Catholic Church Teaching on Execution?

[couponfit]

What is the church’s current teaching on execution, participation in an execution, and even involvement on a jury which finds in favor of a execution?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not categorically prohibit execution. The Church has always permitted execution in cases where a criminal presents a substantial risk to innocent lives and there are no other practical means to mitigate this risk. Historically, this situation has been somewhat common.

However, in modern developed societies, the ability to mitigate this risk has increased substantially. Thus, execution would not usually be considered permissible in such a society (such as within the United States).

Your question about jury participation is one that I share. Can a Catholic serve on a jury on a capital trial in a jurisdiction where the jury determines the punishment? If I were ever selected for such a trial, I would make clear on the jury questionarre that I would never vote for execution. I believe that I could serve on a jury in a jurisdiction where the jury only decided the guilt or innocence, but left the punishment up to the judge (even if it was possibly capital punishment).

 

[Leegal]

What is the church’s current teaching on execution, participation in an execution, and even involvement on a jury which finds in favor of a execution?

The Church says they oppose the death penalty and, primarily believes that restoration and rehabilitation be the objective.

However, the Church says they recognize that there are circumstances where it may be necessary such as when society cannot be otherwise protected. However, since we have effective prisons, my feeling is that we can protect society.

The question remains that the person can still be a danger to other prisoners and guards, however, for the most part we have an effective penal system, but there have been killings by inmates.

I am against the death penalty in all cases. You, on the other hand, in examing your conscience, may find that the death penalty may be warranted to protect others. I recognize that rehabilitation is not always possible, but an effective life without parole should protect society from this person.

Because my conscience cannot allow me to sentence anyone to death, I am bound to inform the court that I cannot serve on such a jury. God, the courts and the defendant should expect no less from me.

You would be informed before being seated on a jury that the death penalty was an option if found the person is found guilty and you would then be required to vote separately on the sentencing option. I would have to inform the court, and the court uses questionaires and voir dire to ferret out people who might already have come to some conclusion – in my case being anti-death penalty in all cases.

It would never happen that you would not know before being seated that the charges may carry a sentence of death if found guilty. You could not opt out of the sentencing part of the trial after having served on the jury for the actual trial. We have a bifurcated system – which means death penalty case have two “trials” – the actual one and the sentencing recommendation one. You would be obligated to express your views when being questioned for selection and the judge would question you privately, with attorneys present, to see that your position is real and not some way of getting out of jury duty.

See #56 of Evangelium Vitae

 

[PrayHarder]

Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not categorically prohibit execution. The Church has always permitted execution in cases where a criminal presents a substantial risk to innocent lives and there are no other practical means to mitigate this risk. Historically, this situation has been somewhat common.

However, in modern developed societies, the ability to mitigate this risk has increased substantially. Thus, execution would not usually be considered permissible in such a society (such as within the United States).

Your question about jury participation is one that I share. Can a Catholic serve on a jury on a capital trial in a jurisdiction where the jury determines the punishment? If I were ever selected for such a trial, I would make clear on the jury questionarre that I would never vote for execution. I believe that I could serve on a jury in a jurisdiction where the jury only decided the guilt or innocence, but left the punishment up to the judge (even if it was possibly capital punishment).

You’re spot on according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm

 

[ESMDHokie77]

what jurisdictions allow the jury to determine the punishment???

 

[didymus]

what jurisdictions allow the jury to determine the punishment???

The United States, i.e., the 50 States and the federal gov’t.

Subsequent to several SCOTUS rulings the jury has to determine guilt, then after hearing evidence from both prosecution and defence they decide for death or a lesser sentence.

 

[carn]

However, in modern developed societies, the ability to mitigate this risk has increased substantially. Thus, execution would not usually be considered permissible in such a society (such as within the United States).

Is this a personal opinion or church teaching that in the current United States death penalty is usually not permissable?

I asked, because i would suspect that the Church is normally only giving guidelines, according to which the rulers should make decisions. If the rulers arive along these guidelines to a decision that certain allowed means of the state have to be used, then seldom the Church will call them out on that, because ite not the Churchs job to decide current politcal issues, but the government, parliament or whoever is in charge has that job.
And catholics might then have to submit to such government decision.

Therefore i consider it possible, that a catholic in the US acting in a jury based on his personal opinion that the US laws are wrong in regard to death penalty and not applying these laws as they are supposed to be applied, would violate the 4th commandment (which is not only about parents but also about not rebelling against legitimate authorities). Though probably it would be enough, if he made during selection clear that he will never vote in favor of death penalty.

 

[Ender]

The Church says they oppose the death penalty and, primarily believes that restoration and rehabilitation be the objective.

Rehabilitation is one of the four objectives of punishment the Church recognizes. It is, however, like protection, only a secondary objective. The primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice:* “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”* (2266)

However, the Church says they recognize that there are circumstances where it may be necessary such as when society cannot be otherwise protected. However, since we have effective prisons, my feeling is that we can protect society.

The claim made in 2267 and EV 56 about the traditional teaching of the Church is not correct. The Church never tied the use of capital punishment to the need for protection and she never justified using executions as a means of defense against future crimes. She has always understood its use as a just punishment for the crime of (e.g.) murder. It has always been about justice, not protection.

Ender

 

[styrgwillidar]

Rehabilitation is one of the four objectives of punishment the Church recognizes. It is, however, like protection, only a secondary objective. The primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice:* “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”* (2266)
The claim made in 2267 and EV 56 about the traditional teaching of the Church is not correct. The Church never tied the use of capital punishment to the need for protection and she never justified using executions as a means of defense against future crimes. She has always understood its use as a just punishment for the crime of (e.g.) murder. It has always been about justice, not protection.

Ender

I disagree, this is included in the portion of the catechism on legitimate defense which follows. If you read this section in it’s entirety it does reflect that capital punishment is permissable as it relates to the governments responsibility to defend the populace. That incarceration in modern times is normally suitable as retributive justice and to redress the disorder; only if incarceration is unavalalible to adequately defend the populace is capital punishment acceptable.

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

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.67

2267 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 to 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 nonexistent."68

 

[Ender]

I disagree, this is included in the portion of the catechism on legitimate defense which follows. If you read this section in it’s entirety it does reflect that capital punishment is permissable as it relates to the governments responsibility to defend the populace.

There is a reason the Church has never used the argument of self-defense to justify capital punishment: it doesn’t apply.

The personal self-defender needs to be forced into performing the lethal action; the soldier, the minister of the judge, and the executioner do not. Since the latter three figures do not necessarily act on the spur of the moment and since, when not so acting, they have various means at their disposal, force (in the sense we have been discussing) cannot be the morally decisive factor. In other words, given their shared context as officers of the law, the principle of double effect as set out by Aquinas cannot apply to them. (Kevin L. Flannery S.J. Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)

That incarceration in modern times is normally suitable as retributive justice and to redress the disorder…

Incarceration in our time is less, not more, of a punishment than in previous centuries. There is no way to claim that prison today satisfies the demands of retributive justice in a way that left it unsatisfied in the past.

…only if incarceration is unavalalible to adequately defend the populace is capital punishment acceptable.

Capital punishment is acceptable only if it is a just punishment for the crime and it has always been accepted by the Church as a just punishment. That was obviously true of the past and it is equally true today.

Ender

 

[StephenEstes]

There is a reason the Church has never used the argument of self-defense to justify capital punishment: it doesn’t apply.

The personal self-defender needs to be forced into performing the lethal action; the soldier, the minister of the judge, and the executioner do not. Since the latter three figures do not necessarily act on the spur of the moment and since, when not so acting, they have various means at their disposal, force (in the sense we have been discussing) cannot be the morally decisive factor. In other words, given their shared context as officers of the law, the principle of double effect as set out by Aquinas cannot apply to them. (Kevin L. Flannery S.J. Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)
Incarceration in our time is less, not more, of a punishment than in previous centuries. There is no way to claim that prison today satisfies the demands of retributive justice in a way that left it unsatisfied in the past.
Capital punishment is acceptable only if it is a just punishment for the crime and it has always been accepted by the Church as a just punishment. That was obviously true of the past and it is equally true today.

Ender

I dont really know exactly what to quote in what you said because I think there is so much wrong with it: yes there have been many theologians who argue against the death penalty based on self-defense and no the Church does not currently except it as a just punishment. I dont see how either of your statments could be true unless you completely disregard these two statements:

execution is only appropriate: “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 immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” evangelium vitae - Pope John Paul II

‘If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.’" - Catechism

 

[DavidFilmer]

Is this a personal opinion or church teaching that in the current United States death penalty is usually not permissable?

It is a bit of both. This is Church teaching, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2267 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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

The Catholic Church has not formally declared that the United States penal system is capable of “effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” short of execution. Such a conclusion is far outside of the purview of the Church, which does not conduct inspections of prisons or render judgement on their effectiveness.

However, it would be very difficult to argue that the “ONLY possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (emphasis mine) in modern American society is to kill the offender. The US penal system has become pretty darned good at locking up (and keeping locked up) people who might otherwise have been executed in an earlier time.

The Church permits execution if it is the ONLY way. Not the “best” way, or the “cheapest” way, or the “popular” way.

Until fairly recently, there were no such things as long-term prisons in human society. There were jails, in which people were confined until judgement could be rendered (and we have these today). But there was usually no such thing as long-term (or lifelong) incarceration in confined, guarded areas which offer security and protection to the general public.

Some societies have developed such options, and they must be employed whenever possible, instead of execution. Every jurisdiction in the United States is perfectly capable of locking up an offender for life. Thus, any jurisdiction in the United States should never be permitted to consider execution.

 

[carn]

The Church permits execution if it is the ONLY way. Not the “best” way, or the “cheapest” way, or the “popular” way.

“only” is not meant as “only way conceivable that offers protaction”. An alternative always conceivable would be to have the judge tell the criminal, that what he did was realy bad and that he should not do it again and then let him lose. I am fairly confident that with this protection method of appealing to the conscience of the murderer, society would be protected efficiently from 10-50% of murderers.

And why this disdain for cost?

Taxation has to be enforced at gun point and effect peoples live.

For example it could well be possible, that someone murders a pregnant womens husband, parents and parents-in-law. The amount of money she inherits will depend on taxation and for some women the amount of inherited money might make a difference to whether she decides to have an abortion. And the teaching of the Church adamantly opposses considering costs in punishing the murderer?

(And i am aware, that in US executions are currently more costly than life imprisonement, but you claimed that the teaching of the Church effictively excludes cost being a legitimate concenr for society, when punishing the guilty.)

Every jurisdiction in the United States is perfectly capable of locking up an offender for life. Thus, any jurisdiction in the United States should never be permitted to consider execution.

There is always the chance of a prisoner escaping or a pardon commission fumbling. Who is to decide whether this chance is low enough to meet the sufficient criteria?

 

[Ender]

there have been many theologians who argue against the death penalty based on self-defense

There may well be theologians who make that argument. My point is that that argument is invalid for the reason I pointed out. Killing in self defense is allowed because what is intended is defense, not killing. It is an example of an action with a double effect: the intended good one and the unintended bad one. The reason this principle cannot apply to an execution is in that case the death is intended, not unintended.

and no the Church does not currently except it as a just punishment.

This claim cannot be true because the justness of the punishment is determined by the nature of the crime and the nature of the crime of murder has not - and cannot - change. If death was a just punishment for murder in earlier centuries then it is an equally just punishment today.

I dont see how either of your statments could be true unless you completely disregard these two statements:

I haven’t disregarded those statements but I do disagree with them and given that they are prudential opinions and not new doctrines I am justified in doing so. It should be apparent that estimations of the capabilities of modern penal systems could never be a doctrine. Such estimates cannot be sustained by any theological argument but would have to be supported by referencing criminal justice statistics. That is, the claim is sociological, not theological.

public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.’"

I have never heard an attempt by anyone to justify this claim. It is precisely because of man’s dignity that the crime of murder is so heinous and the penalty so severe. It is not the dignity of the murderer that protects his life, it is the dignity of the victim that causes him to forfeit it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is a bit of both. This is Church teaching, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I disagree. This is a prudential opinion, not Church doctrine.

*The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

The Catholic Church has not formally declared that the United States penal system is capable of “effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” short of execution. Such a conclusion is far outside of the purview of the Church, which does not conduct inspections of prisons or render judgement on their effectiveness.

Exactly. This is clearly a prudential opinion, not a doctrinal teaching.

The Church permits execution if it is the ONLY way.

For 2000 years the Church has taught that death is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. That teaching has not changed.

Until fairly recently, there were no such things as long-term prisons in human society. There were jails, in which people were confined until judgement could be rendered (and we have these today). But there was usually no such thing as long-term (or lifelong) incarceration in confined, guarded areas which offer security and protection to the general public.

This claim is commonly made but never substantiated. In fact people have been held in lifetime imprisonment since the time of the Romans.

…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. (Fifth Lateran Council, 1512)

Thus, any jurisdiction in the United States should never be permitted to consider execution.

Not so; we are surely permitted to consider executions.

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

*What we hear from the Church today is a plea against using capital punishment in the belief that it causes more problems than it resolves, but that is a prudential belief. The doctrine of the Church has not changed:

*The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)

Ender

 

[clmowry]

Your question about jury participation is one that I share. Can a Catholic serve on a jury on a capital trial in a jurisdiction where the jury determines the punishment? If I were ever selected for such a trial, I would make clear on the jury questionarre that I would never vote for execution. I believe that I could serve on a jury in a jurisdiction where the jury only decided the guilt or innocence, but left the punishment up to the judge (even if it was possibly capital punishment).

Before you would be selected to sit on a jury for a capital offense you will be asked if your religious beliefs will prevent you from rendering a death penalty.

Let them know you are Catholic and you’ll be dismissed from that jury pool.

Chuck

 

[Sunflower15]

…
The claim made in 2267 and EV 56 about the traditional teaching of the Church is not correct. The Church never tied the use of capital punishment to the need for protection and she never justified using executions as a means of defense against future crimes. She has always understood its use as a just punishment for the crime of (e.g.) murder. It has always been about justice, not protection.

Ender

I am interested in this topic and would like to know what are you basing your statement regarding the Church not considering capital punishment as a deterrent but rather as an instrument of justice. Can you please provide something I can read on this? Thanks.

 

[Sunflower15]

What is the church’s current teaching on execution, participation in an execution, and even involvement on a jury which finds in favor of a execution?

I just wanted to comment that this is an extremely important topic, and one in which most Catholics are either extremely ignorant of the teachings in the Catechism or simply have chosen to disregard the Catechism (to justify their own views).

I must add that in addition to a very clear directive included in the Catechism, there is also the public testimony of the Holy Father (pretty much all of them in the last 100 yrs), by means of requests for clemency…publicly…to almost every nation at the time government officials order a sentence of execution. It is important to notice these things.

Issued by USCCB, November 15, 2000
Copyright © 2000, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc. All rights reserved.
Order Copies of This Statement

"A Statement of the Catholic Bishops of the United States

*We are still a long way from the time when our conscience can be certain of having done everything possible to prevent crime and to control it effectively so that it no longer does harm and, at the same time, to offer to those who commit crimes a way of redeeming themselves and making a positive return to society. If all those in some way involved in the problem tried to . . . develop this line of thought, perhaps humanity as a whole could take a great step forward in creating a more serene and peaceful society.

Pope John Paul II, July 9, 2000*"

Aside from the wonderful teachings coming from the Vatican, our own bishops (the USCCB) also attempt to exercise their duty to instruct us in the faith in terms of capital punishment.

old.usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf

In which US bishops state:

"Our nation should forgo the use of the death penalty because
The sanction of death, when it is not necessary to protect society, violates respect for human life and dignity.
State-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes all of us.
Its application is deeply flawed and can be irreversibly wrong, is prone to errors, and is biased by factors such as race, the quality of legal representation, and where the crime was committed.
We have other ways to punish criminals and protect society."

However, the most eloquent in this regard (IMHO) are both God the Father, and God the Son. In the case of Cain, when he was afraid of someone killing him for his crime, the Lord Almighty assured him that whoever did this would be guilty ‘seven times’ over. And, in the case of the adulterous woman, a crime punishable by death, Jesus basically saved her. There is a reason these stories are included in the Bible…though I do understand that matters of interpretation can make it ambiguous. That is why we have Catechism, bishops & a Pope to guide us.

Peace to all. Let’s foster a true culture of LIFE. =)

 

[styrgwillidar]

There is a reason the Church has never used the argument of self-defense to justify capital punishment: it doesn’t apply.

Ender

Agreed. I didn’t say anything about capital punishment being related to self-defense.

I pointed out that the use of capital punishment is included in the section of the catechism covering legitimate defense. It specifically associates the legitimacy of using the death penalty as part of a governments exercising it’s responsibility for the safety of the populace when other means are not available.

As you’ve pointed out the Church teaches that punishments should be just relative to the crime committed, and allow the individual the opportunity to reconcile themselves with God.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Ender, someone earlier posted part of 2267, (which as mentioned before is included in the section of the catechism covering legitimate defense). You could go back and read my first post which includes the whole legitimate defense section, but here’s all of 2267:

2267 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 to 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 nonexistent."68 **

Note the bolded part, the Church through it’s catechism teaches that use of the death penalty is almost never acceptable in our current environment. Again, since the Church cites the government’s responsibility to ‘defend and protect the people’s safety’ as the justification for the death penalty.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2263. Unless this online version of the catechism that I’ve referenced is in error.