed as the rise of a pagan or atheistic morality rather than a positive sign.

.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Hopefully you noted that that was not from a Vatican II document. Clever sneaky Ender at it again.

That is written in 2007 and is the personal opinion of Amerio.

Yes. Ender said so in a later post. This is disappointing, as the original use of it was presented, (to my way of reading things), as if it WERE from a VII document which I wasn’t familiar with.

Thanks,

Steve

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

If someone asked me if I, as a Catholic, was for or against the DP, I would say exactly this:

**“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.””

And then I would go on to say that I believe the DP is no longer absolutely necessary, and that I thus oppose it as we currently stand.**

So, would my answer be going against church teaching?

It would be something of a sin of omission. The primary aim of a punishment is to provide retributive justice. The protection of society is a secondary aim. According to the teaching of the Church, the punishment must first redress the disorder. Only after that is accomplished can we address the secondary aim or aims such as protection of society, rehabilitation of the offender, and so on.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

The difficulty with abolishing the death penalty altogether is that it renders it impossible to meet the primary aim of punishment in those cases where the death penalty is appropriate.

Apparently the thought is that it is cheaper than fixing the justice system, which I would take as a more important task. The penal system is similarly flawed, with thousands of prisoners suffering from lack of medical care, even to the point of dying.

.

 

[StevenFrancis]

If there is a universal, objective, and dogmatic truth to be derived from Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, the Church will one day pronounce upon it. Until that time, I suppose faithful Catholics may hold different opinions. Until such time as the Church takes a final stand on this issue, I shall remain open to the opinions of others, while holding my own cautious opinion that it’s use should be rare and heavily supported and justified by the acts leading to it’s consideration. When the Church shall pronounce on this matter, I will be obedient to the Church. Until such time, my reading of the Catechism supports the rare, and well justified idea.

Thank you to any who have responded to me in this thread. I rarely know what to say or do in a thread for which there is no real solution from the Church. Who among us has the authority to tell someone their perfectly allowed opinion is “wrong”? Opinion threads, I am starting to realize are vanity, and chasing after wind.

Loving God, bless us all,
Steve

 

[Ender]

I know what prudential means. My question was simple. Are they able to make the claims they have made? Or are they going against church teaching? (per your opinion of course)

Of course they aren’t. In fact they cannot be inasmuch as there are no doctrines on prudential judgments.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Actually, what I am trusting are the words of the popes, the bishops, and the CCC. I say the same EXACT things as those sources have said. Nothing different.

And your answer to my questions is???

Ender

 

[Ender]

The simultaneous opposition to the death penalty and liberalization of abortion and divorce in Western Europe and the Commonwealth could be construed as the rise of a pagan or atheistic morality rather than a positive sign.

You are not the only one to make this connection.
The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes. Ender said so in a later post. This is disappointing, as the original use of it was presented, (to my way of reading things), as if it WERE from a VII document which I wasn’t familiar with.

I was actually quite surprised that my comment was so broadly misinterpreted. Did you try to look up the meaning of the word peritus (unfortunately misspelled as peritas)? An understanding of the term would have dispelled the confusion.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If there is a universal, objective, and dogmatic truth to be derived from Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, the Church will one day pronounce upon it.

Why do you believe she has not done so in this case?*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)
Ender