Catholic Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

[Ender]

By “there” you presumably mean in the Old Testament, not Genesis 9:6 in particular, which simply says that murderers are to be put to death. We can read this a little more broadly (as the Church, historically, always has) as laying down a general principle: that human life is sacred precisely because of its conformity to the rational nature of God, and that the illicit taking of human life is a crime of the highest magnitude which merits the highest punishment.

This is very well put. Gn 9:6 lays out the general rule to which there may be valid exceptions, but the exceptions do not invalidate the rule. The point generally lost in this discussion has precisely to do with your last statement: the greatest crime deserves and demands the greatest punishment. It is indeed a question of merited consequences.

If the death penalty was morally permissible yesterday, it is morally permissible today.

Indeed. Morality does not change with time or place. Particular conditions may change what is advisable, but not what is moral.

I read the Church as saying that the death penalty should be avoided for prudential reasons, i.e., because modern society no longer has a clear conception of the state as a dispenser of divine justice (or even a clear conception of “justice”), so that execution of criminals tends to conduce, not to an appreciation of divine justice, but to a valorization of the wrath of the mob and the supreme power of the totalitarian state.

This is exactly how I understand it as well.

And I happen to agree with that assessment and with the conclusion that comes from it.

I could possibly agree with that assessment if it had actually been made, but that wasn’t the rationale given for the current opposition to capital punishment. The objections presented in 2267 are weak and have had unfortunate consequences.

Ender

 

[Ender]

On the same token, using the death penalty justly (when it is the only way to protect society) is a moral act.

But using the death penalty unjustly (when it is used despite other means of protecting society) it is immoral.

What is the primary objective of all punishment? If it was protection then this objection might be valid, but protection, like deterrence and rehabilitation, is only a secondary objective and alone cannot determine the extent of the punishment. In fact, since it is only secondary, a punishment can be just without providing protection while the punishment needed to provide protection could be unjust. It is acceptable to have a punishment that does not satisfy our need for protection but it is never acceptable to assign a punishment that is unjust.

A punishment is just only if its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The need for protection is not the relevant criterion.

Ender

 

[Jon_S_1]

What is the primary objective of all punishment? If it was protection then this objection might be valid, but protection, like deterrence and rehabilitation, is only a secondary objective and alone cannot determine the extent of the punishment. In fact, since it is only secondary, a punishment can be just without providing protection while the punishment needed to provide protection could be unjust. It is acceptable to have a punishment that does not satisfy our need for protection but it is never acceptable to assign a punishment that is unjust.

A punishment is just only if its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The need for protection is not the relevant criterion.

Ender

Except this is contrary to the teaching of the church, to Jesus’ words of “love your enemies” .

There is no reason to kill someone who is not a threat to you.

Perhaps you advocate the killing of children who curse their parents and homosexuals and adulterers. Or you at least hold that such punishments are commensurate with the severity of the crime.

In reality, the only reason such punishments were ever valid was not for justice but for the protection of the society.

 

[Ender]

Except this is contrary to the teaching of the church, to Jesus’ words of “love your enemies”.

The church has from her inception recognized the validity of capital punishment, so either she has taught contrary to Jesus’ words or your understanding of what he taught is flawed. Either you are wrong or the church taught error for nearly 2000 years.

In reality, the only reason such punishments were ever valid was not for justice but for the protection of the society.

This is what I meant in an earlier comment when I said that 2267 has had unfortunate consequences in that it has led to a rather complete misunderstanding of the justification of punishment. Protection is secondary. Justice - retribution - is the primary objective.*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (CCC 2266)
“Redress the disorder” here means retribution.The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” (USCCB, 1980) *(Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Assoc. Prof. of Law, Ave Maria) Ender

 

[Beryllos]

Quoting the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 9:6) is not a valid approach to this question…

That is too broad an objection. Surely if the church quotes the Old Testament every Sunday at mass then what it says must still have application for us today…

… Morality does not change with time or place. Particular conditions may change what is advisable, but not what is moral.

I would agree that the Bible communicates truth at all times and in all places. What is the truth that the authors of Sacred Scripture intended to communicate?

If I understand you correctly, your interpretation is that God commands us (or allows us) in any era to kill someone for certain offenses, including murder, adultery, or doing work on the Sabbath.

My interpretation is that God so instructed the Hebrews in the Old Testament era because of the hardness of their hearts. The Gospel surpasses the Old Law. We are no longer bound by every regulation and practice of the Old Law. In some cases, the New Law may even go against the Old Law, as when Jesus healed the sick and the lame on the Sabbath.

 

[sw85]

If I understand you correctly, your interpretation is that God commands us (or allows us) in any era to kill someone for certain offenses, including murder, adultery, or doing work on the Sabbath.

That the death penalty is in principle permissible is a moral principle which is not subject to change. That this or that crime is to be punished with the death penalty is a prudential judgment which can change with time.

So it is altogether reasonable to preserve the OT recognition of the moral permissibility of the death penalty while acknowledging as defunct the requirement that it be extended to a wider range of crimes than it is today.

 

[StevenFrancis]

This a matter which the Church has not given a dogmatic statement. At the same time, while looking though, the arguments made against it by the Church far outnumber those for it. The current state of affairs is that it remains licit for a state to do use it. But the circumstance under which it’s use would be licit, AND moral are so few that it’s use should be very rare indeed. It’s use should be virtually non-existent in countries/states which have secure prison systems, and sentencing laws which permit life, without the possibility of parole in penitence. In a penitentiary. This way, if the person is eventually found to be innocent by DNA or other means, the person is still alive to be released. And if they are truly guilty, there is more time for reflection and sorrow for their actions.

 

[LongingSoul]

That the death penalty is in principle permissible is a moral principle which is not subject to change. That this or that crime is to be punished with the death penalty is a prudential judgment which can change with time.

So it is altogether reasonable to preserve the OT recognition of the moral permissibility of the death penalty while acknowledging as defunct the requirement that it be extended to a wider range of crimes than it is today.

‘The death penalty’ is a human invention. It existed prior to and apart from the people of God. It is a naturally judicial recognition that the life of a human is of the highest value. That is its main function. God never did ‘command’ the death penalty. I have certainly never believed such a thing having lived in a society that shunned the death penalty well before I was born. Human nature can recognise that any State that reserves a ‘divine’ right to inflict a death penalty regardless of whether it promotes life or death in the society… has overstepped its civil and moral bounds.

That God ‘permits’ the judicial taking of life in the context of serving the common good, was never meant as an imperitive command. Most societies have moved towards its abolition without any religious hoo hah at all. That is a uniquely American quirk.

 

[Jon_S_1]

‘The death penalty’ is a human invention. It existed prior to and apart from the people of God. It is a naturally judicial recognition that the life of a human is of the highest value. That is its main function. God never did ‘command’ the death penalty. I have certainly never believed such a thing having lived in a society that shunned the death penalty well before I was born. Human nature can recognise that any State that reserves a ‘divine’ right to inflict a death penalty regardless of whether it promotes life or death in the society… has overstepped its civil and moral bounds.

That God ‘permits’ the judicial taking of life in the context of serving the common good, was never meant as an imperitive command. Most societies have moved towards its abolition without any religious hoo hah at all. That is a uniquely American quirk.

You are right. It is uniquely American in the modern western world.

We of course are in the company of countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, And North Korea.

It is sad this act of vengeance is so ingrained in our DNA.

 

[Ender]

If I understand you correctly, your interpretation is that God commands us (or allows us) in any era to kill someone for certain offenses, including murder, adultery, or doing work on the Sabbath.

Genesis 9:6 speaks only about the punishment for murder. This is in the context of God’s covenant with Noah; it was not part of the Mosaic Code.

My interpretation is that God so instructed the Hebrews in the Old Testament era because of the hardness of their hearts. The Gospel surpasses the Old Law.

Again, God was not speaking to the Hebrews in that passage, the Old Law was non-existent at that time, and the covenant with Noah cannot be superseded.

We are no longer bound by every regulation and practice of the Old Law.

We are, however, bound by the Noahic covenant.The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel. (CCC 58)
Ender

 

[Ender]

It’s use should be virtually non-existent in countries/states which have secure prison systems, and sentencing laws which permit life, without the possibility of parole in penitence. In a penitentiary.

How do you address the point that protection is not the primary objective of punishment; that it is only secondary? Should the obligation not be to satisfy the primary objective?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

You are right. It is uniquely American in the modern western world.

We of course are in the company of countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, And North Korea.

It is sad this act of vengeance is so ingrained in our DNA.

Jon S, from my observations on various internet forums… I think a groundswell of the American population especially Catholics faithful to the Magisterium, have shifted dramatically towards abolition over the last 10 years. St JPII has been largely responsible for that shift in making a clear and forceful explanation of the Catholic position. All looks very hopeful for the future.

 

[Ender]

I think a groundswell of the American population especially Catholics faithful to the Magisterium, have shifted dramatically towards abolition over the last 10 years.

None of the arguments made either supporting or opposing capital punishment have anything to do with America or Americans. The statements made are either valid or invalid and that determination has nothing whatever to do with the nationality of the person who makes them.

Nor does support or opposition determine who is or is not faithful to the Magisterium. The church has universally recognized the validity of capital punishment. It can hardly be true that the statements of the Magisterium now contradict the statements of Magisteriums through nearly the entirety of the church’s history.

Your comments are insults, not arguments. It is a weak position indeed that has no argument to support it.

Ender

 

[Jon_S_1]

How do you address the point that protection is not the primary objective of punishment; that it is only secondary? Should the obligation not be to satisfy the primary objective?

Ender

If the primary objective is justice. And justice according to the bible for adultery is death than why do we not put to death adulterers to satisfy justice? In fact we do not punish adulterers at all.

 

[Ender]

If the primary objective is justice.

Can we agree that the primary objective is indeed retribution (retributive justice) and that protection is only a secondary objective?

And justice according to the bible for adultery is death than why do we not put to death adulterers to satisfy justice? In fact we do not punish adulterers at all.

I’m not discussing “the Bible”; I am being more specific than that. Stoning to death was the punishment imposed by Mosaic Law for adultery, but I have been clear that the punishment for murder was part of God’s covenant with Noah and has nothing to do with punishments imposed by Moses. On what grounds are we to ignore the direction that God himself has given us?***Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? *We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Pope St. Innocent I)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

“Genesis 9:6 says, ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.’ Read that last part again, ‘for God made man in his own image.’ Retribution isn’t a matter of petty revenge or a simple matter of balancing some cosmic scales. Murder is such a heinous crime precisely because it defaces the image of God in another person.”

I know the Death Penalty isn’t a new topic for this forum, but this article hopefully has a new and interesting approach for those interested in it:

Catholic Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

I personally tend to be convinced by the first two arguments in favor of the death penalty.

The arguments against the death penalty did not touch on what is probably the most important factor that moves peoples hearts and opinions. That is what Cardinal Dulles describes as…

"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance. "

The authority the State has, is ultimately conditional upon its service to the common good and human justice. In that commission, it is symbolic of the judgement that will be Gods on the last day. If the common good and human justice are not served by the death penalty or any punishment that is open to abuse of power… it is not symbolic of Gods judgement… it is a reflection of the worst ills of human beings.

States that have abolished the death penalty were moved by the sense of its wrongness in the face of a society trying to grow in civility and fraternity. The Church recognises that sense as being inspired by the Holy Spirit towards godliness and she as she always has and will… is impelled to affirm it as such.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The arguments against the death penalty did not touch on what is probably the most important factor that moves peoples hearts and opinions. That is what Cardinal Dulles describes as…

"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance. "

The authority the State has, is ultimately conditional upon its service to the common good and human justice. In that commission, it is symbolic of the judgement that will be Gods on the last day. If the common good and human justice are not served by the death penalty or any punishment that is open to abuse of power… it is not symbolic of Gods judgement… it is a reflection of the worst ills of human beings.

States that have abolished the death penalty were moved by the sense of its wrongness in the face of a society trying to grow in civility and fraternity. The Church recognises that sense as being inspired by the Holy Spirit towards godliness and she as she always has and will… is impelled to affirm it as such.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Ender]

The authority the State has, is ultimately conditional upon its service to the common good and human justice.

A prudential argument that capital punishment is unwise in current societies is a valid approach. An argument that capital punishment is immoral is not.

If the common good and human justice are not served by the death penalty or any punishment that is open to abuse of power… it is not symbolic of Gods judgement… it is a reflection of the worst ills of human beings.

All punishment is open to abuse. That’s the nature of authority: with power comes the possibility that it will be abused, but that is not an argument against either power or punishment for while abuse may be a reflection of the fallibility of human nature it is does not alter the reality that both governments and punishment are necessary and appropriate.laws would have no potency, if there ought to be no judgments; but laws should not be abolished, as has been shown above, therefore, neither should judgments (St Bellarmine)

States that have abolished the death penalty were moved by the sense of its wrongness in the face of a society trying to grow in civility and fraternity. The Church recognises that sense as being inspired by the Holy Spirit towards godliness and she as she always has and will… is impelled to affirm it as such.

The history of the opposition to capital punishment gives little indication that it was directed by the holy spirit, as Cardinal Dulles noted.*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.
*Ender

 

[Jon_S_1]

A prudential argument that capital punishment is unwise in current societies is a valid approach. An argument that capital punishment is immoral is not.
All punishment is open to abuse. That’s the nature of authority: with power comes the possibility that it will be abused, but that is not an argument against either power or punishment for while abuse may be a reflection of the fallibility of human nature it is does not alter the reality that both governments and punishment are necessary and appropriate.laws would have no potency, if there ought to be no judgments; but laws should not be abolished, as has been shown above, therefore, neither should judgments (St Bellarmine)
The history of the opposition to capital punishment gives little indication that it was directed by the holy spirit, as Cardinal Dulles noted.*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.
*Ender

Lets Burn those Heretics!!! Get the fire Stoked, the gallows built, and the Stones piled up!

I seem to have misplaced my rack…do you have one I could borrow, or should we just quarter them?

 

[Ender]

Lets Burn those Heretics!!! Get the fire Stoked, the gallows built, and the Stones piled up!

I seem to have misplaced my rack…do you have one I could borrow, or should we just quarter them?

I was actually hoping for something more serious than this. If you’re interested in heresies, however, you might find this informative.One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. (St. Bellarmine)
Was there anything in any of my comments that justifies this caricature of what I’ve said? Mostly what I have done is cite what the church herself has taught. When did that become anathema? You seem frustrated in discovering that your position on capital punishment is not as defensible as you believed, but that is no reason to direct your anger at me.

Ender