Catholicism's credibility on the death penalty (or lack therof)

[TOME]

DreadVandal, I have to disagree with you and your position that the use of the “Self Defense” argument is a morden concept. It is not otherwise, as you presented in another post, St Thomas Aquinas could not have argued in favor of the use of executions as he did. I do agree that Thomas based part of his argument defending the use of executions on the principle that it is better to loose part or the whole of your body and not your soul. That was the theological basis for putting a heretic to death - “Kill the body and save the soul”. But that was only part of his argument. Using Augustine as a starting point Aquinas did further develope the self defense argument in these executions on political grounds as well. Remember, unlike our government, Church and State were intrinsicly united. To attack the Church and Her teachings was to attack the State’s authority as well. And this was part of Thomas’ argument for the use of capital punishment as a meansi of self defense by the State.

Also, I have to disagree with you because I think you are missing a critical point. The point being what we find in the writings of St Thomas through to Pope John Paul II and our Holy Father, the application of an accepted principle, namely the State has the right to defend itself against unjust aggression. Again, as time and understanding has developed the application of this principle may differ, yet the principle itself remain the same. And the principle of the right to self defense is itself based on an even more basic scriptural principle - all life is sacred because God is the Author of Life. Therefore, do what enhances life and avoid that which compromises or threatens life.

Now would you please explain to me how the teachings of Pope John Paul II is not based on traditional accepted principles of the Church (Augustine through Aquinas to JPII)? How the argument of the principle of the state’s right to self defense, is a modern argument when it was first developed by Augustine? And how John Paul II’s teachings fell outside of his Teaching Authority and Responsibility as Pope? (and as a little aside to help you with your thoughts, consider the preemenience of St Thomas’s teachings was given by Pope Leo XIII but before you begin to
respond to the fact St Thomas justified the use of execution, I am talking about the fundelmental principles by which the moral decision is made.)

 

[DreadVandal]

TOME:

DreadVandal, I have to disagree with you and your position that the use of the “Self Defense” argument is a morden concept. It is not otherwise, as you presented in another post, St Thomas Aquinas could not have argued in favor of the use of executions as he did. I do agree that Thomas based part of his argument defending the use of executions on the principle that it is better to loose part or the whole of your body and not your soul. That was the theological basis for putting a heretic to death - “Kill the body and save the soul”. But that was only part of his argument. Using Augustine as a starting point Aquinas did further develope the self defense argument in these executions on political grounds as well. Remember, unlike our government, Church and State were intrinsicly united. To attack the Church and Her teachings was to attack the State’s authority as well. And this was part of Thomas’ argument for the use of capital punishment as a meansi of self defense by the State.

Also, I have to disagree with you because I think you are missing a critical point. The point being what we find in the writings of St Thomas through to Pope John Paul II and our Holy Father, the application of an accepted principle, namely the State has the right to defend itself against unjust aggression. Again, as time and understanding has developed the application of this principle may differ, yet the principle itself remain the same. And the principle of the right to self defense is itself based on an even more basic scriptural principle - all life is sacred because God is the Author of Life. Therefore, do what enhances life and avoid that which compromises or threatens life.

Now would you please explain to me how the teachings of Pope John Paul II is not based on traditional accepted principles of the Church (Augustine through Aquinas to JPII)? How the argument of the principle of the state’s right to self defense, is a modern argument when it was first developed by Augustine? And how John Paul II’s teachings fell outside of his Teaching Authority and Responsibility as Pope? (and as a little aside to help you with your thoughts, consider the preemenience of St Thomas’s teachings was given by Pope Leo XIII but before you begin to
respond to the fact St Thomas justified the use of execution, I am talking about the fundelmental principles by which the moral decision is made.)

Tome, I should have said that the principle of the self defense of society was not the primary justification for capital punishment, though it was a justification. I should refer you to the article by Avery Dulles in FirstThings because he explains this much better than I could.

Here’s a link: firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html

I should be more precise in what I was claiming: The claim that “the conditions that make the death penalty necessary are practically nonexistent” is not itself authoritative moral teaching but a prudential judgment that may be correct (but may be incorrect).

 

[Della]

Angainor:

I don’t see Catholicism as an objective judge of the morality of the death penalty. Catholicism appears to have a conflict of intrest on the matter.

If Catholicism came out in favor of the death penalty, this might tend to spotlight what might be perceived by some as past abuses of the death penalty. In other words, it appears to be in Catholicism’s best interest to oppose the death penalty, thus avoiding criticism.

If the Church taught that offenders of a certain kind must be executed, as you seem to imply by appealing to the case of Joan of Arc (from an article in a Catholic Encyclopedia, I might add) then you might have a case. But, what the Church teaches is that the state has the right to employ the death penalty. It has not rescinded that teaching but rather appealed to governments to show mercy to such criminals by punishing them in some other way, such as life imprisonment. Hardly a “conflict of interest” there. Don’t you think that if the Church wanted to hide from the world what it really teaches it might do a better job of it than putting out catechisms and giving its approval for Catholics encyclopedias to be published?

 

[TEME525]

DreadVandal, a couple of points.
First, As a Catholic I do believe that when the Pope expresses a teaching and he is doing this in the execution of his Petrine Ministry he does speak with authority given him by God through this ministry. An individual has the free will to either recognize and accept the Pope’s authority or reject it. Again I am speaking from a practicing Catholic’s who willingly consents to the authority of the Church’s Magisterium (despite what my professors I had may say about me).

Secondly, I saw the link to the article on Cardinal Dulles’ thoughts but I avoided it on purpose to make sure in my own mind what I was writting was my own thought based on what I had been taught. And you are right he does articulate this far better than I can ever hope to ( which may be further proof that the Holy Spirit is still active in the Church when John Paul II made him a Cardinal).

However, I think the points I made are relatively the same as the Good Cardinal. In principle, use of the Death Penalty may be justified. However, actually using the death penalty in a particular case may be extremely difficult to justify by the Church’s own teachings. I would like to focus on several words used in the article. One being Justice, another Innocent and a third, prudence. As practice today, is a death penalty carried out decades after the fact Just? Which leads to the question I have namely can the offender over a long period of time become an Innocent himself? What constitutes an Innocent person? I would argue that as practiced here in the USA we attempt to equate the Act itself with the long term effects it has on others. Others may claim, and be correct in their claims, that they too are the victims, however, they donot suffer the same type of an unjust aggression as the actual victim so is it JUST then to equate the crime itself with its effects? Example, in the case of murder, the victim was deprived of his life, that is the reason for the death penalty - the act of murder. The victim’s family, as scared as they may be, still have there life - there individual life wasn’t taken unjustly. And in regards to Prudence, is it wise and just to willfully destroy two lives in a given case. What is the prudent set of specific criteria by which this can justly be done?

I think these questions do reflect the principles Cardinal Dulles was refering to when he said that the use of capital punishment may be justified but in reality it is almost impossible to do so. And these are the principles that has guided the Church’s teachings for centuries. Perhaps the application of these principles different from our own mindset, but the principles have remained constant.

Also, I would point out again that up to the Great American experiment, there was no seperation of Church and State in the West.So I would have to go back to my earlier point that the justification for the use of capital punishment was rooted in the principles of Self Defense.(Just an aside, this is why in Europe, the persecution of those sects which denied infant Baptism were persecuted by both Catholics and Protestant States - if one wasn’t baptized into the State Religion, then that person didn’t owe full allegiance to the State.)

Getting back to the original thought, these are some of the reasons that today the Church and Popes in particular can authoritatively (De Jure) state while there may be justification for the use of the death penality practically speaking it is almost impossible to do.

 

[Donna_P]

Hello Angainor,

IT’s good to see you still questioning the Church. “Seek and ye shall find”, and all that.

Simply put - If the offender has the ability (due to proper lack of facilities to keep him/her locked up) to offend again - then the death penalty is OK. However, in the US, we have the means to keep the worst offenders locked up.

This keeps the persons human dignity intact and allows that person the chance to repent.

You might want to read about St. Maria Gorettie - In 1902 at age twelve, Maria was attacked by 19-year-old farm-hand Alessandro Serenelli. He tried to rape the girl who fought, yelled that it was a sin, and that he would go to hell. He tried to choke her into submission, then stabbed her fourteen times. She survived in hospital for two days, forgave her attacker, asked God’s forgiveness of him, and died holding a crucifix and medal of Our Lady. Counted as a martyr.

While in prison for his crime, Allessandro had a vision of Maria. He saw a garden where a young girl, dressed in white, gathered lilies. She smiled, came near him, and encouraged him to accept an armful of the lilies. As he took them, each lily transformed into a still white flame. Maria then disappeared. This vision of Maria led to Alessandro’s conversion, and he later testified at her cause for beatification.

For this and other reasons, I am against the death penalty.

 

[Al_Masetti]

TOME:

Finally, in regards to abortion, if you remember, at the time of Roe vs Wade, one of the arguments given to justify an abortion was that the fetus was an continuation of an aggression either due to the crime of rape or that the women’s right to priviacy was being violated by the developing fetus. I think it is easy to understand how this principle of Self Defense in not applicable in this matter (easy for you and me but for some reason difficult for the majority of learned men on the Surpreme Court at that time)…

My recollection is that a judge in New Jersey stated in a ruling that abortion is a lawful execution.

 

[stanley123]

TEME525:

.So I would have to go back to my earlier point that the justification for the use of capital punishment was rooted in the principles of Self Defense.

Does it mean then that Catholics have the right of self defense against heretics and that it is OK to burn alive a Protestant at the stake ?
Please see the Papal Bull, ‘Exsurge Domine,’ of Jun 15, 1520, which condemned the errors of Martin Luther and his followers. In a translation of this Bull, Pope Leo X repudiates the following teaching:

#33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.