Catholic Support for the Death Penalty

[Ender]

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.

The lack of clarity is in the type of teaching: prudential or doctrinal. That makes all the difference. If JPII was saying that it’s a bad idea to use capital punishment because of its overall harmful effect on society, that’s a reasonable consideration, but if he’s saying it is now immoral to use it if the felon can be safely locked up, that’s an entirely different concern, and calls into question its consistency with several other doctrines. This would be a problem.

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?

How are we to understand 2260? It cites Gn 9:5-6 (where God explicitly states the punishment for murder is death) and then goes on to say “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” What about the part of 2266 that says “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense”? This refers to retributive justice, and obviously not to protection, but if protection is not the primary objective then how can it determine the degree of punishment that is necessary to satisfy what is the primary objective?

There are at least a half dozen earlier catechisms that discuss the death penalty, and not one of them contains that restriction. Trent went so far as to say:

The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

2267 is concerned primarily with protection, but just 50 years earlier Pius XII rejected that position:

‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself.

If 2267 is meant to be doctrinal it really causes problems. If it is prudential, however, it all fits nicely within the church’s history of acknowledging its validity, but objecting to its application is particular circumstances.

 

[pnewton]

Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity.

If this Dunnigan person cannot figure it out, there are plenty who could teach him. There was another guy here, some non-Catholic, who came here just to argue for the death penalty. He made the same sort of claim. I always wondered why people who say they do not know something try to teach others. Spreading ignorance and doubt is not a virtue.

 

[godisgood77]

but if he’s saying it is now immoral to use it if the felon can be safely locked up, that’s an entirely different concern, and calls into question its consistency with several other doctrines.

I don’t think there is any question that the Pope is saying that it is wrong to kill a felon if there are alternatives available. He spends a great deal of effort and consideration making that point. Remember, he doesn’t say that the death penalty is never allowed, so this teaching seems to be in harmony with the past teachings that you reference.

The principle of the development of doctrine in this case allows for a narrowing of the instances where the death penalty could be applied without negating the essential meaning of the original understanding… it is only deepened.

(where God explicitly states the punishment for murder is death)

One could make an argument that one dies spiritually because of the offense to the dignity of the person and the affront to God, therefore the punishment is death just not in the temporal sense. The would dove tail nicely with the Church’s teaching on repentance and forgiveness…and the new Covenant. Another way would be that life imprisonment is indeed forfeiting ones life, so satisfies the idea of a need to trade one life for another…the retributive function of punishment remains completely in tact.

I would add that when God gave the command in Genesis there were not other means available to contain the felon and prevent further damage… again the legitimate development of doctrine would allow for this.

 

[Vouthon]

There are at least a half dozen earlier catechisms that discuss the death penalty, and not one of them contains that restriction. Trent went so far as to say:

The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

And centuries before the council of Trent, Pope St. Nicholas the Great condemned the death penalty in 866 (Letter 99):

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/history/09/866_responce_pope_Nicholas_I.htm

Chapter XXV.

You claim that it is part of the custom of your country that guards always stand on the alert between your country and the boundaries of others; and if a slave or freeman [manages to] flee somehow through this watch, the guards are killed without hesitation because of this. Now then, you are asking us, what we think about this practice.

Nevertheless, far be it from your minds that you, who have acknowledged so pious a God and Lord, now judge so harshly, especially since it is more fitting that, just as hitherto you put people to death with ease, so from now on you should lead those whom you can not to death but to life. For the blessed apostle Paul, who was initially an abusive persecutor and breathed threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,[cf. Acts 9:1] later sought mercy and, converted by a divine revelation, not only did not impose the death penalty on anyone but also wished to be anathema for the brethren [cf. Rom. 9:3] and was prepared to spend and be spent most willingly for the souls of the faithful.[cf. II Cor. 12:15]

In the same way, after you have been called by the election of God and illuminated by his light, you should no longer desire deaths but should without hesitation recall everyone to the life of the body as well as the soul, when any opportunity is found. [cf. Rom. 7:6] And just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death, according to the saying of the most wise Solomon: Save those, who are led to death; and do not cease freeing those who are brought to their destruction. [Prov. 24:11]_

Prior to him, so had Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) when he stated: “Since I fear God, I shrink from having anything whatsoever to do with the death of anyone”.

The church’s teaching on the matter today is more reflective of these earlier opinions.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

Throughout the middle ages, even if the power to condemn criminals to death was conceded to the secular power, the clergy - held to a higher standard - were expressly forbidden from having anything to do with the shedding of human blood.

The canons of the Council of Toledo (675 A.D.) stated:

It is not licit for those by whom the sacraments of the Lord are to be performed to carry out a judgment of blood. But if anyone, unmindful of these precepts, has done anything of the sort to members of his church or to any other persons, he is to be deprived of the honor and place of his granted order.‡

Master Thomas of Chobham, for instance, in his Summa confessorum (c. 1216), warned against the sentencing of men to death or mutilation by clerics, urging that ‘So great is the dread of human blood that even a judge who justly slays the wicked, if he enters the religious life or wishes to be made a cleric, cannot be promoted to holy orders.’

Clerics were also prohibited from engaging in violence in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215):

No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood.

Saint Agobard (799-840), archbishop of Lyons, once stated that: “Whoever spills human blood, His (God’s) blood is spilled as well: For man is made in the image of God”.

If we hold our priests and religious to this ideal of not “polluting” themselves with the shedding of blood through capital punishment, should we not aspire to this same degree of holiness for all including the laity as the highest aim?

Since Vatican II “clericalism”, by which the religious are held to higher standards than the laity, has been abandoned in favour of the “universal call to holiness”.

 

[Crocus]

Saint Agobard (799-840), archbishop of Lyons, once stated that: “Whoever spills human blood, His (God’s) blood is spilled as well: For man is made in the image of God”.

I realize this is a saying of the saint, however is also a fearsome interpretation of Gen 9:6. It never occurred to me as such before, but the second sentence does seem to imply connectedness and the gravity of the action. Perhaps it is explicit as well, in the original scripture?

 

[Ender]

If this Dunnigan person cannot figure it out, there are plenty who could teach him. There was another guy here, some non-Catholic, who came here just to argue for the death penalty. He made the same sort of claim. I always wondered why people who say they do not know something try to teach others. Spreading ignorance and doubt is not a virtue.

Dunnigan is a Canon lawyer. Karl Keating cited him in agreement with his comment. Don’t be so dismissive of their opinions.

 

[TheOldColonel]

Until the 20th Century, the Catholic Church traditionally supported the right of nation states and leaders to impose a death penalty. I suppose the centuries of supporting the death penalty may now quietly be swept under the rug without explanation.

 

[pnewton]

Dunnigan is a Canon lawyer. Karl Keating cited him in agreement with his comment. Don’t be so dismissive of their opinions.

He is the one that said he did not understand. If one does not understand Church teaching, then one is to be taught. Yes, I will dismiss those who teach differently than the Church without the authority of the Church. I will post responses here to posters with no obligation of giving everyone’s favorite lay blogger any consideration.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think there is any question that the Pope is saying that it is wrong to kill a felon if there are alternatives available. He spends a great deal of effort and consideration making that point. Remember, he doesn’t say that the death penalty is never allowed, so this teaching seems to be in harmony with the past teachings that you reference.

Section 2267 of the catechism starts off by claiming that the traditional teaching of the church allowed capital punishment "when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. "

If this is understood to be physical protection from the person to be sentenced, then no, this is not the traditional teaching of the church, and that understanding is not in harmony with the past.

The principle of the development of doctrine in this case allows for a narrowing of the instances where the death penalty could be applied without negating the essential meaning of the original understanding… it is only deepened.

Are you claiming that doctrine can develop in such a way as to make immoral today what was moral yesterday? Make no mistake, there was never a question in the past about the morality of executing felons for serious crimes whether the could be safely imprisoned or not. In most cases that was simply not a consideration.

In this case it is precisely the essential meaning of punishment that is being negated. What is the one requirement that every punishment must satisfy without exception? It must be just.

Now you can argue that there are many things to consider in determining what the just punishment would be in a particular situation, but it ought to be evident that considerations of the need for protection is not at the top of that list. That being so, how can that consideration possibly be the primary determinant of a just punishment?

To elevate protection to the position of primary importance is in fact to negate the essential meaning of punishment as the church has always understood it.

 

[Ender]

And centuries before the council of Trent, Pope St. Nicholas the Great condemned the death penalty in 866 (Letter 99):

Perhaps not as much as you think.

Pope Leo I in the fifth century and Pope Nicholas I in the ninth century made it clear that the Church herself could not be directly involved in capital punishment; but the pontiffs assumed that the State was divinely authorized to do so. So, too, the Councils of Toledo (675) and Fourth Lateran (1215) forbade the clergy to take direct part in the juridical process or sentencing of a person on a capital charge. But again, the councils took for granted that the State may condemn a convicted criminal to death and execute the sentence. (Fr. John Hardon)

I think Pope Nicholas’ opposition to capital punishment was just the same as JPII’s; that is, he opposed its use prudentially, but not morally. Beyond that, think of the problem that would exist if Nicholas had found it immoral. Would it have been moral from 400-600 (Innocent I to Gregory), then immoral from 600-1200 (Gregory to Innocent III), then moral again from 1200-2000 (Innocent to JPII)? What would that say about morality if it is dependent on nothing more than the opinions of various popes?

The church’s teaching on the matter today is more reflective of these earlier opinions.

Actually I agree with this, but that is so only because I consider the opposition both past and present to be just what you said: an opinion about the appropriateness of its use rather than a moral condemnation of it.

 

[Vouthon]

I politely disagree with Fr. Hardon’s interpretation here.

Pope St. Nicholas the Great penned his letter, not to ecclesiastical authorities but rather, to Khan Boris the king of the Bulgars. He was explicitly referring to the harshness of the Bulgar judicial and penal system when he voiced his disapproval of capital punishment.

See:

Chapter XXV.

You claim that it is part of the custom of your country that guards always stand on the alert between your country and the boundaries of others; and if a slave or freeman [manages to] flee somehow through this watch, the guards are killed without hesitation because of this

So he actually did oppose the death penalty and did not assume the State should participate in the execution of the guilty.

I would say that the church, through the standard mandated for its clergy, always upheld opposition to capital punishment as the most ideal response to the issue but at times took a more pragmatic approach in recognising that the state sometimes had to act in defence of the common good, of civic security, by executing a violent offender - particularly before the emergence of modern high-security prisons. At other times, popes adopted the stricter line of imposing the clerical prohibition to refrain from participating in the shedding of human blood to the laity, as with Nicholas I.

Since Vatican II, with the universal call to holiness being established definitively for the laity, we are today expected to meet the higher standard and in addition high-security prison systems now make the earlier practical concession to the secular sphere irrelevant. So I view it as twofold.

 

[Ender]

Pope St. Nicholas the Great penned his letter, not to ecclesiastical authorities but rather, to Khan Boris the king of the Bulgars. He was explicitly referring to the harshness of the Bulgar judicial and penal system when he voiced his disapproval of capital punishment.

Yes, he was expressing his disapproval of the harshness of the Bulgar system. That interpretation makes a lot more sense than understanding his letter as a moral denunciation of capital punishment itself. But go back to my other comment: suppose he did call it immoral? How can you accept any doctrine of the church if you understand them to mean nothing more than what the current pope says they mean? How reasonable is it to believe that church doctrine can reverse itself several times on the same subject? That’s not development, that’s chaos. If your position was to be accepted it would mean the church’s doctrines are not in fact based on scripture and Tradition, but are only the personal opinions of random popes.

 

[Vouthon]

Ender,

We need to contend with the fact that Pope St. Nicholas the Great did declare it to be immoral and disproportionate to execute the guilty if a non-violent alternative was at hand to punish the offender in a way commensurate with their crimes. After criticizing the Bulgar penal system, he proceeded to condemn capital punishment generally. The meaning is plain in the text. (I’m not making it up!)

And, unsurprisingly, Pope St. John Paul II (another canonized pontiff with the appellation “the Great”, oddly enough) argued exactly the same during his pontificate when he stated: “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…Today, the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are rare, if not practically non-existent.”.

Pope St. Nicholas argued that non-lethal means were available and so Khan Boris shouldn’t impose the death penalty on criminals because in principle we shouldn’t shed human blood, even of the guilty, if it can be avoided. Later popes, conceded differently.

Today, with modern high security prisons, there is no justification for the death penalty and the higher standard perennially mandated for the clergy can be observed by all, as Pope Nicholas I desired over a millennium ago.

 

[Vouthon]

@Ender I think this a good occasion to flag up something significant that I alluded to in the above: the traditional disparity between the standards expected from clerics and laypersons, by which means the laity were relegated to de facto second-class citizenship of the Church, complete with numerous concessions made to their weakness.

See:

Innocent Civilians

Why is it that soldiers may be killed in war but civilians may not be killed? By tracing the evolution of the principle of non-combatant immunity in Western thought from its medieval religious origins to its modern legal status, Colm McKeogh attempts to answer this question. In doing so he...

books.google.co.uk

The ban on clerical fighting was part of a general prohibition on the clerical use of weapons which extended to hunting as well as warfare. Clerics could not shed blood, either human or animal. The ban on clerical participation in war was not simply an implication of the advice to those who served God not to be concerned with the things of the world. Rather, it was the act of killing which was thought to sully (as the ban on clerical hunting clearly shows). The ban on clerical participation is an acknowledgement that the most Christian thing to do is forgo all killing.

The established reasoning was to be based on the idea of the two levels of Christian vocation put forward by Eusebius of Caesaria. Eusebius held that Christians of the higher level (the clergy and religious) were to aim at the highest Christian ideals; they were bound by the ‘counsels of perfection’…This differentiation between lay and clerical morality is not firmly grounded and there is certainly no biblical basis for it. It is odd to interpret Jesus’s command of non-resistance strictly for those Christians who desired to attain perfection (equated with clerics)…That something is not to be done by the most perfect Christians, because they are the most perfect Christians, is almost an acknowledgement that it ought not to be done by any Christian

Vatican II attempted to pivot the Church away from this spurious “two-tier model” of holiness:

The Universal Call to Holiness and Apostolate is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that all people are called to be holy, and is based on Matthew 5:48 - “Be ye therefore perfect, as also thy heavenly Father is perfect.”…

Chapter V of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium discusses the Universal Call to Holiness:

…all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity; …They must follow in His footsteps and conform themselves to His image seeking the will of the Father in all things. They must devote themselves with all their being to the glory of God and the service of their neighbor.[3]

We are all called to the “perfection of charity”, not merely clerics.

 

[godisgood77]

I think you are reading in to my comments to find more than there is.

Here goes another try…

1. Punishment of the crime is the primary meaning of any any penalty associated with a crime - no one is suggesting a change to this.
2. The Church allows the death penalty as a punishment
3. The Catechism of the Church and the teachings of St John Paul II make clear that cases where the death penalty would be allowable 'are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'
4. For Catholics, the death penalty is no longer allowable when alternatives exist… ‘this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.’ . This in no way alters the fact the punishment of the crime is the primary reason for the penalty. Instead, it adds a clear parameter for when it can be applied in terms of how a Catholic would be obligate to understand the situation.
5. The legitimate development of doctrine in this case is that the Church has deepened her teaching to reflect that the cases in which the death penalty would be allowable have been narrowed, one might say significantly, This is based on the continued learning of the Church and the progress the world has made in its ability to protect the public through detention and rehabilitation
6. So, clear as day, the Church has not changed the morality associated with society’s recourse to the death penalty… however, the Church has deepened its teaching relative to the circumstances under which the death penalty would be permissible… this has a moral implication and makes it immoral to apply the death penalty when alternatives exist.

 

[MCH1]

expiate even the sin of murder…

Wow, I’d never heard that before. Interesting.

 

[Ender]

I politely disagree with Fr. Hardon’s interpretation here.

Pope St. Nicholas the Great penned his letter, not to ecclesiastical authorities but rather, to Khan Boris the king of the Bulgars. He was explicitly referring to the harshness of the Bulgar judicial and penal system when he voiced his disapproval of capital punishment.

This does not constitute moral condemnation of capital punishment:

Chapter XII
Because you ask whether it is permitted to carry out judgment on the feasts of the saints and whether the person, if he deserves it, should be sentenced to death on this same day, you should know that on those feasts on which, as we have shown, one should cease from all worldly labor, we think that one should abstain all the more from secular offices and especially from killing. For although both can perhaps be exercised without fault…

I think you have rather significantly misinterpreted Nicholas’ letter. He was writing in response to the Bulgar king’s response to an insurrection which was put down by force, and then the leaders and their children were executed. Nicholas specifically condemned the execution of the children, but, notably, not that of the leaders.

So he actually did oppose the death penalty and did not assume the State should participate in the execution of the guilty.

Your citation (Ch XXV) does not support this conclusion. What Nicholas opposed was the harshness of the punishments, that they were in excess of what was appropriate for the crimes. Killing the guards when someone escaped on their watch being an example of this excess. Yes, Nicholas called for clemency and opposed the extent to which the death penalty was used, but he never condemned the penalty itself, only its misapplication. Consider Chapter XXVI

Concerning those who have slaughtered their kinsman, i.e. someone related by blood such as a brother, cousin or grandson, let the venerable laws keep their force. But if they have fled to a church, let them in fact be saved from the laws of death…

It’s pretty clear here what the “venerable laws” demand: death. It is only if the person has fled to a church that they are to “be saved from the laws of death”. Again, this supports the interpretation that what Nicholas was condemning was the application of the penalty, and not the penalty itself.

Finally, this (Ch XLV) would seem to settle the issue of whether Nicholas was opposed to the death penalty itself or to its misapplication:

You wish to know from us whether or not judgments should be carried out or anyone sentenced to death during Lent. In this matter, know that we say the same thing to this question about Lent as we are known to have already responded concerning feast days in a chapter of these responses of ours.

The chapter he referred to was XXXVI in which he addressed what was proper to do during Lent and on feast days. In it he said there was nothing prohibited on any particular day if it was necessary. This response allows capital punishment even during Lent. There really is no other way to read this passage.

 

[Thom18]

Even from a purely fiscal standpoint, the death penalty makes no sense- it costs exponentially more than life imprisonment.

How so? Assuming that someone lives until their execution date, they’re still in prison for a shorter time than those with life sentences.

 

[Ender]

We need to contend with the fact that Pope St. Nicholas the Great did declare it to be immoral and disproportionate to execute the guilty if a non-violent alternative was at hand to punish the offender in a way commensurate with their crimes. After criticizing the Bulgar penal system, he proceeded to condemn capital punishment generally. The meaning is plain in the text. (I’m not making it up!)

I read through the document (quickly) and if such a passage is there I missed it. Of the passages I did see I did not find one that is better interpreted as being against the punishment itself rather than against a particular application of it.

Clearly the pope endorsed mercy, and even opposed capital punishment as used by the Bulgars, but despite having several opportunities to do so, not once did he condemn the punishment itself.

Pope St. Nicholas argued that non-lethal means were available and so Khan Boris shouldn’t impose the death penalty on criminals because in principle we shouldn’t shed human blood, even of the guilty, if it can be avoided.

I don’t think there is a single passage that supports your “non-lethal means available” assertion.

Today, with modern high security prisons, there is no justification for the death penalty and the higher standard perennially mandated for the clergy can be observed by all, as Pope Nicholas I desired over a millennium ago.

The ability to imprison people for life terms did not begin with modern prisons. That capability goes back at least to the Romans.