Catholic Support for the Death Penalty

[godisgood77]

Boy, we’ve parsed this out to the nth degree… I can honestly say it is nice to see the passion of the group in the discussion…Suffice it to say that after all of the back and forth on some of the finer details, there likely isn’t a consensus among this group…

I’d like reinforce (3) key items related to the Church’s position on capital punishment…

1. The Church does indeed allow that the death penalty as a just punishment
2. 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.’
3. For Catholics, the death penalty is no longer allowable when alternatives exist. 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 obligated to understand the situation.

I don’t think anyone is arguing against the points listed above at this point. It seems the primary debate now is about how a decision is made to determine if an alternative exists… most reasonable people will agree that in first world countries today, like the USA, there is hardly a case where capital punishment would be supportable for a Catholic.

I would like to hear of a case where an alternative to capital punishment does not exist in a first world country… can anyone point to one?

 

[semper_catholicus]

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/cappunsh.html

Click on the link to see what St. Thomas Aquinas said about the death penalty.

 

[godisgood77]

Thanks. I believe that reinforces the teaching of the Catechism and PJPII

 

[o_mlly]

How is a soldier justified in intentionally killing an enemy if it is forbidden to intend to kill?

The soldier is not justified if the soldier intends by his lethal act the death of the unjust aggressor. The soldier is justified if the soldier intends to defend his country by his lethal act that kills the unjust aggressor. The soldier’s oath, like the policeman’s oath, is to defend, not to kill.

 

[Ender]

Again, this argument is not based on church teaching. What the church teaches or does not teach is not relevant to the argument per se. But even your citations support that the conclusion of the philosophical argument is the same as the theological argument: Only self defense justifies the taking of a life.

Well, I think we’re done. My argument is based on church teaching, and the church has never taught that self defense alone justifies the taking of life. Her position has been consistent from the start, and it has never been that. The simplest and clearest example of that teaching is this:

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

 

[o_mlly]

Well, I think we’re done. My argument is based on church teaching, and the church has never taught that self defense alone justifies the taking of life. Her position has been consistent from the start, and it has never been that. The simplest and clearest example of that teaching is this:

Since there is no “start” or “stop” date for Church teaching, one cannot say with regard to the taking of human life that the teaching has been consistent from the “start”. Just war theory, for instance, has its beginnings late in the 4th century AD. Today, the Church does teach that only the defense of life justifies the taking of life. From your own citation:

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war;

All just wars are defensive.

when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime …

“if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

Yes, I also think we are done.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Funny how teaching seems to change over time. But we know that doesn’t happen, right?

 

[o_mlly]

Funny how teaching seems to change over time. But we know that doesn’t happen, right?

As Newman’s essay shows, the development of doctrine is a change in doctrine. But the kind of change is one of deeper illumination and never contradiction. I believe most, if not all, moral doctrinal developments further “bind” rather than “loosen” the faithful as does EV regarding the moral use of the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

I’d like reinforce (3) key items related to the Church’s position on capital punishment…

• The Church does indeed allow that the death penalty as a just punishment
• 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.’
• For Catholics, the death penalty is no longer allowable when alternatives exist. 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 obligated to understand the situation.

I don’t think anyone is arguing against the points listed above at this point.

I am. Specifically I reject points 2 and 3. As you noted, the church recognizes that the death penalty is a just punishment (for certain crimes, murder especially). But if it is a just punishment, what is the argument against using it?

Our positions are based on our judgments as to the nature of 2267. You apparently see it as doctrine, while I accept what Cardinal Dulles said about it: it is a prudential judgment, a recommendation. As I pointed out before there are serious problems with the assumption that this is a new doctrine.

 

[Ender]

Thanks. I believe that reinforces the teaching of the Catechism and PJPII

The citation from Aquinas only captures a small part of what he said relative to this subject, and even that passage is significantly different than what is in the catechism.

Aquinas: "Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.”

2267: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

If we are to understand Aquinas to be saying the same thing as the catechism we have to assume the common good can be reduced to defending lives, but that position has already been explicitly rejected (Pius XII).

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

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

As for Aquinas, he also said this, which supports Pius’ comments:

…the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin. (ST II-II 64,6)

I think it clear that he has not reduced the “common good” to merely physical protection, but if a more explicit comment is required there is this:

(ST II-II 108 3 objection 3) Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.
(Reply to objection 3) On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, 105, 2).

It does seem we have completely ignored what divine law has fixed.

 

[godisgood77]

I accept what Cardinal Dulles said about it:

Why would you accept a comment by a Cardinal over a Papal Encyclical and the Catechism of the Church?

As I pointed out before there are serious problems with the assumption that this is a new doctrine.

Not a new doctrine… a development of an existing doctrine. It’s not a good habit to reference Trent and Aquinas, but ignore authoritative teaching of Saint Popes and the current Catechism.

 

[redbaron162]

I think there is plenty of cases in the “First World” were this still exist. There are many individuals in prison who, despite being in prison, still regularly assault other prisoners and corrections officers. There are certain individuals who it is unfeasible to safely house.

However this is not how our justice system works. Our system only looks at the initial crime. For example there could be a convicted murder who is an ideal prisoner who follows all the rules in the prison and is not a threat anymore. However you could also have a convicted drug dealer who regularly assaults others in prison. However their institutional behavior is not calculated when it comes to the death penalty which I believe it should. For example Rapist Smith is convicted and sentenced to death. However he never demonstrates a problem in prison. I agree that there is probably no need to put him to death and life without parole would be fine. However if Smith starts attacking more people even in prison then yes it is more just to put him to death to protect others.

 

[godisgood77]

I disagree that there are plenty of cases (which is we can disagree thoughfully). In those very few cases where an individual may be subject to life imprisonment there are many ways to separate that individual from the ability to harm guards or other inmates.

The diginity of that criminal’s life demands every option be explored and any viable option accommodated

 

[Ender]

Why would you accept a comment by a Cardinal over a Papal Encyclical and the Catechism of the Church?

I accept Cardinal Dolan’s interpretation of the encyclical and catechism over your interpretation. I am not choosing between the cardinal and the church; I am choosing between the cardinal and you.

Not a new doctrine… a development of an existing doctrine. It’s not a good habit to reference Trent and Aquinas, but ignore authoritative teaching of Saint Popes and the current Catechism.

Is it your position that EV repudiates Aquinas and Trent or in some way renders their teachings invalid? In a choice between an interpretation that negates the past and one that incorporates it, which (in general) would be the more likely choice?

 

[godisgood77]

Is it your position that EV repudiates Aquinas and Trent or in some way renders their teachings invalid? In a choice between an interpretation that negates the past and one that incorporates it, which (in general) would be the more likely choice?

No… My position is that the teaching of St John Paul II and the Catechism of the Church represent a development of doctrine that is in perfect harmony with the past teachings… The essential meaning of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty have not changed, but instead have been deepened. The development of doctrine is hardly a new idea and is based on our Church’s and society’s process of maturation.

PJPII and the Catechism both formally teach that the death penalty is allowable, but that the circumstances where it would be allowed are virtually non-existent… the teaching is as plane as day… plane direct language is used and it would take a serious amount of mental gymnastics to credibly refute that fact.

 

[Ender]

No… My position is that the teaching of St John Paul II and the Catechism of the Church represent a development of doctrine that is in perfect harmony with the past teachings…

If there is such harmony with the past then there should be no difficulty presented by citing the past. The problem, however, is that the past does not support your interpretation of the present.

The essential meaning of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty have not changed, but instead have been deepened. The development of doctrine is hardly a new idea and is based on our Church’s and society’s process of maturation.

Moral law is based on scripture, tradition, and revelation. It is completely independent of the maturation of societies.

PJPII and the Catechism both formally teach that the death penalty is allowable, but that the circumstances where it would be allowed are virtually non-existent…

Why is it not allowable? You acknowledged earlier that the death penalty is a just punishment, so I’ll ask again: if it is just what is the argument against its use?

… the teaching is as plane as day… plane direct language is used and it would take a serious amount of mental gymnastics to credibly refute that fact.

It is not a question of understanding the words, but of recognizing their nature. You understand it to be a development of doctrine; Cardinal Dulles, one of the country’s foremost theologians, understood it to be a prudential judgment. He agreed with JPII that capital punishment ought not be used. He disagreed with you that it was doctrine rather than judgment.

As I said, there are serious problems with assuming 2267 is doctrinal.

 

[godisgood77]

If there is such harmony with the past then there should be no difficulty presented by citing the past. The problem, however, is that the past does not support your interpretation of the present.

I see no difficulty in citing the past. PJPII’s teaching is in full harmony with the past. If we are read the past in light of the present, we can see why the cases where the the death penalty would be allowable are virtually non-existent.

Moral law is based on scripture, tradition, and revelation. It is completely independent of the maturation of societies.

Tradition evolves over time based on learning and an ever deepening of understanding over time…Claiming that we know and fully understand everything is the epitome of vanity. The Church has always learned and evolved… it is a living tradition

Why is it not allowable? You acknowledged earlier that the death penalty is a just punishment, so I’ll ask again: if it is just what is the argument against its use?

It is allowable… and it is a just punishment in the narrowest of circumstances. The Church teaches that the death penalty can only be applied when an alternative does not exist. In the US today, I can not think of a situation where a suitable alternative to the death does not exist. Can you?

If you want to debate what a suitable alternative is or is not that seems reasonable, but going around in circles when St PJPII taught authoritatively and plainly about the application of the death penalty seems silly.

 

[Ender]

It is allowable… and it is a just punishment in the narrowest of circumstances.

What is it that determines whether a punishment is just? First and foremost it is that its severity is commensurate with that of the crime. This is true of capital punishment and murder, is fixed and can never change.

What is the reason why a punishment that is just should not be applied? It would be if the result of applying the penalty causes additional problems for society. That is, if there are social conditions where its use is judged counterproductive.

This is why JPII opposed the use of capital punishment: in his judgment it is - for now at least - harmful to societies.

If you want to debate what a suitable alternative is or is not that seems reasonable, but going around in circles when St PJPII taught authoritatively and plainly about the application of the death penalty seems silly.

That you think it authoritative and clear doesn’t actually make it so. Quite a number of serious thinkers have raised questions about this teaching. Besides, what God said seems pretty clear as well, and there is nothing more to be said about his authority.

 

[godisgood77]

What is it that determines whether a punishment is just? First and foremost it is that its severity is commensurate with that of the crime. This is true of capital punishment and murder, is fixed and can never change.

Yes and life imprisonment is commensurate with the crime of murder as well. Per PJPII’s encyclical EV and the Catechism, that is a suitable bloodless alternative. So unless safe, life imprisonment is not an option, the death penalty would not be allowable.

Quite a number of serious thinkers have raised questions about this teaching.

I’d classify JPII as a pretty serious thinker in the topic and Cardinal Schonborn who lead putting the Catechism together falls in that category too… you and I, not so much

 

[Ender]

Yes and life imprisonment is commensurate with the crime of murder as well.

Given that death is a more serious penalty than LWOP it is hard to see how they could both be commensurate; either the harsher one would be too harsh, or the lighter one would be deficient. Since we know that death is not too harsh there is every reason to believe that LWOP is inadequate.

I’d classify JPII as a pretty serious thinker in the topic…

Do you grant him the authority to nullify God’s law?

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. (St. Innocent I)