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

[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.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Since the rest of the world thinks the Church has no credibility on any issue, I’m not sure how we would tell the difference. No matter which way the Church teaches, someone will find a way to turn it into a stick with which to beat the Church.

 

[Aaron_I]

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.

Would the conflict be between truth and mercy? I’ll take truth.

The theoretical need for the death penalty is obvious.

 

[Petergee]

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.

Oh, yes! LOL! We all know that the Catholic Church’s teachings are crafted for the purpose of avoiding criticism! Excuse me, I think you’ve got us confused with some other church. We seem to cop a lot more criticism for opposing the death penalty than we would get if we supported it. And as for our teachings against abortion, contraception, fornication and “gay rights” - !!

“Conflict of interest”??? - Your link seems to imply that this supposed “conflict” exists because some nominally Catholic kings and rulers in history have had people executed who later were shown to be innocent. Of course NO Lutheran EVER did THAT, did they???LOL!

 

[stanley123]

Angainor:

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. .

The Papal Bull, ‘Exsurge Domine,’ of Jun 15, 1520, condemned the errors of Martin Luther and his followers. In a translation of this Bull, Pope Leo X repudiates the following Protestant teaching:

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

Does this proclamation by Pope Leo X indicate that the Catholic Church taught that the burning of heretics was acceptable?

 

[Petergee]

stanley123:

The Papal Bull, ‘Exsurge Domine,’ of Jun 15, 1520, condemned the errors of Martin Luther and his followers. In a translation of this Bull, Pope Leo X repudiates the following Protestant teaching:

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

Does this proclamation by Pope Leo X indicate that the Catholic Church taught that the burning of heretics was acceptable?

And Luther and his followers, once they attained State power, found it equally"acceptable" to kill Catholics.

 

[Libero]

And Luther and his followers, once they attained State power, found it equally"acceptable" to kill Catholics.

That does not make it acceptable, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[wcknight]

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.

How is this a conflict ???

The Church is in total support for the right to life, that ALL life in all it’s stages is to be valued and defended. That is as consistent as you can get.

Life is important for the unborn, it is important for a condemned prisoner, and it is important for the elderly.

And the Church has never backed away from criticism. It always speaks out for what’s right no matter how unpopular that might be.

IF the Church were to come out in favor of the DP THEN we would be inconsistent, beacuse then we would be advocating death in one case for criminals but life for the unborn.

The Church repudiated Luther because he was a heretic, and chose to follow his own path, and while some of his complaints may have been legitimate, the fact that he chose to go his own way called for a denial of all his actions and declarations.

No modern Church leader has ever condoned kiliing anyone, so to bring up something out of the dark ages and claim it is inconsistent with Church teachings is insane and provocative.

 

[Ender]

wcknight:

IF the Church were to come out in favor of the DP THEN we would be inconsistent, beacuse then we would be advocating death in one case for criminals but life for the unborn.

There is no inconsistency in advocating justice for everyone and in recognizing that justice is very different for the unborn and for those guilty of heinous crime.

“The slaying of a man is forbidden in the Decalogue in so far as it bears the character of something undue, for in this sense the precept contains the very essence of justice. Human law cannot make it lawful for a man to be slain unduly. But it is not undue for evil-doers or foes of the commonwealth to be slain; hence this is not contrary to the precept of the Decalogue, and such a killing is no murder as forbidden by that precept.” (Aquinas)

The Church does not define capital punishment as inherently immoral but it does define abortion that way. Life is always required for the innocent; death is sometimes a valid option for “evil-doers.”

Ender

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

There is nothing inconsistent with the Church supporting the death penalty. In fact, even though John Paul II felt that modern circumstances had rendered capital punishment unnecessary, even he admitted that he could not condemn the practice because it is supported by Tradition. So when you ask, does that mean that the burning of heretics was/is acceptable, the answer is yes. It has very consistently been upheld throughout history. The inconsistent thing would be to say that heretics cannot be burnt (on principle, not that they shouldn’t currently be burnt because of consideration X or that the sentence should be more humane death). I know it may come as a shocker, but the USCCBs political maneuverings do not adequately represent Catholic teaching on the death penalty (nor the way in which the clergy should act in the political sphere).

 

[I_A]

Yeah, seeing as how our founder was the victim of the death penalty and all.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I_A_:

Yeah, seeing as how our founder was the victim of the death penalty and all.

I’m not sure whether that’s an attempt at a straw man or just a way to derail conversation from the topic. I mean, considering that e=mcc and all. Oh, and some grapes are purple.

 

[Angainor]

I_A_:

Yeah, seeing as how our founder was the victim of the death penalty and all.

Yes, Jesus was an innocent victim of capital punishment. I cannot say the same for violent felons convicted in a court of law.

 

[stanley123]

wcknight:

IF the Church were to come out in favor of the DP THEN we would be inconsistent, beacuse then we would be advocating death in one case for criminals but life for the unborn.

But has the RCC changed its teaching on the death penalty?

 

[wcknight]

stanley123:

But has the RCC changed its teaching on the death penalty?

AS far as I can recall both the current Pope and Pope John Paul has come out against the DP, they both support the Gospel of Life in all cases.

Although they do not specilically say the DP is wrong in every instance, they have advocated for clementcy in every case. The Church officially says that the state has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens, and therefore can impose the DP. But in practice, the pontiffs have always urged restraint, asking the state to refain from using it even in the most egregious cases.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Cardinal Dulles gave a fantastic talk a few years ago about the morality of capital punishment. Here is an article he wrote on the topic.

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html

While executions should be minimized, the Catholic Church does permit them.

It doesn’t help the Church’s credibility when some people stretch the meaning of the word “seldom” to mean “never”. And then preach about the sanctity of life in connection with capital punishment of convicts who have had decades of judicial review but never almost never ] talk against the death penalty of the unborn… abortion and birth control.

 

[TOME]

I n reading the posts for this thread I find that when discussing the Church’s present day teaching on the death penalty, there hasn’t been a real discussion on the reason for Her statements especially by those of our Pope and John Paul II. It seems the present stand is grounded in the principle of Self Defense as first developed by St Augustine and furthered developed by St Thomas Aquinas.

Simply stated, the State and individuals have the moral right to Self Defense against unjust aggression. However, in exercising this right The State or individual is only allowed to use the force necessary to stop the aggression. In regards to the DP it is hard to justify its use when the aggressive act has been halted and the individual has been put into jail for many years. Deterance is not a justifiable reason for the death penalty, either in the act itself nor seemingly in its effects on present day society (other wise our murder rate wouldn’t be as high as it is). Revenge can never be a justifiable act. Therefore, consistant with the principles of Self Defense we find the Teachings of Popes John Paul II and our Holy Father Benedict XVI saying there may be extreme cases where it could be justified, as a norm it is not.

In regards to the Midle ages especially at the time of the Reformation I think before we discuss this further we really should look into the mind set of the people of that time and not project our 21st thought into theirs. Perhaps after all is said and done most of us would conclude that the use of torture and death wasn’t justified, but I think it is important to study their reasoning first.

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).

The underlining principle of all this, even for those who are strict humanist is human life is sacred and we must always preserve life and advoid that which may harm or destroy life.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Well I guess no one told them of your plan as the Church supports the death penalty and always has.

 

[DreadVandal]

stanley123:

The Papal Bull, ‘Exsurge Domine,’ of Jun 15, 1520, condemned the errors of Martin Luther and his followers. In a translation of this Bull, Pope Leo X repudiates the following Protestant teaching:

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

Does this proclamation by Pope Leo X indicate that the Catholic Church taught that the burning of heretics was acceptable?

The execution of a notorious, unrepentant heretic is not intrinsically wrong. Historically, even the doctors of the church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, supported the state’s right to execute heretics. If we execute those who murder the body, should we not also execute those who murder the soul?

That being said, in today’s circumstances, it would very imprudent to turn over heretics to the state for punishment. For one thing, we are in a world where the state has become fundamentally secular (except in Islamic countries). To be honest, the only way that the execution of notorious heretics would be prudent would be in a solidly Catholic society where the heretical individuals were causing social turmoil by spreading false teaching.

 

[DreadVandal]

TOME:

I n reading the posts for this thread I find that when discussing the Church’s present day teaching on the death penalty, there hasn’t been a real discussion on the reason for Her statements especially by those of our Pope and John Paul II. It seems the present stand is grounded in the principle of Self Defense as first developed by St Augustine and furthered developed by St Thomas Aquinas.

Simply stated, the State and individuals have the moral right to Self Defense against unjust aggression. However, in exercising this right The State or individual is only allowed to use the force necessary to stop the aggression. In regards to the DP it is hard to justify its use when the aggressive act has been halted and the individual has been put into jail for many years. Deterance is not a justifiable reason for the death penalty, either in the act itself nor seemingly in its effects on present day society (other wise our murder rate wouldn’t be as high as it is). Revenge can never be a justifiable act. Therefore, consistant with the principles of Self Defense we find the Teachings of Popes John Paul II and our Holy Father Benedict XVI saying there may be extreme cases where it could be justified, as a norm it is not.

In regards to the Midle ages especially at the time of the Reformation I think before we discuss this further we really should look into the mind set of the people of that time and not project our 21st thought into theirs. Perhaps after all is said and done most of us would conclude that the use of torture and death wasn’t justified, but I think it is important to study their reasoning first.

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).

The underlining principle of all this, even for those who are strict humanist is human life is sacred and we must always preserve life and advoid that which may harm or destroy life.

Actually, the notion that the death penalty is exclusively, or primarily, for the self defense of society is modern and not traditional. The traditional and biblical grounding for the death penalty is strict retributive justice. That has always been the Church’s teaching. In light of that, it seems best to interpret Pope JPII’s opposition to the death penalty as a prudential judgment and one of emphasis. In other words, it cannot represent authentic magisterial teaching on matters of morality, so it is not binding in conscience.