Catholic Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

[LokisMom]

Sorry bud, you will never convince us that you know better than the Popes, Second Vatican Council, USCCB, and infallible Magesterium

To think they have never read what you present…if only they would read Thomas Aquinas and the Saints and Popes and Theologians, they would conclude you are right and we should stop trying to abolish the death penalty!

It appears you do not believe in the authority of the church. You are this quite unconvincing.

YEP!!!

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think a distinguishment should be made to between the church state if Europe and the secular state now.

The church has divine guidance to administer just punishment.

Does the secular state have such protections?

 

[LokisMom]

The Church’s Anti-Death Penalty Position

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999

Twenty-five years ago, our Conference of bishops first called for an end to the death penalty. We renew this call to seize a new moment and new momentum. This is a time to teach clearly, encourage reflection, and call for common action in the Catholic community to bring about an end to the use of the death penalty in our land.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

While the Old Testament includes some passages about taking the life of one who kills, the Old Testament and the teaching of Christ in the New Testament call us to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

When Cain killed Abel, God did not end Cain’s life. Instead, he sent Cain into exile, not only sparing his life but protecting it by putting a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight (Gn 4:15).
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

When the state, in our names and with our taxes, ends a human life despite having non-lethal alternatives, it suggests that society can overcome violence with violence. The use of the death penalty ought to be abandoned not only for what it does to those who are executed, but for what it does to all of society.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Our faith and Catholic teaching offer a moral framework for choices about the use of the death penalty. A principled Catholic response to crime and punishment is rooted in our convictions about good and evil, sin and redemption, justice and mercy. It is also shaped by our commitment to the life and dignity of every human person, and the common good. The opening chapters of the Book of Genesis teach that every life is a precious gift from God (see Genesis 2:7, 21-23). This gift must be respected and protected.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Each of us is called to respect the life and dignity of every human being. Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior. Respect for life applies to all, even the perpetrators of terrible acts. Punishment should be consistent with the demands of justice and with respect for human life and dignity.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

[Punishment] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, [Punishment] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
—John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), 1995

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect peoples 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.
—The Catechism of the Catholic Church

For the Catholic community, this issue – like all life issues – is more than public policy. It involves our faith and the central principle that human life is sacred. Church teaching on the life and dignity of every human person should guide all our decisions about life, including the use of the death penalty. We are called to reflect on what the Lords command, You shall not kill (Ex 20:13) means for us today.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

In his encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II told us that we have an inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.18 This Catholic campaign brings us together for common action to end the use of the death penalty, to reject a culture of death, and to build a culture of life. It poses an old and fundamental choice: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live. (Dt 30:19)
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Great post!

 

[Ender]

Sorry bud, you will never convince us that you know better than the Popes, Second Vatican Council, USCCB, and infallible Magesterium

You really shouldn’t include the USCCB in this group as they have no teaching authority, but as for the others, how do you reconcile what JPII said with what Pius XII said? Or BXVI with Pius V? Or Francis with Innocent I? Is it your position that the last three popes have repudiated the teaching of all the popes before them, and that the Magisterium of the last two decades has reversed the teaching of all prior Magisteriums?

If the teaching of the past is the same as that of the present then how can Pius XII seem to be saying something contradictory to what JPII said, but if the teaching has been reversed does that not mean the church taught error for nearly 2000 years?

Is the teaching the same or has the earlier teaching been repudiated? Which is it?

It appears you do not believe in the authority of the church.

How can citing the church’s own statements be considered a rejection of their authority?

Ender

 

[LokisMom]

The church has always recognized that there may be valid prudential opposition to the use of capital punishment. The past three popes have raised such prudential arguments, but their opposition to its use in modern societies is not the same as saying its use is immoral. They are merely saying it is unwise, thus there is no contradiction with what the church has always taught - and teaches today - about capital punishment.

Ender

It was a yes or no question. I was trying to clarify what another poster was saying, but he didn’t respond.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You really shouldn’t include the USCCB in this group as they have no teaching authority, but as for the others, how do you reconcile what JPII said with what Pius XII said? Or BXVI with Pius V? Or Francis with Innocent I? Is it your position that the last three popes have repudiated the teaching of all the popes before them, and that the Magisterium of the last two decades has reversed the teaching of all prior Magisteriums?

If the teaching of the past is the same as that of the present then how can Pius XII seem to be saying something contradictory to what JPII said, but if the teaching has been reversed does that not mean the church taught error for nearly 2000 years?

Is the teaching the same or has the earlier teaching been repudiated? Which is it?
How can citing the church’s own statements be considered a rejection of their authority?

Ender

My question was how do you reconcile it?

How do you say it is moral to do something “cruel and unnecessary”.

I have already alluded to how I reconcile it- church state vs secular state along with necessity to protect society.

Now how do you reconcile it.

 

[Ender]

The Magisterium serves the people of the age.

Serving “the people of the age” is a minor obligation. It involves the application of eternal principles to specific situations. It involves, in other words, prudential choices. Their greater purpose is to authentically interpret the word of God, interpretations that not only do not but cannot change from age to age. In speaking on the death penalty we have an example of the former: the Magisterium offering its prudential opinion.

The words they speak and write reflect guidance on the Church position in relation to the issues being faced by the people and the world at the time.

Yes, and this “guidance” is prudential, not doctrinal.

Ender

 

[LokisMom]

My question was how do you reconcile it?

How do you say it is moral to do something “cruel and unnecessary”.

I have already alluded to how I reconcile it- church state vs secular state along with necessity to protect society.

Now how do you reconcile it.

I’d like to know too!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Serving “the people of the age” is a minor obligation. It involves the application of eternal principles to specific situations. It involves, in other words, prudential choices. Their greater purpose is to authentically interpret the word of God, interpretations that not only do not but cannot change from age to age. In speaking on the death penalty we have an example of the former: the Magisterium offering its prudential opinion.
Yes, and this “guidance” is prudential, not doctrinal.

Ender

So you choose to ignore the prudential judgement of the church?

 

[LokisMom]

So you choose to ignore the prudential judgement of the church?

It would appear so…

 

[Ender]

What is the statistics on a man kept in a solitary cell killing again? How many assigned to death row (solitary) kill again?

What number would you find acceptable? One? Ten? One hundred? Give me the number you’re OK with and I’ll see if I can answer your questions.

Enough with made up stats.

I don’t need to make up the statistics; I only need to find them. Such as this report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 1994. If you look at table 10 you will see that 1.2% of prisoners convicted of homicide and released back into the public were re-arrested within three years on charges of having committed another homicide. That is, the 4,443 individuals (in this study) who were released after committing homicide committed just north of 53 more homicides within three years.

bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Ender

 

[Ender]

I meant for the here and now… in the 21st century, not in the past 2000 years in general.

I wrote in a (much) earlier post about the unfortunate consequences the inclusion of 2267 in the catechism has led to. This is an example of what I meant. If we believe that the church’s doctrines can change at any moment a pope feels like changing one then we have jettisoned any reason to believe the church is what she claims to be. Either God’s laws are fixed and unchangeable or they change from age to age and we may freely believe what we will. After all, why would I believe the church is right today if she admits her infallible truths are something less than infallible? Or why would I believe the Magisterium has correctly interpreted God’s word about topic X if she reverses her Traditional teaching on topic Y?

You cannot simply say you choose what is said in the 21st century over what she taught for the previous 20 centuries without rejecting the very basis on which her claim to understand God’s laws is made. If she has been wrong for 2000 years she is not what she claims to be and Catholicism is false.

You must find a way to reconcile what is being said now with what has been said in the past, otherwise Catholicism makes no sense.

Ender

 

[LokisMom]

What number would you find acceptable? One? Ten? One hundred? Give me the number you’re OK with and I’ll see if I can answer your questions.
I don’t need to make up the statistics; I only need to find them. Such as this report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 1994. If you look at table 10 you will see that 1.2% of prisoners convicted of homicide and released back into the public were re-arrested within three years on charges of having committed another homicide. That is, the 4,443 individuals (in this study) who were released after committing homicide committed just north of 53 more homicides within three years.

bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Ender

Lol, I don’t think Jon is suggesting that convicted murders should ever be released… that’s why he specifically asked you about convicted murders in solitary confinement for life, not convicted murders who got released back into the public. That’s not the argument being made.

 

[Jon_S_1]

What number would you find acceptable? One? Ten? One hundred? Give me the number you’re OK with and I’ll see if I can answer your questions.
I don’t need to make up the statistics; I only need to find them. Such as this report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 1994. If you look at table 10 you will see that 1.2% of prisoners convicted of homicide and released back into the public were re-arrested within three years on charges of having committed another homicide. That is, the 4,443 individuals (in this study) who were released after committing homicide committed just north of 53 more homicides within three years.

bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Ender

Again nothing to do with the death penalty. No one is arguing for the release of murderers.

 

[Ender]

So you choose to ignore the prudential judgement of the church?

Not exactly.
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)
Ender

 

[LokisMom]

I wrote in a (much) earlier post about the unfortunate consequences the inclusion of 2267 in the catechism has led to. This is an example of what I meant. If we believe that the church’s doctrines can change at any moment a pope feels like changing one then we have jettisoned any reason to believe the church is what she claims to be. Either God’s laws are fixed and unchangeable or they change from age to age and we may freely believe what we will. After all, why would I believe the church is right today if she admits her infallible truths are something less than infallible? Or why would I believe the Magisterium has correctly interpreted God’s word about topic X if she reverses her Traditional teaching on topic Y?

You cannot simply say you choose what is said in the 21st century over what she taught for the previous 20 centuries without rejecting the very basis on which her claim to understand God’s laws is made. If she has been wrong for 2000 years she is not what she claims to be and Catholicism is false.

You must find a way to reconcile what is being said now with what has been said in the past, otherwise Catholicism makes no sense.

Ender

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Like the past 3 (or more) popes we’ve had, I agree that the DP is no longer needed in order to keep society safe and should thus be abolished. That’s something that I agree with our recent popes on. If you want to tell me that these popes along with myself are going against Church teaching by having this opinion, go ahead. But I just want to make sure we are all perfectly clear that that is exactly what you are doing. If that is not what you are doing, then I’d say all is well and there are no further issues to discuss here.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I think this is based on a misunderstanding as well.*"The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods. This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. *(Romano Amerio, peritas, Vatican II)
Ender

This last quote from the Vatican II document is very interesting, and is something that I will be chewing on and praying on for a while. I haven’t read this document, nor have I encountered this particular aspect of the issue before. Thank you,

Steve

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not exactly.
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)
Ender

I didn’t say you were a heretic (dissenting from church teaching)

But do you respect the church’s prudential judgement in this area?

To respect it seems you would do one of two things;

1. advocate for it and champion it
2. remain silent because you personally disagree

It certainly would not be respecting it to go to other Catholics and try to convince them the prudential judgement is in error.

 

[Ender]

Lol, I don’t think Jon is suggesting that convicted murders should ever be released… that’s why he specifically asked you about convicted murders in solitary confinement for life, not convicted murders who got released back into the public. That’s not the argument being made.

The problem is, this is part of the current system, the one we have been assured includes “*the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it”.

*Either the current system provides the protection claimed for it or it doesn’t.

Is it not fair to ask if your solution would be to sentence every murderer to life without parole? Would you advocate that? Is that what you think JPII was advocating? And if they are not to be locked up forever but are to be released then you have to deal with the recidivism problem again where some number of innocent people will be murdered. What is your solution?

Ender

 

[Jon_S_1]

The problem is, this is part of the current system, the one we have been assured includes “*the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it”.

*Either the current system provides the protection claimed for it or it doesn’t.

Is it not fair to ask if your solution would be to sentence every murderer to life without parole? Would you advocate that? Is that what you think JPII was advocating? And if they are not to be locked up forever but are to be released then you have to deal with the recidivism problem again where some number of innocent people will be murdered. What is your solution?

Ender

Not one murder released was on death row…the problem exists whether or not there is a death penalty.

Those currently and in the future “assigned to death row” would be in prison for life without parole.