Catholic Support for the Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
godisgood77 said:
Texas bishop says Catholics are shrinking away from death penalty support…Hooray for the Bishops for driving this pro-life issue!!
Click to expand...
I reject the opinion that support of capital punishment is not a pro-life position. Superficially it seems obvious that putting someone to death would be against life, but it has only the appearance of being true.

Which is more important: physical life or eternal life? For a Catholic the answer is obvious, so the question is: does executing someone contribute in any way to his eternal salvation, or is it a meaningless example of State sponsored vengeance?

The church has addressed this at some length.

1864 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.

We must repent of our sins to receive mercy and forgiveness.

2266 …Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)
(67) Lk 23: 40-43

Endnote 67, citing Luke, refers to the salvation of the “good thief” crucified with Jesus. That is, the catechism uses an example of capital punishment to demonstrate the “correction of the offender” leading to his salvation.

It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments (Paul VI)

We must make expiation for our sins, and what is usually overlooked is that the acceptance of the penalty of death does in fact expiate even the sin of murder…

2266 When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.

To 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 (Romano Amerio)

As I said, it is only superficially that the death penalty appears to be contrary to pro-life principles.
 
Last edited:
Even from a purely fiscal standpoint, the death penalty makes no sense- it costs exponentially more than life imprisonment.
 
Ender said:
As I said, it is only superficially that the death penalty appears to be contrary to pro-life principles.
Click to expand...
You’re correct that the Church has taught substantially on the topic of the death penalty. And that teaching has developed significantly over time and with changing world… The death penalty is without question a Pro-Life issue… and out duty as Catholics as described in the Catechism is to oppose the death penalty in all of the rarest of cases as there are virtually no cases where the death penalty would be warranted in today’s world

It is great to see the Bishops embracing and promoting the teaching of the Church on this topic and advancing the Pro-Life cause.

Catechism 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

St. Pope John Paul II “May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

“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. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
Ender said:
I reject the opinion that support of capital punishment is not a pro-life position.
Click to expand...
You are free to reject the Church’s teaching on the subject…, but let’s be clear… it is not an opinion, it is a teaching.
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
You are free to reject the Church’s teaching on the subject…, but let’s be clear… it is not an opinion, it is a teaching.
Click to expand...
I do not reject the church’s teaching. I accept it as it has always been, unchanged for 2000 years. As to whether 2267 is binding doctrine or prudential judgment, this is not as obvious as you think.

“You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism…" (Cardinal Ratzinger)

“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)

More to the point, you didn’t address any of the arguments I presented.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
I do not reject the church’s teaching. I accept it as it has always been, unchanged for 2000 years. As to whether 2267 is binding doctrine or prudential judgment, this is not as obvious as you think.
Click to expand...
I did address your points… the Church allows for the death penalty. I’m not arguing against that. I’m making the point (and can’t tell if you are arguing against it or not) that the Church recognizes and teaches that death penalty can only be applied in the rarest of cases which are virtually non-existent in any first world country.
Those that zealously defend of the use of the death penalty would do well to clarify their positions by saying including that the Church teaches that it would be wrong to apply it in virtually all cases today as is taught in the Catechism.

Your references to Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Dulles quotes are helpful. When added to St Pope John Paul II’s comments and read in light of the Catechism, only reinforce my point.
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
I’m making the point (and can’t tell if you are arguing against it or not) that the Church recognizes and teaches that death penalty can only be applied in the rarest of cases which are virtually non-existent in any first world country.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that that caveat is a prudential judgment, not a doctrinal teaching.
Those that zealously defend of the use of the death penalty would do well to clarify their positions by saying including that the Church teaches that it would be wrong to apply it in virtually all cases today as is taught in the Catechism.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe this is at all what the church teaches, and neither apparently do these bishops (in addition to Dulles and Ratzinger).

“It is not one of those teachings a Catholic has to accept, like, for example, abortion. … If they’ve thought it through and prayed about it, they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this (death penalty) issue.” (Bishop James Conley, 2016)

“The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion” (Archbishop Jose Gomez, 2016)
 
Yet rightly or wrongly Pope Francis disagrees. He was pretty clear that he considers the death penalty to be “contrary to the Gospel”.
 
IThis is moral issue and while the Church has NO authority over how a government applies it’s authority; just like the Church has NO authority over how a government applies it’s authority relative to abortion policy. Abortion is wrong is all case, the Death Penalty is not excluded as an option, but is wrong in virtually all cases… Same family of Pro Life teaching.

The teaching in the Catechism is clear. The references you make to a few bishops making comments carry a lesser weight than that an official Church teaching text. I see no references to prudential judgement, but instead a clear position which exerts the Church’s well established voice on moral issues.

Another Church teaching text on the subject… PSJPII’s EVANGELIUM VITAE. In this text (a small portion referenced below), the Saint Pope using clear, careful language which should deflate your contention that a Catholic’s outlook on the Death Penalty is a prudential judgement. Terms like ‘must’ are not really open to interpretation about the Church’s position.

56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 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._

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “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”.48

I do not see how an informed Catholic could possibily support the death penalty today.
 
Last edited:
This is so true. It costs states far more money to put an inmate to death than to house them for life. That generally means less money for securing the rest of the inmate population away from the community. The state has to pay the legal costs of both the prosecution and defense and those go on for years, 10 to 20 years. Aside from the inhumanity of taking a life, there is no real reason for the death penalty in the US.
 
We discussed in another topic regarding the classics of writers, and I remembered the work of Victor Hugo, " the Last day of the sentenced to death". I recommend reading this work of French tragedian, this work is a protest against the death penalty.
 
godisgood77 said:
The teaching in the Catechism is clear.
Click to expand...
The teaching may be clear to you but it is precisely your understanding that I am challenging. The nature of 2267 is anything but clear.

Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. …Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching. (R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)
The references you make to a few bishops making comments carry a lesser weight than that an official Church teaching text.
Click to expand...
The references don’t dispute this section of the catechism, they explain the nature of its content. The disagreement is not between the bishops and the catechism, but between the bishops and you.
 
Ender said:
whether 2267 is binding doctrine or prudential judgment
Click to expand...
Points of definition, well taken.

The bishops are clearly advocating prudential judgement against the death penalty, in accord with their prophetic role. We are called to choose life, “Catholics are slowly shifting.”
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
The nature of 2267 is anything but clear.
Click to expand...
I think that 2267 is not clear only to those who disagree with it. JPII’s encyclical was also very clear and unambiguous… seems like you simply disagree with it.

A Papal Encyclical carries a very high teaching authority… second to Apostolic Constitutions

At the top of the hierarchy of authoritative documents are apostolic constitutions and formal decrees issued by popes. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was presented by the apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum in 1992. These documents, along with the Code of Canon Law (1983) have binding authority on the entire Church. These are legislative documents, containing dogmatic or doctrinal elements.

Papal teaching documents, encyclicals, apostolic letters, apostolic exhortations, and “motu proprio” documents expound or explain existing law… The Catechism and JPII’s EVANGELIUM VITAE expound and explain the law and Church’s position on the Death Penalty… it’s admissible, but the cases where it can be applied are virtually non-existent.

I’m open to being shown a Church teaching document that refutes the Catechism and JPII’s Encyclical about the rare and practically non-existent case for the death penalty in today’s society… can you reference one?
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
The references don’t dispute this section of the catechism, they explain the nature of its content. The disagreement is not between the bishops and the catechism, but between the bishops and you.
Click to expand...
I can offer plenty of quotes from Bishops as well… only they will support the opposite of your argument. That equates to a case of dueling experts… so our recourse is to official Church teaching documents… I reference the Catechism and JPII’s encyclical to clearly show that the case for the use of the death penalty ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ … I’d need to see a teaching document of the same weight in order to concede the point; a quote from a bishop would not suffice…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top