Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[David_Zampino]

This is what I have maintained as well, but doing so is not helpful to your position because 2267 does not agree with what is contained elsewhere in the same Catechism.Ender

In your opinion.

And while, I respect your position, it is your opinion. You do not represent the authority required to split these hairs.

 

[severus68]

Your interpretation of what Christ taught does not coincide with the Church’s interpretation. Retribution is not “merely” an OT concept; the Church teaches today that this is the primary objective of punishment.

You misunderstand retribution as it belongs not to vengeance but to justice. Again, your opinion is contrary to what the Church teaches.

This is what I have maintained as well, but doing so is not helpful to your position because 2267 does not agree with what is contained elsewhere in the same Catechism.

Ender

that is your opinion.What was permissable under the OT on which Judaism and Islam is based is not necessarily encouraged or even right for Christians.

I do not misunderstand, retribution has connotations of vengence.

Then should we not as Christians, take the most Christlike position?

 

[4elise]

In your opinion.

And while, I respect your position, it is your opinion. You do not represent the authority required to split these hairs.

Thus, the right of civil society to inflict the death penalty is affirmed. In explaining the right, however, the Catechism adds an important caveat: “If…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” (CCC 2267).

When speaking out for LIFE - we stand on much more solid ground when we speak for ALL LIFE.

Peace

 

[Pro_Domina]

The Church rejects it altogether

What?

St. Ferdinand of Castille would bring the wood personally to burn heretics.

Now the thing about it today is the following. With the rise of liberal and atheist republics it becomes a danger to those who are good. This means that the day that Catholics are targeted as enemies of the state, liberty or freedom or whatever cliche word you can think of, the existence of such a penalty is a danger.
So it is better to not have it in that sense.

But today most of the arguments are all tendentious in the line of liberalism.
Why? Because a huge part of the clergy gave way to communism. Now since the communists in Latin America were all revolutionaries, they win when the death penalty isn’t applied to them. Because later they can rise again. Like now. Almost all the current presidents had something to do or even were the communist rebels back then.

In the USA perhaps it is less necessary, but in Latin America, killing a tree will land you more jail time than for murder. The prisons are tons more populated than their capacity. The death penalty would work marvels. But…but…but.

Bishops have a lot more say in LA then in the US.

 

[Jason_1977]

I’m a catholic, I rarely disagree with the church’s teachings (though I follow anyway) but the death penalty is one I would think the church would go with to a point. I was wondering if anyone has mentioned GENESIS 9:6 “IF ANYONE SHEDS THE BLOOD OF MAN, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED; FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD HAS MAN BEEN MADE.” I kind of like this notion. It is very lex talionis, (law of retaliation). Less vengeful & more justice sounding. He basically puts the kabash on murder before even making the commandments, murder being unjust killing or arbitrary killing. I’m not sure I agree with a capital punishment is wrong stance, and I doubt the church feels 100% against it. It might not like it, I dont know, I just tried looking in the catechism, & couldnt find capital punishment or anything, so I am willing to be corrected, but either way, I feel strongly in favor of Genesis 9:6.

 

[4elise]

I’m a catholic, I rarely disagree with the church’s teachings (though I follow anyway) but the death penalty is one I would think the church would go with to a point. I was wondering if anyone has mentioned GENESIS 9:6 “IF ANYONE SHEDS THE BLOOD OF MAN, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED; FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD HAS MAN BEEN MADE.” I kind of like this notion. It is very lex talionis, (law of retaliation). Less vengeful & more justice sounding. He basically puts the kabash on murder before even making the commandments, murder being unjust killing or arbitrary killing. I’m not sure I agree with a capital punishment is wrong stance, and I doubt the church feels 100% against it. It might not like it, I dont know, I just tried looking in the catechism, & couldnt find capital punishment or anything, so I am willing to be corrected, but either way, I feel strongly in favor of Genesis 9:6.

From EWTN
ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm

1. Circumstances. There are, of course, individual circumstances related to the particular capital case which, as I noted, a just law takes into account. Here I want to consider, however, certain general circumstances. The Pope has noted that in the developed countries the possibility exists to incarcerate criminals for life, removing definitively any threat to society. Thus, the Catechism continues in paragraph 2267,

** If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority should 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.

Thus, while the state may have the right, all other factors being respected, to execute the criminal it also has the opportunity for mercy. If the greater good of the society is protected adequately then the Church argues for mercy, both so that the respect due to every life is restored and so that the unconverted might convert and save their souls. Thus, in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism (2267) the Pope concludes,

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." (EV 56)

So, in the end is the Pope changing Church teaching by arguing against capital punishment? Absolutely not! It fact, it would be contrary to Church teaching to say that capital punishment is per se immoral, as some do. Rather, the Pope states that the conditions of modern society argue against it’s use in all but rare cases. It is simply becoming harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary (the third element of a good moral act). The Pope is NOT substituting his judgment for the political prudence of those who must make decisions about when to use capital punishment. He is teaching principles and making a general evaluation about modern circumstances.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

There are at least 2 ways of looking at Church Teaching
Church Teaching theoreticum (“This is what we teach in theory”)
Church Teaching practicum (“This is what we teach in practice”)
For example, a nun working in the third world in desperate situation wrote to the Vatican seeking permission to advocate the use of contraceptives.
On this the Church was silent, she took this to be consent. They were aware of her conduct, chose to remain silent.
At times the Church will ‘turn a blind eye’ on how the Faith is put into works.
Morality is complex - advocate for the benefit of the individual or advocate for the benefit of the greater majority.

 

[Sonny1954]

I believe that the Catholic Church has no stand on capital punishment. I heardmore than once on EWTN that the Church has historically allowed it and it is an issue on which every Catholic is allowed to make up his or her own mind. Individual prelates might have strong opinions about it one way or another. But no prelate has ever threatened a Catholic laymen with excommunication and denial of Communion over the matter, that I know of.

 

[Ender]

I just tried looking in the catechism, & couldnt find capital punishment or anything, so I am willing to be corrected, but either way, I feel strongly in favor of Genesis 9:6.

The only section in the Catechism that specifically addresses capital punishment is 2267 and if that was all we had to go by then the subject would be reasonably clear, unfortunately for those who cite this section and ignore everything else, there is a great deal more that has been said.

You are correct in citing Gen 9:6 as the Church interprets it just as you do; that is, it means what it says. This is also referenced in the Catechism in section 2260.
David Zampino:

it is your opinion. You do not represent the authority required to split these hairs.

It is not a question of authority but of whether I am right or wrong and one does not need authority to be right. You may call this splitting hairs but this issue is a great deal more significant than that as it goes to an understanding of what the Church teaches.

Severus68:

that is your opinion.What was permissable under the OT on which Judaism and Islam is based is not necessarily encouraged or even right for Christians.

Here we go with this “opinion” thing again. I am not simply expressing an opinion; I am quoting what the Church herself taught in the past and teaches today. I don’t think you can dismiss that as merely opinion.

I do not misunderstand, retribution has connotations of vengence.

Whether it has this connotation to some is not relevant; in the Church’s understanding, retribution is the primary objective of all punishment and is tied to the concept of justice. This is specifically expressed in 2266 where it says that the State has not just the right but the duty to punish and that the severity of the punishment must (not may, but must) be proportionate to the severity of the crime. This statement is immediately followed by one that says: *“the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” * Redressing the disorder means retribution: “A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction.” (Pius XII)

These are not my opinions; I am arguing based on the positions the Church has expressed.

Ender

 

[severus68]

What?

St. Ferdinand of Castille would bring the wood personally to burn heretics.

Now the thing about it today is the following. With the rise of liberal and atheist republics it becomes a danger to those who are good. This means that the day that Catholics are targeted as enemies of the state, liberty or freedom or whatever cliche word you can think of, the existence of such a penalty is a danger.
So it is better to not have it in that sense.

But today most of the arguments are all tendentious in the line of liberalism.
Why? Because a huge part of the clergy gave way to communism. Now since the communists in Latin America were all revolutionaries, they win when the death penalty isn’t applied to them. Because later they can rise again. Like now. Almost all the current presidents had something to do or even were the communist rebels back then.

In the USA perhaps it is less necessary, but in Latin America, killing a tree will land you more jail time than for murder. The prisons are tons more populated than their capacity. The death penalty would work marvels. But…but…but.

Bishops have a lot more say in LA then in the US.

Are you saying the death penalty should be applied in less developed countries? Who decides how to pick and choose. So should all these presidents who were communist rebels be given the death penalty?

What’s this about most of the clergy becoming communists?

 

[severus68]

The only section in the Catechism that specifically addresses capital punishment is 2267 and if that was all we had to go by then the subject would be reasonably clear, unfortunately for those who cite this section and ignore everything else, there is a great deal more that has been said.

You are correct in citing Gen 9:6 as the Church interprets it just as you do; that is, it means what it says. This is also referenced in the Catechism in section 2260.

It is not a question of authority but of whether I am right or wrong and one does not need authority to be right. You may call this splitting hairs but this issue is a great deal more significant than that as it goes to an understanding of what the Church teaches.

Here we go with this “opinion” thing again. I am not simply expressing an opinion; I am quoting what the Church herself taught in the past and teaches today. I don’t think you can dismiss that as merely opinion.

Whether it has this connotation to some is not relevant; in the Church’s understanding, retribution is the primary objective of all punishment and is tied to the concept of justice. This is specifically expressed in 2266 where it says that the State has not just the right but the duty to punish and that the severity of the punishment must (not may, but must) be proportionate to the severity of the crime. This statement is immediately followed by one that says: *“the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” * Redressing the disorder means retribution: “A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction.” (Pius XII)

These are not my opinions; I am arguing based on the positions the Church has expressed.

Ender

You have chosen not to follow the Cathechism and look backwards. The fact is while the Church today has not come right out to make it a sin to support the death penalty, it does discourage the use of the death penalty. I stand by that and my conscience in opposing the death penalty.

 

[4elise]

The only section in the Catechism that specifically addresses capital punishment is 2267 and if that was all we had to go by then the subject would be reasonably clear, unfortunately for those who cite this section and ignore everything else, there is a great deal more that has been said.

You are correct in citing Gen 9:6 as the Church interprets it just as you do; that is, it means what it says. This is also referenced in the Catechism in section 2260.

It is not a question of authority but of whether I am right or wrong and one does not need authority to be right. You may call this splitting hairs but this issue is a great deal more significant than that as it goes to an understanding of what the Church teaches.

Here we go with this “opinion” thing again. I am not simply expressing an opinion; I am quoting what the Church herself taught in the past and teaches today. I don’t think you can dismiss that as merely opinion.

Whether it has this connotation to some is not relevant; in the Church’s understanding, retribution is the primary objective of all punishment and is tied to the concept of justice. This is specifically expressed in 2266 where it says that the State has not just the right but the duty to punish and that the severity of the punishment must (not may, but must) be proportionate to the severity of the crime. This statement is immediately followed by one that says: *“the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” * Redressing the disorder means retribution: “A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction.” (Pius XII)

These are not my opinions; I am arguing based on the positions the Church has expressed.

Ender

Again… from my previous post - taken from an EWTN article:

** ]If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority should 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. **

So, in the end is the Pope changing Church teaching by arguing against capital punishment? Absolutely not! It fact, it would be contrary to Church teaching to say that capital punishment is per se immoral, as some do. Rather, the Pope states that the conditions of modern society argue against it’s use in all but rare cases. It is simply becoming harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary (the third element of a good moral act). The Pope is NOT substituting his judgment for the political prudence of those who must make decisions about when to use capital punishment. He is teaching principles and making a general evaluation about modern circumstances.

You reinforce “must (not may, but must) be proportionate to the severity of the crime.” - to take away one’s freedom for the remainder of their natural life is proportionate and the position that is in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Blessings

 

[Ender]

Again… from my previous post - taken from an EWTN article: {Citation of 2267}

This comment reinforces what I said in my previous post … “there is a great deal more that has been said.” Simply repeating 2267 does nothing to address all the other points I have raised.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Again… from my previous post - taken from an EWTN article:

You reinforce “must (not may, but must) be proportionate to the severity of the crime.” - to take away one’s freedom for the remainder of their natural life is proportionate and the position that is in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Blessings

Who decides whether there are sufficient non lethal means to protect us from the agressor?

 

[4elise]

Who decides whether there are sufficient non lethal means to protect us from the agressor?

Who would you suggest?

Since we are discussion the State’s rights / responsibility - I can only imagine we are talking about the State making that determination.

 

[estesbob]

Who would you suggest?

Since we are discussion the State’s rights / responsibility - I can only imagine we are talking about the State making that determination.

Based on the doctrine of subsidiarity it would appear to be the state,

 

[4elise]

Based on the doctrine of subsidiarity it would appear to be the state,

So as pro life Catholics - working to end abortion needs to be part of our life.

I believe working to end death penalty is also part of what we Catholics who live in the west, given the direction we have been given by the Church, should be working to do.

Blessings,

 

[estesbob]

So as pro life Catholics - working to end abortion needs to be part of our life.

I believe working to end death penalty is also part of what we Catholics who live in the west, given the direction we have been given by the Church, should be working to do.

Blessings,

I agree BUT in doing so we must take care to make sure that we do not give the false impression that the Church forbids the death penalty and we must not condemn those catholics who disagree with us on the need for the death penalty.

 

[4elise]

I agree BUT in doing so we must take care to make sure that we do not give the false impression that the Church forbids the death penalty and we must not condemn those catholics who disagree with us on the need for the death penalty.

The Church does not forbid the death penalty IF it is necessary to protect society.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority should 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.

AND I re post this because I can not say it any better:

Thus, while the state may have the right, all other factors being respected, to execute the criminal it also has the opportunity for mercy. If the greater good of the society is protected adequately then the Church argues for mercy, both so that the respect due to every life is restored and so that the unconverted might convert and save their souls. Thus, in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism (2267) the Pope concludes,
**
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.”** (EV 56)

So, in the end is the Pope changing Church teaching by arguing against capital punishment? Absolutely not! It fact, it would be contrary to Church teaching to say that capital punishment is per se immoral, as some do. Rather, the Pope states that the conditions of modern society argue against it’s use in all but rare cases. It is simply becoming harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary (the third element of a good moral act). The Pope is NOT substituting his judgment for the political prudence of those who must make decisions about when to use capital punishment. He is teaching principles and making a general evaluation about modern circumstances.

I am not in a position to condemn anyone for their beliefs on this or any other Church teaching - I only come to the forums to discuss what I understand to the be the teaching of the Church with other Catholics - I think there are some who may want to chose what teachings they will accept and the ones that they prefer from an earlier time - I believe that we must always look at living in the world today - and see how the Church applies the universal teaching to the realities of our lives in 2009. I am one who is VERY grateful for that teaching.

 

[Ender]

Who would you suggest?

Since we are discussion the State’s rights / responsibility - I can only imagine we are talking about the State making that determination.

As a practical matter it is of course the State, nonetheless we have the obligation to work for the application of laws that we believe are moral.

As to the moral question of who decides whether a person who commits a murder should be executed, we already have the answer: the Church teaches that it is a mandate from God. Furthermore, she expressly says that this teaching is true for all time (2260). I have no way of explaining how what we are commanded to do in 2260, we are (virtually) forbidden to do in 2267 (not to mention how 2267 can be reconciled with what is said in 2266 and pretty much everything the Church has ever said on the subject.)

Ender