Catholics are free to vote/support on pro-death penalty issues, right?

[Godfollower]

Even if you believe that circumstances can change the moral nature of an action (which I’ll address next) it doesn’t change the fact that if execution was a just punishment in the past it is a just punishment today, for, as you point out, morality is constant. The justness of a punishment is not dependent on whether it protects society (a secondary objective) but on whether it is proportionate to the severity of the crime (its primary obligation), therefore its justness cannot change over time - for the same crimes, just penalties in the past are just today.

Now, regarding circumstances, they do not affect the morality of an action; they only mitigate ones responsibility so the changing circumstances of “effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” cannot change the morality of the death penalty.

CCC 1750: The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
CCC 1754: The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

Ender

I guess I was using the term too loosely. What I was trying to say is that the Catechism clearly states that the death penalty is not immoral “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” CCC ¶ 2267. In other words, the allowability of the death penalty is dependent on an outside condition: the inability to defend human lives effectively. It’s a contingency that must be true for the rest of the statement to follow.

So, IF the death penalty is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor, then the death penalty is not immoral. But, as anyone can see, that condition is affected by surrounding circumstances. Certain governments today cannot protect their own societies against unjust aggressors such as drug lords who can operate with impunity, even from inside prison. Certain other governments have no problem protecting their societies from unjust aggressors through the use of prison. This outside “circumstance” – or condition, or whatever you want to call it – affects the morality of the act because the morality of the act is dependent upon it.

To put it another way, an act that is moral under certain circumstances is only moral if those circumstances are true. That’s consistent with CCC ¶ 1754.

Now, I was a little confused by part of your post. You stated that the primary purpose of punishment is proportionality to the severity of the crime; but the Catechism states that the primary purpose of punishment is reparation, with secondary purposes of expiation, defense, protection of others, and rehabilitation:

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

CCC ¶ 2266.

You can’t “redress] the disorder introduced by murder” – that would require resurrection of the victim (I suppose you could require financial compensation to the victim’s family, a la a wrongful death suit; but that won’t do any good if we execute him). All that’s left, then, is defending public order and protection of society, as well as correction of the guilty party. The only purpose served by the death penalty is protection of society, which is why the Catechism then goes on to state that

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

CCC ¶ 2267.

 

[CWBetts]

As long as the death penalty remains in force in the United States, we will never escape the culture of death. As long as justification remains to deem some as unworthy of life, all right to life is at risk.

 

[Ender]

Now, I was a little confused by part of your post. You stated that the primary purpose of punishment is proportionality to the severity of the crime; but the Catechism states that the primary purpose of punishment is reparation, with secondary purposes of expiation, defense, protection of others, and rehabilitation:

I guess I was using the phrase too loosely. The primary purpose of punishment is not reparation, it is “redressing the disorder”, which is retribution. Retribution is a requirement of justice, which is what requires that the severity of the punishment be “commensurate with the severity of the crime.” This is why I said that if a punishment for a certain crime in the past was just - that is, it fulfilled the retributive obligation by imposing a commensurate penalty - then the same punishment for the same crime must be equally just today. Protection is a separate objective that does not affect the justness of the punishment.

You can’t “redress the disorder introduced by murder” – that would require resurrection of the victim

This is a misunderstanding of what the term means. A crime affects not only the individual but society as well and the criminal owes a debt to both. Even if the victim could be resurrected the criminal would still owe a debt to society.

*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. *(Aquinas ST I/II 21,3)

Justice demands that the debt be paid and only punishment can expiate the violation of the law and redress the disorder.

*A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. 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 *(Pius XII, 1954)

The only purpose served by the death penalty is protection of society…

This is indeed what 2267 implies but it clearly does not coincide with what the Church teaches about punishment - not to mention justice, expiation, and retribution.

Ender

 

[Godfollower]

I guess I was using the phrase too loosely. The primary purpose of punishment is not reparation, it is “redressing the disorder”, which is retribution. Retribution is a requirement of justice, which is what requires that the severity of the punishment be “commensurate with the severity of the crime.” This is why I said that if a punishment for a certain crime in the past was just - that is, it fulfilled the retributive obligation by imposing a commensurate penalty - then the same punishment for the same crime must be equally just today. Protection is a separate objective that does not affect the justness of the punishment.
This is a misunderstanding of what the term means. A crime affects not only the individual but society as well and the criminal owes a debt to both. Even if the victim could be resurrected the criminal would still owe a debt to society.

*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. *(Aquinas ST I/II 21,3)

Justice demands that the debt be paid and only punishment can expiate the violation of the law and redress the disorder.

*A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. 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 *(Pius XII, 1954)
This is indeed what 2267 implies but it clearly does not coincide with what the Church teaches about punishment - not to mention justice, expiation, and retribution.

Ender

It sounds like what you’re saying is that the death penalty is necessary because only the death of the murderer can expiate the death of the victim. But, if that’s true, isn’t the death penalty required for all murders? How do you draw a distinction between the death penalty for some but not all?

 

[Ender]

It sounds like what you’re saying is that the death penalty is necessary because only the death of the murderer can expiate the death of the victim. But, if that’s true, isn’t the death penalty required for all murders? How do you draw a distinction between the death penalty for some but not all?

It is certainly true that God seems to make no exception in his command to Noah but I don’t think the Church interprets it quite that literally.

Mercy is appropriate where justice is protected:

Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) “obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant.” (Aquinas, ST II/II 30,3)

It is essential to fault that it be voluntary; and in this respect it deserves punishment rather than mercy. Since, however, fault may be, in a way, a punishment, through having something connected with it that is against the sinner’s will, it may, in this respect, call for mercy. It is in this sense that we pity and commiserate sinners. (Ibid 3 ad 1)

For severity is inflexible in the infliction of punishment when right reason requires it; while clemency mitigates punishment also according to right reason, when and where this is requisite. (II/II 157, 2 ad 1)

I would point out, however, just how far we have degraded our feelings about murder where we start to worry about whether we should limit executions only to mass murderers or particularly gruesome killings and that maybe murdering just one person isn’t really all that awful. Finally - and this is not a minor point - this decision is not mine to wrestle with. Whatever the Church has taught will, as far as I am concerned, answer your question.

Ender

 

[JesusSinger]

I disagree with the death penalty. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And doesn’t murdering someone legally just tell people today that revenge is okay?

 

[Ender]

I disagree with the death penalty. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And doesn’t murdering someone legally just tell people today that revenge is okay?

Punishment is not evil and a just punishment is the obligation of the State to apply. Nor is an execution a murder. You don’t get to define your own terms and neither has any State nor the Church ever ever equated the two.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

A Priest , a Baptist Minister and a Rabbi are all given $10,000 by a man who tells them the only stipulation is yhey have to put the money in his coffin and have it buried with him when he dies. About 5 years later he dies and the Priest and Minister start scrmabling to raise the money. They both give impassioned sermons and take up a special collection and just barely raise the $10,000 each. the rabbi does nothing which quite suprises the other two as they know he does not have much money.

So the day of the funeral arrives and the catholic Priest walks up and drops $10,000 in 100 dollar bills in the coffin The baptis minister had a little rougher time getting the money but is able to drop in $10,000 in 50s ad 100s. They both wait to see what the Rabbi is going to do. He calmly walks down the aisle, takes out his checkbook and writes a check for $30,000 and drops it in the coffin. He takes his $20,000 in change , closed the lid of the coffin and walks out.

 

[CWBetts]

Punishment is not evil and a just punishment is the obligation of the State to apply. Nor is an execution a murder. You don’t get to define your own terms and neither has any State nor the Church ever ever equated the two.

Ender

In the State of Ohio, on death certificates of victims of execution it says “legal murder”

 

[Ender]

In the State of Ohio, on death certificates of victims of execution it says “legal murder”

I can believe a death certificate would say “homicide” but “legal murder” is an oxymoron. Given that murder is defined as the illegal killing of a person there cannot be such a thing as legal murder. Now, I recognize that some regimes use the power of the state to execute their rivals after show trials and this would be a form of legalistic murder. I’m equally sure this is not the way the state of Ohio thinks of our legal system.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

I can believe a death certificate would say “homicide” but “legal murder” is an oxymoron. Given that murder is defined as the illegal killing of a person there cannot be such a thing as legal murder. Now, I recognize that some regimes use the power of the state to execute their rivals after show trials and this would be a form of legalistic murder. I’m equally sure this is not the way the state of Ohio thinks of our legal system.

Ender

If you want to call my pastor a liar think what you want you self-righteous arrogant swine

 

[estesbob]

In the State of Ohio, on death certificates of victims of execution it says “legal murder”

I dont believe that is correct.I dont junderstand why it matters even if it is.