Ccc §2267

[billcu1]

I just read in the CCC something I never believed in. Capital punishment. The system just doesn’t work well enough to be taking someone’s life into the hands of the just. At least not here in the US. I was disappointed that the church doesn’t believe it immoral. It’s so easy to get mixed up in something or get someone out to get you, I know by experience and hearsay from others. With some of these executions lately where people are dying in bloody messes and politicians and people just shake there heads not caring. The executioner is as bad as the perpetrator.

 

[cena]

I just read in the CCC something I never believed in. Capital punishment. The system just doesn’t work well enough to be taking someone’s life into the hands of the just. At least not here in the US. I was disappointed that the church doesn’t believe it immoral. It’s so easy to get mixed up in something or get someone out to get you, I know by experience and hearsay from others. With some of these executions lately where people are dying in bloody messes and politicians and people just shake there heads not caring. The executioner is as bad as the perpetrator.

If the person killed multiple innocent people it is justified.

 

[Theophorus]

I just read in the CCC something I never believed in. Capital punishment. The system just doesn’t work well enough to be taking someone’s life into the hands of the just. At least not here in the US. I was disappointed that the church doesn’t believe it immoral. It’s so easy to get mixed up in something or get someone out to get you, I know by experience and hearsay from others. With some of these executions lately where people are dying in bloody messes and politicians and people just shake there heads not caring. The executioner is as bad as the perpetrator.

I think that the catechism note is well balanced:
Catechism §2267:

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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

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 definitely 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.”

If no other way exists to protect innocent life against an unjust aggressor(who is proven beyond doubt to be guilty) then, in principle, the church accepts that the death penalty may be an appropriate response to our freely chosen, immoral, actions as free moral agents.

However, in practice modern methods seem to render this option all but obsolete. In principle it is possible though. It is not a commentary on individual legal or justice systems, per se, which can be full of unjust and sinful individuals, but on the principle of moral autonomy and personal responsibility.

It is the mark of human action that it is responsible that is, that we are answerable for what we freely do. Although our ultimate answerability is in the next life where we will be permanently marked by the way we have acted here.

 

[Neofight]

If the person killed multiple innocent people it is justified.

Justified? By whom, or what? It is NOT justified that simply by CCC or Church teaching…it is a complex subject.

 

[cena]

Justified? By whom, or what? It is NOT justified that simply by CCC or Church teaching…it is a complex subject.

Yeah, you’re right but the op was saying that the executioner was just as guilty as the murderer

 

[kkollwitz]

“by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm”

I suppose this includes being incapable of doing harm to prison guards and fellow inmates.

 

[on_the_hill]

With some of these executions lately where people are dying in bloody messes and politicians and people just shake there heads not caring.

Which executions would those be, where the convict dies in a bloody mess and people don’t care?

 

[OneSmallFlower]

The Church does teach that it’s immoral, except when the only way to stop the aggressor from hurting more people is to kill them.
In modern nations, we have the ability to detain such people, so it is immoral for us in most if not all cases. For some African tribe with no way of stopping such people except for ending their lives, the situation is very different. Even in that case, I think the means of death would still have to be as humane as possible.

 

[cena]

The Church does teach that it’s immoral, except when the only way to stop the aggressor from hurting more people is to kill them.
In modern nations, we have the ability to detain such people, so it is immoral for us in most if not all cases. For some African tribe with no way of stopping such people except for ending their lives, the situation is very different. Even in that case, I think the means of death would still have to be as humane as possible.

Can’t they hurt people in prison?

 

[OneSmallFlower]

Can’t they hurt people in prison?

I’m afraid I can’t claim to have an intimate knowledge of prison life, but I would assume that the standard response to a prisoner who consistently causes other prisoners grave physical harm would be isolation.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

The Church does teach that it’s immoral, except when the only way to stop the aggressor from hurting more people is to kill them.
In modern nations, we have the ability to detain such people, so it is immoral for us in most if not all cases. For some African tribe with no way of stopping such people except for ending their lives, the situation is very different. Even in that case, I think the means of death would still have to be as humane as possible.

Somewhere there is a statistic on the number of convicted murderers who have gotten out of prison on a legal technicality and have gone on to kill again. (I am specifically NOT referring to exculpatory DNA evidence situations.) The vagaries of our legal system undermine faith in “our ability to detain such people.”

 

[OneSmallFlower]

While I have no doubt such a statistic exists, it’s generally considered good etiquette to cite it when arguing it.
As I can’t reference it, I can only assume that as it has not posed a significant problem to our society as of yet (by which I mean the majority of the public don’t suffer from it, not that it’s not a serious issue), the percentage must be relatively low and is simply referring to the inevitable margin of error in any such system. A small few may escape; the very large majority do not. You have to weigh the positives with the negatives. Should we deny all death row inmates the possibility of repentance because a very small number managed to escape?

 

[porthos11]

I just read in the CCC something I never believed in. Capital punishment. The system just doesn’t work well enough to be taking someone’s life into the hands of the just. At least not here in the US. I was disappointed that the church doesn’t believe it immoral. It’s so easy to get mixed up in something or get someone out to get you, I know by experience and hearsay from others. With some of these executions lately where people are dying in bloody messes and politicians and people just shake there heads not caring. The executioner is as bad as the perpetrator.

The botched executions and even the perceived trigger-happy appearance of some jurisdictions do not change the teaching that capital punishment, as a principle, is inherently moral.

The Catholic Church cannot believe or teach that capital punishment is immoral because she has already taught that capital punishment is, in fact, moral. This is a moral teaching and is part of the ordinary Magisterium. That’s why the CCC, while prudently laying out a set of conditions under which it can be used. But it will never condemn capital punishment outright.

What you’re talking about are miscarriages of justice, technical problems and imprudence on the part of the justice system. These are all fair and good reasons to abolish capital punishment. But the Church’s reasons for the stopping of capital punishment are prudential, not moral.

 

[Timothysis]

The Church does teach that it’s immoral, except when the only way to stop the aggressor from hurting more people is to kill them.

This is a false statement. As stated in the catechism, the traditional teaching of the Church throughout her history has been that the legitimate authority has a right and a duty to maintain the social order with recourse to capital punishment. To this day, it is still the official teaching of the Church. Pope John Paul II is the one who, in his effort against the culture of death, has offered the end of capital punishment as a pastoral teaching but it does not have the authority to be binding upon Catholics in good conscience who believe that capital punishment is both moral and, at times, necessary for not only keeping a murderer from killing again but to address the harm he did by seeking Justice for his crime.

This is from the first edition of the catechism; it is still a valid summary of the Church’s traditional teaching on the subject since the early days of her existence:

*“Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty” *

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Back to quoting my old pastor again, but I’ll give two examples as to why I think he was correct.

We were discussing the death penalty, and he pointed to me and said, “Suppose someone killed you in cold blood, maliciously and didn’t care either. He’s taken your life. Why should he keep his own?”

He continued, “Done properly, the death penalty has a sacramental quality about it. It points to God’s justice.”

But then he added, “But too many innocent people have been executed unjustly. So it’s better that 10 guilty men rot in jail than that one innocent person hang. Once they’re dead, that’s it. You can’t bring them back to life.”

I’ll give two examples from recent Australian history. In the 1990’s there were a series of murders called the backpacker murders, carried out by Ivan Milat. Link refers -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpacker_murders

And he still doesn’t care. Not so long ago a nephew of his was convicted of the murder of another young man, and apparently when MIlat heard about it, he just laughed.

He’s a good argument for the death penalty. Did a hole, line up a firing squad with half a dozen bullets costing about a dollar each, and fire. End of story.

Yet it costs the taxpayer more to keep Milat alive in a high security prison than it would for someone to stay in a first class hotel.

That’s one side of the story - the death penalty is justified.

Now for the other side - back in 1980, a baby was killed by a dingo near Ayers Rock (or Uluru as they call it now), and her remains were never found. Yet her mother was charged with the murder,and sent to prison for eight years. It was not only a case of injustice of the worst sort, but it also cost her her marriage to a pastor in the long run. The following link refers -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Chamberlain-Creighton

A film was actually made about it, called “Evil Angels” starring Meryl Streep (who had trouble trying to accommodate an Australian accent, but that’s by the by).

If the Northern Territory had the death penalty in place, she could have hanged. And she’d have been completely innocent. He only sin, to quote one journalist, was “an unsympathetic media appearance”. She controlled her emotions so well, it gave the impression that she didn’t care, whereas in fact she cared terribly. In a sense, it was almost trial by media.

This is despite the fact there was no evidence, and no motive.

To quote the old pastor again, “Better that 10 guilty men rot in jail than that 1 innocent person hang.”

And that about sums it up.

 

[cena]

Back to quoting my old pastor again, but I’ll give two examples as to why I think he was correct.

We were discussing the death penalty, and he pointed to me and said, “Suppose someone killed you in cold blood, maliciously and didn’t care either. He’s taken your life. Why should he keep his own?”

He continued, “Done properly, the death penalty has a sacramental quality about it. It points to God’s justice.”

But then he added, “But too many innocent people have been executed unjustly. So it’s better that 10 guilty men rot in jail than that one innocent person hang. Once they’re dead, that’s it. You can’t bring them back to life.”

I’ll give two examples from recent Australian history. In the 1990’s there were a series of murders called the backpacker murders, carried out by Ivan Milat. Link refers -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpacker_murders

And he still doesn’t care. Not so long ago a nephew of his was convicted of the murder of another young man, and apparently when MIlat heard about it, he just laughed.

He’s a good argument for the death penalty. Did a hole, line up a firing squad with half a dozen bullets costing about a dollar each, and fire. End of story.

Yet it costs the taxpayer more to keep Milat alive in a high security prison than it would for someone to stay in a first class hotel.

That’s one side of the story - the death penalty is justified.

Now for the other side - back in 1980, a baby was killed by a dingo near Ayers Rock (or Uluru as they call it now), and her remains were never found. Yet her mother was charged with the murder,and sent to prison for eight years. It was not only a case of injustice of the worst sort, but it also cost her her marriage to a pastor in the long run. The following link refers -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Chamberlain-Creighton

A film was actually made about it, called “Evil Angels” starring Meryl Streep (who had trouble trying to accommodate an Australian accent, but that’s by the by).

If the Northern Territory had the death penalty in place, she could have hanged. And she’d have been completely innocent. He only sin, to quote one journalist, was “an unsympathetic media appearance”. She controlled her emotions so well, it gave the impression that she didn’t care, whereas in fact she cared terribly. In a sense, it was almost trial by media.

This is despite the fact there was no evidence, and no motive.

To quote the old pastor again, “Better that 10 guilty men rot in jail than that 1 innocent person hang.”

And that about sums it up.

If innocent people get hanged for a crime they didn’t commit, how many innocent people go to jail for something they didn’t commit?

 

[Ender]

The Church does teach that it’s immoral, except when the only way to stop the aggressor from hurting more people is to kill them.

This is not quite accurate. The catechism holds that it is unwise to execute prisoners in modern societies, but she has never held that it is immoral to do so. She has in fact always recognized the right of States to employ capital punishment.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. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[TimothyH]

There is a lot of misinformation about the Church’s teaching on the death penalty in this thread.

The Catechism does not say that capital punishment is “unwise” in modern societies. The Catechism states that if there are non-lethal means of protecting society then the death penalty is off the table.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means

Some have spoken about justice but the Church clearly teaches that mercy contains all justice and is the fullness of Justice.

***"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. (Matthew 5:7)

For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:13)***

The words in the Catechism and Scripture are crystal clear, very easy to understand.

-Tim-

 

[Ender]

As I can’t reference it, I can only assume that as it has not posed a significant problem to our society as of yet (by which I mean the majority of the public don’t suffer from it, not that it’s not a serious issue), the percentage must be relatively low and is simply referring to the inevitable margin of error in any such system.

The murder rate within prisons is about 6/100,000 (see page 3).
The recidivism rate of released murderers murdering again is about 1.2% within 3 years (page 1). The referenced study addressed a population of 277,111 parolees from 15 states, including 18,000 paroled after committing a homicide. This group committed about 216 additional murders within three years.

Should we deny all death row inmates the possibility of repentance because a very small number managed to escape?

They are not denied that possibility. The fact that they don’t accept the opportunity given to them to repent surely is not the same as denying it to them.

Ender

 

[Ender]

There is a lot of misinformation about the Church’s teaching on the death penalty in this thread.

The Catechism does not say that capital punishment is “unwise” in modern societies. The Catechism states that if there are non-lethal means of protecting society then the death penalty is off the table.*If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority **will ***limit itself to such means

This is the USCCB translation. The translation on the Vatican web site says *"authority **should *limit itself." In neither case, however, does it say authority **must **limit itself. You may assert that this statement is not a prudential judgment, but there is significant reason to believe otherwise.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. (Cardinal Dulles)

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger)

Some have spoken about justice but the Church clearly teaches that mercy contains all justice and is the fullness of Justice.

Not exactly. The argument from mercy is problematic for two reasons. First, if life without parole is the merciful punishment then it must be true that the death penalty is the just punishment. After all, if LWOP was the just punishment there would be no need to call for mercy, nor would such a sentence be merciful; it would simply be just. Second, mercy is not appropriate in all circumstances, so even if some deserved the merciful punishment of LWOP, not all do, and those who don’t should surely receive the just punishment…which is execution.

The words in the Catechism and Scripture are crystal clear, very easy to understand.

It really is important to understand that the fullness of the church’s teaching on capital punishment is not contained in CCC 2267. The church did not first address this issue in 1995; she has addressed it from her very inception and throughout her entire history…and what she has said is not what is contained in the new catechism. Clarity is not something the catechism gives us on this subject.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)
As far as scripture is concerned, you are on even shakier ground. The church’s position on capital punishment is based primarily on two passages: Gn 9:5-6 and Rm 13:1-4, and these passages recognize its validity, as the church has always done.

Ender