Catholic Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Katholish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
The problem with this argument is that the choice is not whether the execution of an innocent is or is not acceptable. Rather it is between accepting the possibility that an innocent man may be executed and the certainty that innocents will be murdered by the guilty who are not executed. There is no free lunch here; innocent lives are at risk no matter which choice we make. The real question is which choice presents the greater risk? The evidence strongly suggests that (far) more innocent people will die at the hands of recidivist killers than will die from wrongful execution.

Ender
Click to expand...
How are innocent lives at risk when a murder is in prison for life??

I think you err thinking that part of my argument is for the release from prison of murders.

Also, you now are using the secondary (in your opinion) argument of protection as opposed to justice

The justice argument is no good when the killed is innocent. That in fact is injustice.
 
Ender said:
The evidence strongly suggests that (far) more innocent people will die at the hands of recidivist killers than will die from wrongful execution.

Ender
Click to expand...
Yes, we have from 14,000 - 28,000 additional innocents murdered, by those who have murdered before, - recidivist murderers – just since 1973, in the US.

No known innocents executed, at least since the 1930’s

In fact, the death penalty spares more innocents, in three ways, than does a life sentence.

Put another way, fighting against the death penalty will sacrifice more innocents.

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 said:
LS:

You are mistaken.
Click to expand...
No it is actually you who are mistaken and having a problem with the Church teaching on capital punishment as a result.
  1. Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “**The just use of (executions), **far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566)
Click to expand...
This does not imply a commandment in itself. It iterates a just use allowed in civil justice.
  1. Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death **it is then reserved to **the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.
Click to expand...
Again, this measure is *reserved to *the legitimate authority responsible for justice and the common good. It is not commanded or expected other than in service to human justice and the common good.
  1. “Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.”
Click to expand...
“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that **capital punishment is morally defensible in every age **and culture of Christianity.” " . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2)." Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Saying that capital punishment is *morally defensible *is ***not *saying that it is morally imperitive. If the State abolishes it because it is not in keeping with human justice and the common good, it stands to reason that it is also morally deficient to claim a divine right at the expense of the common good and human justice. Common sense
  1. “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 A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Defending the imposition of the death penalty, is not impelling the civil authorities to apply it as in inalienable duty or divine command. It is allowing that there may be situations and times which warrant such a measure for a time.
  1. Some opposing capital punishment " . . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life." Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.: "Amerio on capital punishment ", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007
Click to expand...
When human justice warrants the taking of a life as punishment, an expiatory effect can rightly be valued. If human justice and the common good are harmed by capital punishment, then it does not accord with ‘God’s religion’. Human justice holds as its highest goal the common good of man and in that commission, is a *symbolic representation *of the city of God.

CONTINUATION…
 
The CCC says the death penalty is licit but only when it is necessary to protect society and the lives of the innocent.

Of course, it is up to each individual to determine whether they think such action is or is not necessary.

I personally think that with the high security prisons and technology we have here in 21st century America, we no longer have the need to put any convicts to death in order to keep society safe. I think being put behind bars for life, is enough. But if someone honestly, from the bottom of their heart, does not agree… then that person is free to be for the death penalty without going against church teaching.

Our last 3 popes (including our current pope) have all spoken out against the death penalty and believe it is no longer necessary in today’s day and age.
 
  1. 2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” CCC last amended 2003
Click to expand...
That God requires a divine reckoning does not translate to the power of divine reckoning to mere men.

In principle, guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions. Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins. 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. - Card. Dulles.

The civil authorities are authorised by and beholden to the common good. Through this commission they are a symbolic example of Gods perfect justice. They remain bound and committed to act in the interests of the common good in order to be legitimate and moral.
  1. St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the **common good **is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.
Click to expand...
Aquinas qualifies legitimate execution with " If a man is a danger to the community". Community safety and the common good is the ultimate goal of all civil punishment.

and so on and so on.
 
Ender said:
The problem with this argument is that the choice is not whether the execution of an innocent is or is not acceptable. Rather it is between accepting the possibility that an innocent man may be executed and the certainty that innocents will be murdered by the guilty who are not executed. There is no free lunch here; innocent lives are at risk no matter which choice we make. The real question is which choice presents the greater risk? The evidence strongly suggests that (far) more innocent people will die at the hands of recidivist killers than will die from wrongful execution.

Ender
Click to expand...
You make the erroneous argument that if we don’t execute a murderer, (s)he will invariably murder again.

Not executing does not equal releasing from prison.
 
LongingSoul said:
No it is actually you who are mistaken and having a problem with the Church teaching on capital punishment as a result…
Click to expand...
LS:

1,2,6 & 8 call for mandatory executions.

You may disagree, but the language is clear.
 
OraLabora said:
You make the erroneous argument that if we don’t execute a murderer, (s)he will invariably murder again.

Not executing does not equal releasing from prison.
Click to expand...
What Ender was saying is that far more innocents will die from recidivist murderers - murderers who will murder, again, than any actual innocents we may execute.

He is correct.

We have from 14,000 - 28,000 additional innocents murdered, by those who have murdered before, - recidivist murderers – just since 1973, in the US.

No known innocents executed, at least since the 1930’s

In fact, the death penalty spares more innocents, in three ways, than does a life sentence.

Put another way, fighting against the death penalty will sacrifice more innocents.

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/1…ts-matter.html
 
dudleysharp said:
LS:

1,2,6 & 8 call for mandatory executions.

You may disagree, but the language is clear.
Click to expand...
No they don’t. The language reflects an audience needing guidance on the legitimacy of their civil (or Papal State) authority to apply a death penalty during their times. Human language doesn’t have the power of omniscience. That is the whole point of the papacy, the unbroken Apostolic succession, to interpret and convey words and doctrines in every age to the faithful of that age. Why would we even need the papacy if we believed that words by a few men past said, were omniscient? That is why Catholics never talk of Popes contradicting each other or measuring papal teachings as deficient and confusing simply because they don’t say exactly the same thing as were said for 2000 years. Herein lies the very source of Catholic faith. We trust hopefully and obediently in our present Popes and conferences of Cardinals to convey and interpret the immortal truths and Gods will for us.

Today, the Church language reflects the legitimacy of abolition of capital punishment as detrimental to society.
 
dudleysharp said:
Facts are, completely, the opposite of their beliefs, as I have detailed, throughout.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what this means. To clarify, are you saying that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis 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?
 
LongingSoul said:
No they don’t. The language reflects an audience needing guidance on the legitimacy of their civil (or Papal State) authority to apply a death penalty during their times. Human language doesn’t have the power of omniscience. That is the whole point of the papacy, the unbroken Apostolic succession, to interpret and convey words and doctrines in every age to the faithful of that age. Why would we even need the papacy if we believed that words by a few men past said, were omniscient? That is why Catholics never talk of Popes contradicting each other or measuring papal teachings as deficient and confusing simply because they don’t say exactly the same thing as were said for 2000 years. Herein lies the very source of Catholic faith. We trust hopefully and obediently in our present Popes and conferences of Cardinals to convey and interpret the immortal truths and Gods will for us.

Today, the Church language reflects the legitimacy of abolition of capital punishment as detrimental to society.
Click to expand...
👍

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/statement-on-capital-punishment.cfm
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
I’m not sure what this means. To clarify, are you saying that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis 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?
Click to expand...
Along with the Magesterium of the bishops of the world.
 
Don’t worry Longing Soul. There is a big push to end the death penalty in the US among Catholics and the public.

The problem people have is “liberal and progressive democrats” are for abolishing the death penalty.

Most practicing Catholics align with the conservative republicans who like to execute every one like the Wild West.

Yet another area where political affiliation skews ones Christian practice.
 
Ender said:
This is not quite the rubbish you presume it to be.*And as for “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: **Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. ***(St Bellarmine)
Ender
Click to expand...
That is not what the Church teaches. What a particular Saint or Doctor of the Church may say can be helpful for deepening our understanding of the faith, but what is said isn’t per se a teaching of the Church.

Afaik The Church hasn’t said that the only way that is acceptable of interpreting those words is that a person who commits murder ought to be executed. She has called for the punishment to be commensurate with the crime. Not much else is definitive, including what that means in practice. Who’s to say a lifetime of suffering, which is essentially forfeiting your life, isn’t a way of expiating the sin? Or if they convert and receive Confession, doesn’t being a Christian mean dying to one’s self, and doesn’t the Eucharist take away all temporal punishment?
 
Jon_S said:
Don’t worry Longing Soul. There is a big push to end the death penalty in the US among Catholics and the public.

The problem people have is “liberal and progressive democrats” are for abolishing the death penalty.

Most practicing Catholics align with the conservative republicans who like to execute every one like the Wild West.

Yet another area where political affiliation skews ones Christian practice.
Click to expand...
Jon, I’ve followed the capital punishment discussion online since 2001 (I never really though too much about it before the internet since I’ve never lived in a death penalty system) and seen the transition of US Catholics from pro capital punishment to pro abolition. Many had not been that aware of Pope StJPII’s strong statements on it until the mid 2000’s but such is his credibility to many, reading his words had an almost mystical and instantaneous effect. That was a real thing to witness. Of course there will be the hardcore noose-a-lots, but the abolition train has already got too much speed to pull it up now. 👍
 
Jon_S said:
Don’t worry Longing Soul. There is a big push to end the death penalty in the US among Catholics and the public.

The problem people have is “liberal and progressive democrats” are for abolishing the death penalty.

Most practicing Catholics align with the conservative republicans who like to execute every one like the Wild West.

Yet another area where political affiliation skews ones Christian practice.
Click to expand...
This makes sense. I am a conservative/republican, but am still against the DP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top