Catholic Support for the Death Penalty

[thistle]

I don’t think there is anything complicated here.
The Church accepts that the death penalty may be used. People can argue over what instances but it does not change the fact the Church allows resort to capital punishment.
The Church does not require Catholics to either support the death penalty or not.
My position is that the death penalty should be used for murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and drug lords. Nobody ever gets executed immediately. In fact they can be on death row for years, sometimes decades so they have plenty of time to repent if they want.

 

[TexasWife]

A member of my husband’s devout Catholic family was murdered. (Random, pointless robbery by an idiot 20 yo with a gun.) The family was asked if they would like to pursue the death penalty or life in prison. They chose life in prison because of their strong faith. It was really inspiring to see that even through their pain they could still value a human life.

 

[godisgood77]

Amen Sister

 

[Ender]

No, that would be justice.

Yes, it is justice that is the primary objective of all punishment. Now, the argument used against capital punishment is not that it is unjust, but that it is unnecessary, however the determination of what is necessary is a judgment.

But depriving someone of their life is a punishment that should only be undertaken if it is absolutely necessary, to which end the common good becomes the decisive limiting factor.

Agreed, but the common good cannot be reduced simply to physical protection, a position Pius XII explicitly rejected.

Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law… but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty

Mercy triumphs over judgement.

No, it does not. "Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it." (JPII)

St. John Paul II singles out Genesis 4:15 as a sign that even the life of a murderer is sacred and worthy of protection from death. As he writes in Evangelium Vitae, 9:

He also said (Regina Caeli, 2002)
The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: “If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man”, is said in Genesis (9,6).

As Saint Ambrose writes: “God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide.”_**

That death is not desired is not the same as saying it is banned. The exact same thing could be said of war, but no one suggests the church has banned all war. Ambrose also said this, which better supports my understanding:

You see therefore both what power your commission gives you, and also whither mercy would lead you; you will be excused if you do it, and praised if you do it not. (Letter 25)

Pope Benedict XVI in his 2012 Post-Synodal Exhortation, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, n. 26 also cites Genesis 9:6 as evidence that God forbids the killing of even those who commit murder:

God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).

This one I shall have to review. Benedict was usually very precise with his statements.

Cont…

 

[Ender]

Cont…

In the modern context, the circumstances in which capital punishment would be necessary are practically non-existent, according to St. JPII.

This is a judgment, not a doctrine.

It bears mentioning that Pius XII, in his Feb. 5, 1955 Address to the Italian Association of Catholic Jurists, cites Rom 13:4, but he does not see it as directly endorsing capital punishment.

True, but then he concludes that statement with this:

"This, in turn, is as little determined by the conditions of time and culture as the nature of man and the human society decreed by nature itself’.

This does not support the idea that cultural conditions mitigate the nature of a just punishment.

In 1976 the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace issued a statement, The Church & the Death Penalty, which notes: “The existence of capital punishment in the Old Testament does not of itself justify it for today. None of the passages (Exodus 21:21ff; Ex 22:19, Lv 20:10) usually cited demand that capital punishment be used today. A fortiori, the New Testament does not prescribe it” (Origins, Dec. 9, 1976 Vol. 6:25, 389–391).

A fortiori, neither does the New Testament proscribe it. Regarding which St. Bellarmine said:

It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept.

I will also point out that the Pontifical Council did not address the primary OT scripture the church herself used to justify capital punishment: Gn 9:6. The commands of Exodus and Leviticus may be outdated, but that passage in Genesis is part of the Noahic covenant and is as valid today as ever.

 

[Ender]

@Ender in furtherance of the preceding, its worth noting something St. Thomas Aquinas says in Summa Theologica 11, 11, 64, 4

in the ministry of the New Law, no punishment of death or of bodily maiming is appointed

You left out the part that Aquinas was applying this specifically to clerics. That he was not applying it to ministers of the State is clearly shown later in that same section by this:

Ecclesiastical prelates accept the office of earthly princes, not that they may inflict capital punishment themselves, but that this may be carried into effect by others in virtue of their authority.

So support for capital punishment really has no grounding in the New Testament.

Why is it assumed that what was taught in the OT is automatically abrogated by the NT? If Jesus actually opposed capital punishment then how are we to understand the parables he used that ended with the authorities inflicting death on their unruly subjects? How especially are we to understand Mk 7:10 where Jesus condemns the Pharisees for their hypocrisy in setting aside God’s commands…specifically this one?

For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’

I’m curious to know what your assessment would be of the Council of Elvira (ca. 300–303) which required a Christian magistrate “to keep away from the Church during the year of his service as a joint magistrate (duumvir) because he might have to carry out capital sentences” (canon 56). The Canons of the Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus I (r. 366–384) likewise stated that civil servants “who have sentenced to death, given unjust judgments, and carried out judicial torture cannot be immune from sin” (Cap. V, n. 13; PL, 13, 1181f). The Apostolic Consitutions (ca. 215–380) stipulated that “a military man in authority must not execute men; if he is ordered he must not carry it out” (16, 9)

I would have to interpret it as being consistent with St. Innocent I in 405:

In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.

 

[Ender]

Yes, no one is saying that a Catholic can’t support the death penalty. However, as Catholics we are obliged to only support it when other means of punishment are available…so, as you say, if prisoners may be safely imprisoned or safely rehabilitated or some other option, the Church teaches that capital punishment is not an option… undeniably so.

But I do deny it for the simple reason that if it was true the concept of justice would have to be discarded. Answer this: is there any crime so heinous that a person deserves to be executed for it?

If you answer no then how is it possible to justify executing him simply because he threatens us? To do so is to ignore what is just for what is expedient.

If you answer yes then how do justify not treating him as he deserves simply because you don’t want to? In both these cases the just action is ignored.

This goes directly to the question @Maximilian75 asked: can we preemptively execute someone who is a threat to us whether he deserves it or not? But this is exactly what your interpretation of 2267 leads to (the “no” case above): we may punish with death someone who threatens us whether it is just or not.

 

[Ender]

Nicholas was clearly of the mind, rightly or wrongly, that the Bulgar authorities under the Khanate had proportionate and effective non-lethal means of appropriately punishing the rebels for having committed treason (satisfying the demands of justice) and protecting the state, as a whole, from future threats of revolutionary aggression.

There is nothing whatever in his comments that supports this assertion. You are starting with a conclusion and assuming conditions that justify it.

In most medieval societies, I believe that this capability would have been exceedingly unlikely to exist.

Yes, of course it would have been, including 10th century Bulgaria. Look at the assumptions your position requires you to accept: a backward (even for then) part of Eastern Europe had capabilities that did not exist again until the advent of modern prisons in the 20th century. In fact life prison sentences were not uncommon, and all through those centuries the church accepted the propriety of capital punishment without regard for whether it was needed for personal safety.

But that doesn’t change the moral being outlined here: where non-lethal means can be used to satisfy both justice and protection of the common good, Catholics are obligated (yes, obligated ) to employ them over lethal means (i.e. capital punishment).

And what of the question of justice I just posed to godisgood77? You have agreed that justice is the primary objective of punishment so how can you support a position that ignores what justice demands?

 

[godisgood77]

is there any crime so heinous that a person deserves to be executed for it?

Ender, Yes, of course there are cases where the crime can be punished by execution… No, I’ve never denied that. Let’s take first degree murder as an example. The death penalty is an option for that crime and a morally permissible one if there aren’t other options available… As has been stated (almost Ad nauseam) in this discussion, those instances exists, but are practically non-existent.

In both these cases the just action is ignored.

You are trying to make this more binary than it is… there is not a 1:1 ratio between crime and just punishment. There isn’t just one right answer in the vast majority of cases. If the authorities scour the just punishments available and there are none, then the death penalty could be deployed… as the Church teaches.

 

[Ender]

Ender, Yes, of course there are cases where the crime can be punished by execution… No, I’ve never denied that. Let’s take first degree murder as an example. The death penalty is an option for that crime and a morally permissible one if there aren’t other options available.

But this is not what I asked. I asked specifically whether a person deserved to die for a heinous crime. I’m not asking whether there are circumstances that permit execution, only whether the execution is deserved because of his crime.

You are trying to make this more binary than it is… there is not a 1:1 ratio between crime and just punishment.

I’m trying to focus on one specific point: desert as it relates to justice. I’m not asking whether this is a case where this individual ought to be executed, but only whether he deserves to die because of his crime, whether it is decided to do it or not. Does this crime merit the death penalty? Why is this a hard question to answer?

 

[godisgood77]

Does this crime merit the death penalty? Why is this a hard question to answer?

I answered your question in the affirmative… yes there are crimes that merit the death penalty.

Not sure where your disconnect is.

 

[Hereiam]

As I said, it is only superficially that the death penalty appears to be contrary to pro-life principles.

And many others would replace “superficially” with “completely”, making you rationalization unmoving.

 

[MCH1]

Death Penalty Pros and Cons.

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments - Death Penalty - ProCon.org

Legality Life without Parole Deterrence Retribution Victims’ Families Methods of Execution Innocence Morality Medical Professionals’ Participation Federal Death Penalty 1. Legality The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International...

deathpenalty.procon.org

 

[Ender]

I answered your question in the affirmative… yes there are crimes that merit the death penalty.

OK, then if this person deserves to be executed, which by definition means it is a just punishment, what is the argument against treating him as he deserves and executing him?

 

[Ender]

And many others would replace “superficially” with “completely”, making you rationalization unmoving.

If this was simply a matter of voting on what we prefer then one position would be as valid as any other, but I’ve not been arguing that my opinion is better than anyone else’s, I’ve been saying “This is what the church says here and here, and what you assert is contradicted by what the church asserts.”

 

[godisgood77]

Well as we have discussed, there are alternatives that are equally as just. When an alternative exists, then the death penalty is not permissible… as the saint Pope and the Church teaches

 

[Ender]

Well as we have discussed, there are alternatives that are equally as just. When an alternative exists, then the death penalty is not permissible… as the saint Pope and the Church teaches

What is the alternative to justice?

 

[godisgood77]

Injustice?

However you are presenting a non sequitur… justice can be served in multipe ways… as I mentioned previously, this topic is not nearly as binary as you make it out to be.

In the rarest of cases, the death penalty is morally permissible as a just punishment… as the Church teaches. Your circular logic won’t change that

 

[thistle]

Well as we have discussed, there are alternatives that are equally as just. When an alternative exists, then the death penalty is not permissible… as the saint Pope and the Church teaches

It does not actually teach that. Read the the part of CCC 2267 you refer to:

“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 key point here is the word “IF” and that “IF” is determined by the civil authorities, not the Church.

 

[Ender]

However you are presenting a non sequitur… justice can be served in multipe ways… as I mentioned previously, this topic is not nearly as binary as you make it out to be.

I think we are agreed that the death penalty is a just punishment for this crime. To argue that it should not be applied is to assume that LWOP is equally just even though it seems apparent that death is in fact a much more severe penalty.

In the rarest of cases, the death penalty is morally permissible as a just punishment… as the Church teaches.

What makes a punishment just by definition is whether it is commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime. This means that death is just in every case of first degree murder. Social conditions may determine whether it is advisable to apply it, and from that consideration it could be considered unjust to use if it was socially harmful, but considered relative solely to the crime itself the same punishment cannot be just in one instance and unjust in another. Since the severity of the same crime does not change, what is just in one case is just in another.