Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[Timothysis]

Tim dont get confused with self defence and murder.

Odd that you can make a distinction between ‘self defense’ and ‘murder,’ but not ‘killing’ and ‘murder.’ If, as you say, the fifth commandment forbids killing, yet you make a distinction with ‘self defense,’ then why is it that state-sanctioned execution is illicit? You are trying to have it both ways.

I remember a dear parish priest say to me one time I talk but nobody listens and that is exactly what is happening here.

On the contrary; everyone on this thread is listening to what you have to say. The problem is, you do not wish to hear what others say. What I, and many others, have said is that the Church has not declared the death penalty to be intrinsically evil. While not proponents, the Church recognizes that there are singular cases where the the demands of Justice require a forfeit of one’s life. It has always recognized this and continues to recognize it to this day, regardless of what others “feel” about it.

The fifth Commandment was given to us by God and it should not be broken just like none of the others should be broken.

And yet, you allow soldiers and police offers to kill, acting (as you say) against the fifth commandment. Don’t you see an inconsistency in this?

The Catholic church is not going to tell you that you can break a commandment that is why it does not condone the Death Peanalty.

But the Church doesn’t say that; you do!!!

What about the innocent people who have been executed because an overzealous prosacuter wanted it and he /she was wrong.

If one considers the amount of violent crime that occurs everyday, then we will be amazed at the rare instances when the death penalty is imposed as a punishment. There are very strict criteria that must be met for a case to invoke a capital penalty. It isn’t as if prisoners are being executed by the score everyday.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What is the position of the catholic faith on capital punishment? I am a 38 year old male returning to college. One of my research papers is on capital punisment. I just wanted to know what my faith says. Is it wright or wrong? Is it a sin? If anyone can help please respond.
Thank You

Well did you get your answer?

While the church allows for the use of the death penalty it is a means of last resort. in fact the USCCB has called for a volunteer end to the death penalty in the USA

www.usccbpublishing.org/client/client_pdfs/5-723DEATHBI.pdf

 

[pnewton]

Well did you get your answer?

While the church allows for the use of the death penalty it is a means of last resort. in fact the USCCB has called for a volunteer end to the death penalty in the USA

While the USCCB statement is not actually a teaching of the Church, I am glad you pointed it out. It is good to know that most bishops (not all) in America do not think it is necessary here.

 

[Ender]

Could I have the references for these, please?..

The reference to Pope St. Innocent I was to this:

Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, (20 Feb. 405), PL 20, 495
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

Is this what you wanted or was there more?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Which, of course, just to be contrary, I must refute with these quotes…

While I disagree with your interpretation of the quotes you cited I certainly agree that this is the proper way to argue the issue.

“Do not take away anyone’s life. Leave the possibility of repentance.” --St. Augustine

This is only part of the quote and I don’t really think you can use St. Augustine to refute … St. Augustine. He was quite plain in his other comment: the command which forbids killing does not prohibit the execution of the criminal. God’s law permits this. In your citation Augustine is condemning not executions per se but rather the spirit in which the judgment is applied. Below is the end of the section of which your quote is rather near the beginning:

Why destroy, by not loving, the one on whom you sit in judgment? Because what you are destroying is justice, by not loving the one on whom you sit in justice. “But penalties must be applied.” I don’t deny it, I don’t forbid it; only let it be done in a spirit of love, a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming ( Sermo 13, c. 7, #8 .1)

“It is not lawful to kill even the guilty.” --St. Cyprian

This is ambiguous. It is certainly not lawful for the individual to kill even a guilty person nor to punish him in any way but the state has the positive obligation to do what is denied to the individual. Without more of the citation there is no way to know whether Cyprian is referring to the right of the individual or of the state and I strongly suspect that he is not referring to the state because the Church has never taken the position that it is not lawful for the state to execute criminals. Bishop Cyprian died in 258 so the reference to Pope Innocent I cited in a previous post - where he states that this question has not been definitively resolved by previous statements - must include Cyprian since Innocent I wrote 150 years after Cyprian died.

“A Christian just and wise ought not to save his own life by the death of another.” –St. Ambrose

This may refer to any number of things including self defense but surely “A Christian” should not be taken to mean “the state”.

Ender

 

[Ender]

While the USCCB statement is not actually a teaching of the Church, I am glad you pointed it out. It is good to know that most bishops (not all) in America do not think it is necessary here.

I know what is said in 2267 but the question of whether executions are or are not necessary to adequately protect society really misses the primary objective of punishment which is not protection but justice. Protection is a secondary objective; the primary objective (as stated in 2266) is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” In order to be just a punishment must satisfy this requirement, a requirement that is simply ignored by 2267. It is not protection that determines whether executions are appropriate, rather it is the demand of justice.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I know what is said in 2267 but the question of whether executions are or are not necessary to adequately protect society really misses the primary objective of punishment which is not protection but justice. Protection is a secondary objective; the primary objective (as stated in 2266) is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” In order to be just a punishment must satisfy this requirement, a requirement that is simply ignored by 2267. It is not protection that determines whether executions are appropriate, rather it is the demand of justice.

Ender

The question of this thread though is the Catholic stand on capitol punishment. To the extent we depart from the Catechism, we depart from the Church’s stand and start giving our own opinion.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

The question of this thread though is the Catholic stand on capitol punishment. To the extent we depart from the Catechism, we depart from the Church’s stand and start giving our own opinion.

Even the Church’s Magisterium are entitled to their opinions, and we are entitled to not listen to them.

There is a distinct difference between opinions and teachings. Not knowing the difference is where secular institutions of higher learning have gone astray - teaching opinions instead of truth.

Was the Notre Dame invitation to BO to speak at commencement a teaching or an opinion?

Eddie Mac

 

[pnewton]

Even the Church’s Magisterium are entitled to their opinions, and we are entitled to not listen to them.

Faithful Catholics are not to ignore teaching by labeling it as opinion though. Here is the difference.

Teaching:

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 with the dignity of the human person.

Opinion:

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

The first statement needs no specialized knowledge of law enforcement, penal systems or demographics. It gives a principle: a teaching. The latter statement is dependent on knowledge of the above issues and makes a judgement based on secular knowledge.

The Church has clearly taught both through the Catechism and the statements by the Holy Father himself that the death penalty is only to be used for the purpose defense of society, and then if it the only means to adequately defend society.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Faithful Catholics are not to ignore teaching by labeling it as opinion though. Here is the difference.

Teaching:

Opinion:

The first statement needs no specialized knowledge of law enforcement, penal systems or demographics. It gives a principle: a teaching. The latter statement is dependent on knowledge of the above issues and makes a judgement based on secular knowledge.

The Church has clearly taught both through the Catechism and the statements by the Holy Father himself that the death penalty is only to be used for the purpose defense of society, and then if it the only means to adequately defend society.

I agree, but in a previous post I pointed out that the society that requires defending from killers includes prison guards and other prisoners, and this is often ignored.

The whole of society requires protection, not just those on the outside of the jailhouse.

It is really easy to make statements regarding the death penalty and (self) defense from behind walls and armed security.

Eddie Mac

 

[Antrim]

Tim
When a criminal comes into your house with a 45 Magnum and demands money and threatens to kill you if you dont give it to him what do you do? You defend yourself If the perpetrator is killed that is self defence because you beleived your life was in danger.
A Swat team surrounds a house and they know a convicted Felon is in there and he has sworn that he will not go back to Jail. He comes out with two Guns blazing trying to kill as many Cops as he can. The Cops must use deadsly force because their lives are in danger. Some times it is known as suacide by Cop.
The condemned prisoner has no way to defend himself. He is Shackeled Hand and Foot led by a group of guards into the Death Chamber straped to a Gurney a Needel stuck in his Arm and Poison pumped into him untill he is dead.
That is the difference between self defence and murder.
This is an excerpt from Statements on the Death Penalty. By the late Holy Father John Paul 11
It is clear for these purposes to be achived, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity. In other words when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however as result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system such cases are very rare if not practcally nonexistent.
As you can see the Church does not condone the death peanalty but it will tolerate it in extreme cases. Today in the United States it is not necessary at all because of the excellent Prison system we have here.
It is all on the Web under The Catholic Church and the Death Penalty
You must discern what the Church is saying.

Antrim

 

[pnewton]

As you can see the Church does not condone the death peanalty but it will tolerate it in extreme cases. Today in the United States it is not necessary at all because of the excellent Prison system we have here.

Really? Do you have a lot of knoweldge and experience in the prison system, because I do not see this excellence you see.

 

[Antrim]

If you watch the programes on T V about the prison system you can see where it is not necessary to have the Death Penalty.
Statements on the Death Penalty by the late Holy Father Pope John II
The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro - life who will proclaim celebrate andserve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hopeis the increasing recognition that the dignity of of human life must never taken away even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of prtecting itself without definitivelly denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a concensus to end the death peanalty which is both cruel and unnecessary. (Pope John Paul II ST Louis , MO January 1999) Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution much take the form of social retaliation or a sort of institutional vengence. Punishment and imprisonment have meaning if they serve the rehabilation of the individual by offering those who have made a mistake and oopportunity to reflect and to change their lives in order to be fully reintergrated into society.
The Holy Father calls recourse to the death penalty unnecessary and panfully reminds us that our model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message.
I would just like to say that any catholic on a Jury in a death penalty case would be well advised to call their Archdioses before deliberating the fate of the perpetrater.
Antrim

 

[Ender]

Faithful Catholics are not to ignore teaching by labeling it as opinion though.

Either section 2267 of the Catechism is opinion or it is not. My belief that it is opinion may be correct or incorrect but it is not an act of defiance or self selection of which doctrines I choose to ignore. It is also a belief that was shared by Cardinal Avery Dulles: *"The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that * in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good." This was written in 2001 in an article on the death penalty and the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2004 that *“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty.” *I believe I am doing no more than legitimately expressing a different opinion than that of the Pope.

The Church has clearly taught both through the Catechism and the statements by the Holy Father himself that the death penalty is only to be used for the purpose defense of society, and then if it the only means to adequately defend society.

The teaching is anything but clear because what JPII wrote is pretty much a repudiation of everthing the Church had said on the subject for the previous 1995 years. The Church says (today) that the primary objective of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. It is not the defense of society. How can you claim to be following Church teaching by adhering to 2267 and ignore the fact that in doing so you are not following what the Church teaches in 2266 (not to mention all the prior catechisms, councils, Popes, and doctors of the Church that preceded Evangelium Vitae)?

Ender

 

[Ender]

When a criminal comes into your house with a 45 Magnum and demands money and threatens to kill you if you dont give it to him what do you do? You defend yourself If the perpetrator is killed that is self defence because you beleived your life was in danger.

The condemned prisoner has no way to defend himself. He is Shackeled Hand and Foot led by a group of guards into the Death Chamber straped to a Gurney a Needel stuck in his Arm and Poison pumped into him untill he is dead.

That is the difference between self defence and murder.

No, that is the difference between self defense and an execution. The Church has never equated execution with murder which your own citation should have made clear: “punishment … ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity.” Murder is an intrinsic evil which the Church condemns in all cases but you should note that even JPII recognized that there might be instances where executions are necessary. That ought to suggest to you that either executions and murder are different or the Church is saying that in certain situations it’s OK to murder someone.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… How can you claim to be following Church teaching by adhering to 2267 and ignore the fact that in doing so you are not following what the Church teaches in 2266 (not to mention all the prior catechisms, councils, Popes, and doctors of the Church that preceded Evangelium Vitae)?

Ender

One can adhere to both 2267 and 2266 with a proper understanding of the teachings. No where has the church required death to be the only punsihment available. The problem present is some assume death is needed then assume the catchism must back that decision. Contrition is the actual desired result.

 

[pnewton]

How can you claim to be following Church teaching by adhering to 2267 and ignore the fact that in doing so you are not following what the Church teaches in 2266 (not to mention all the prior catechisms, councils, Popes, and doctors of the Church that preceded Evangelium Vitae)?

Ender

I explained how in the previous post.

As to previous catechisms, I do not consider them relevant. As nothing in the teaching of the Church today contradicts, but rather builds on the previous centuries, we need to live in the time we are given and not worry about what it would be like to live in the Middle Ages.

 

[Ender]

I explained how in the previous post.

You did? In which post? I didn’t see anything that addressed 2266 (let alone the Catechism of Trent).

As to previous catechisms, I do not consider them relevant.

Yes, well that certainly simplifies the task of supporting your position when you dismiss everything the Church had previously said on the subject.

As nothing in the teaching of the Church today contradicts, but rather builds on the previous centuries, we need to live in the time we are given and not worry about what it would be like to live in the Middle Ages.

First, this statement is simply incorrect as to fact and second, morality does not change with the times. What was true before is true now; what was allowed before is still allowed - and what was true in the Middle Ages is no less true today.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

You did? In which post? I didn’t see anything that addressed 2266 (let alone the Catechism of Trent).

Yes, well that certainly simplifies the task of supporting your position when you dismiss everything the Church had previously said on the subject.
First, this statement is simply incorrect as to fact and second, morality does not change with the times. What was true before is true now; what was allowed before is still allowed - and what was true in the Middle Ages is no less true today.

Ender

The post was #69 in which I explained what I see as the difference.

Yes, it does simply my position, as well as that of all Catholics. That is why we have a Magisterium, to which we should all be faithtul to.

And no, there are many things the Church has learned and developed since the Middle Ages, That is why we have a Catechism today updated, and do not use the Catechsim of Trent. Individual Catholics should not presume to be a Magisterium unto themselves, engaging in a form of sola tradition.

 

[mtnutt]

**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 with the dignity of the human person.**

This section of the catechism indicates that the church is against the death penalty in most cases, while allowing for it in some extreme cases. More importantly, where it is calling for a limit to non-lethal means of punishment, it is addressing this to authority, not specifically to you and I. I agree that it is possible in the United States today to incarcerate a person for the remainder of their natural life, however, there is no guarantee. In other words, legal authority should allow for a sentence of Life without Parole and take what measures are necessary to prevent escape of such criminals as well as protecting the staff and other inmates.

It is my opinion that a Catholic person could, in keeping with church teaching, impose the death penalty in some cases. And yes, sometimes the jury is called upon to make that choice.

What if you are selected to sit on the jury for someone like Charles Manson or Ted Bundy and you are told that if you convict him you must then decide whether he will be sentenced to Life with a Possibility of Parole or Death. Those are your only choices allowed by law. What are you to do? Choose the death penalty or give him life and hope he 1) never escapes or 2) never convinces a parole board to release him? I think this is a situation where a Catholic could in good conscience and in keeping with church teachings elect for the death penalty.

I personally am conflicted by this dilemma, as I have always been a supporter of the death penalty. However, since I came into the church two years ago, I have been rethinking my position. I was called for jury duty a few weeks ago and it turned out to be a murder case, I was momentarily concerned that I might have to come to a decision about the death penalty that I am not quite prepared to make at this time. Fortunately, it had already been decided that the death penalty was not an option in that case, and I didn’t get selected anyway. I believe that here in Texas Life without Parole is an option and I think I would have to vote that way if I were called for a death penalty case, but I wonder what I would do if Life without Parole is not an option. I will say this, I think the church would expect those of us who don’t have the option to put pressure on the legislatures to get the option.