Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[godisgood77]

This is the kind of thing I was referring to when I spoke earlier of “bad arguments.” One of the bishops I cited (and to whom the epithet of disagreeing with the authority of the church would apply)…was Cardinal Ratzinger.

I love Cardinal Ratzinger… I keep his books Principles of Catholic Theology and Co-Workers of the Truth on my nightstand.

I’m referencing the Pope, Catechism and CDF… recently the Church updated the teaching on capital punishment in Catechism and elucidated the development of doctrine on the subject in a formal letter to the Bishops of the world… Is that a bad argument in your mind?

Cardinal Dulles whom you reference made his comments years ago…impossible to say if he would reject the development. To my knowledge, I don’t think Ratzinger has made any comments on the subject the teaching was updated… Have you seen anything ender?

 

[Maximus1]

Prudential judgement? Not under the circumstances on earth today. The law is locked in under those.

 

[Maximus1]

It would seem to ban capital punishment.
That isn’t exactly accurate, although I will concede," you couldn’t get a decent legal homicide off the ground," if you followed Jesus teaching.
I like this parable because it contradicts a lot of widely held ideas. Ideas that are not quite right.
Jesus is the star in the passage, so what he says has to be authoritative right?
You are right. He doesn’t punish her at all. In fact, he doesn’t find there is a reason to punish her.
He does not tell her to repent before he forgives her.
He forgives her without her making a sound.
When I hear this clinging to Capital punishment, as though it has anything to do with Jesus own teaching, I scratch my head

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Why don’t you want the death penalty abolished in your country?

If you look more closely at my comments you will see almost none of them are actually in direct support of capital punishment. My posts are almost exclusively against the arguments that are being made opposing its use. I do that because I find most arguments are not only wrong but actually quite harmful to the church herself. It is not capital punishment per se that I am supporting; it is invalid and damaging arguments that I am opposing.

So take the Australian example because that’s one I know well. When government moved towards abolition of the death penalty starting from around 1912 because it had come to be regarded as a cruel and unnecessary measure by society, the Catholic leaders here assured Catholics that although the death penalty had previously been assumed to be a divine command, that it was actually of the nature as an allowance under the 5th commandment were it necessary for the good of society. The Vatican never at any stage intervened.

Is that a legitimate argument?

 

[Maximus1]

How can it not apply to Capital punishment.
How can the Crucifiction not apply.

 

[Ender]

For murder… Modern statistics of unfair trial and error genetically found…not available to Aquinas…
For murder, you can incarcerate and maintain safety…back then, a concern.

Even if all your concerns were valid it wouldn’t matter to the morality of capital punishment. All of those things are practical concerns, so while they might argue that it was unwise to apply the death penalty they do not argue that it is immoral.

I’m referencing the Pope, Catechism and CDF… recently the Church updated the teaching on capital punishment in Catechism and elucidated the development of doctrine on the subject in a formal letter to the Bishops of the world… Is that a bad argument in your mind?

What you are referencing is what you understand them to have said. What I cited were the explanations given by several bishops as to what was meant. The choice is not between them and the church, but between them and you.

Cardinal Dulles whom you reference made his comments years ago…impossible to say if he would reject the development. To my knowledge, I don’t think Ratzinger has made any comments on the subject the teaching was updated… Have you seen anything ender?

Cardinal Dulles made his remarks 15 years ago, as did Cardinal Ratzinger; that’s pretty much the blink of an eye in terms of the church’s history. The day after Francis changed the catechism Archbishop Gomez said this:

The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral.

If the death penalty was always gravely immoral he wouldn’t have made the point of separating it from those crimes that are. Its use is now, as it was before, a prudential judgment.

Prudential judgement? Not under the circumstances on earth today. The law is locked in under those.

It is the fact that it is a judgement about those very circumstances that makes it a prudential judgment. That’s what the term means.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. (Cardinal Dulles)

 

[Ender]

So take the Australian example because that’s one I know well. When government moved towards abolition of the death penalty starting from around 1912 because it had come to be regarded as a cruel and unnecessary measure by society, the Catholic leaders here assured Catholics that although the death penalty had previously been assumed to be a divine command, that it was actually of the nature as an allowance under the 5th commandment were it necessary for the good of society. The Vatican never at any stage intervened.

Is that a legitimate argument?

The right and responsibility for deciding when and whether to apply capital punishment belongs to the state. If a state decided they felt it was better not to apply it on what grounds could the church intervene?

How can it not apply to Capital punishment.

Because the church has never used that story in her discussion and explanation of the right of a state to employ capital punishment. It doesn’t apply because the church doesn’t apply it.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The right and responsibility for deciding when and whether to apply capital punishment belongs to the state. If a state decided they felt it was better not to apply it on what grounds could the church intervene?

The Vatican didn’t intervene on the matter of the Australian Church’s explanation to the Catholic community. ie

“the Catholic leaders here assured Catholics that although the death penalty had previously been assumed to be a divine command, that it was actually of the nature as an allowance under the 5th commandment were it necessary for the good of society.”

Is the local Church’s teaching legitimate?

 

[godisgood77]

What you are referencing is what you understand them to have said

Not true… I have referenced over and over again the CDF’s explanation …

I can’t tell if you are being deliberately obtuse … but you keep reverting to same falsehood by stating that you are referencing an authority and i’m (or many this thread) are simply stating their opinion/understanding.

Simple yes or no… do you accept the CDF’s explanation on this or not… surely you can do that.

 

[Ender]

The Vatican didn’t intervene on the matter of the Australian Church’s explanation to the Catholic community. ie

“the Catholic leaders here assured Catholics that although the death penalty had previously been assumed to be a divine command, that it was actually of the nature as an allowance under the 5th commandment were it necessary for the good of society.”

Is the local Church’s teaching legitimate?

Nonsense, that “citation” is your own invention.

Simple yes or no… do you accept the CDF’s explanation on this or not… surely you can do that.

By the CDF’s explanation do you mean Cardinal Ladaria’s letter? If you do then I certainly accept the part where he said it "represents an “authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.” As I pointed out before when I cited this passage, the only way this “development” could not contradict 2000 years of prior teachings would be if capital punishment was (a) still not intrinsically evil, and (b) therefore "Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order."

Anything else would be a contradiction of all prior teachings…which the CDF (Cdl Ladaria) said did not happen.

 

[godisgood77]

By the CDF’s explanation do you mean Cardinal Ladaria’s letter? If you do then I certainly accept the part where he said…

Sounds like you accept the part you agree with…how about these parts??? the actual meat of the explanation and the development. Respectfully, you have been dodging this the entire discussion. Do you accept?

1. The motivation to be committed to the abolition of the death penalty was continued with the subsequent Pontiffs. Benedict XVI recalled “the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty.”[6] He later wished a group of the faithful that “your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”[7]
2. In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been.”[8] The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, “entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.”[9] Furthermore, it is to be rejected “due to the defective selectivity of the criminal justice system and in the face of the possibility of judicial error.”[10] It is in this light that Pope Francis has asked for a revision of the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty in a manner that affirms that “no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”[11]
3. The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine.[12] The new text, following the footsteps of the teaching of John Paul II in Evangelium vitæ , affirms that ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people. Certainly, it remains the duty of public authorities to defend the life of citizens, as has always been taught by the Magisterium and is confirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church in numbers 2265 and 2266.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The Vatican didn’t intervene on the matter of the Australian Church’s explanation to the Catholic community. ie

“the Catholic leaders here assured Catholics that although the death penalty had previously been assumed to be a divine command, that it was actually of the nature as an allowance under the 5th commandment were it necessary for the good of society.”

Is the local Church’s teaching legitimate?

Nonsense, that “citation” is your own invention.

Absolutely not my own ‘invention’. I assumed you would recall the number of times I have posted from the Catholic periodical from 1924 that provided that instruction.

"On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system. "

Catholic Paper Sydney 4 Dec, 1924

Do you agree with the Australian Church’s explanation that the death penalty was necessary by the inefficiency of the legal system to contain criminals but now unnecessary because of advances in that area?

 

[Ender]

Sounds like you accept the part you agree with…how about these parts?

Here’s a problem: how can different parts of the same document explaining one topic disagree? It ought to suggest a real problem if that’s what you see.

the actual meat of the explanation and the development. Respectfully, you have been dodging this the entire discussion. Do you accept?

This is what I see: there is very little “specific” about the document; it is full of implications when what is needed are a few declarative statements. Do I accept what? Your understanding of what the document actually says? Clearly not.

The motivation to be committed to the abolition of the death penalty…

This is filler; there is nothing here that speaks to the morality of capital punishment.

In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “today capital punishment is unacceptable"…

Again with the undefined words like “unacceptable”. It implies what it cannot assert - capital punishment is either morally allowed or it isn’t, and calling it “unacceptable” implies that it is immoral, but if that was the case then it should have been called immoral per se. That would have clarified the point. And what exactly does “today” mean? Does it mean “from today on” or just “given today’s conditions”? As I said, these all require interpretation. Why should I give special credence to yours?

The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine.

An essential part of any valid development is that it contain the original doctrine. Therefore if this change is a “coherent development” then it cannot repudiate the doctrine it changes, especially one as old, established, and universally acknowledged as the one on capital punishment. In which case “The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.” (Dulles) So again, why should I believe that capital punishment is now immoral when such a change could not possibly be a "coherent development"?

 

[Ender]

Absolutely not my own ‘invention’. I assumed you would recall the number of times I have posted from the Catholic periodical from 1924 that provided that instruction.

Yes, I do recall it, and as I said, your “citation” was entirely your own invention; it was not a citation from the document you referenced. More to the point, that document echoed what I said. It assuredly did not suggest anything about capital punishment having been assumed to be a “divine command”.

Do you agree with the Australian Church’s explanation that the death penalty was necessary by the inefficiency of the legal system to contain criminals but now unnecessary because of advances in that area?

I know nothing of the inefficiencies of the Australian criminal justice system in the 1920’s, but no, that argument has never justified using or not using the death penalty.

 

[AlNg]

…ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible…

What does inadmissable mean? i know what mortal and venial sins are, but what occurs when someone commits an act that is inadmissible. Would that be a mortal sin, a venial sin, or no sin at all?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Absolutely not my own ‘invention’. I assumed you would recall the number of times I have posted from the Catholic periodical from 1924 that provided that instruction.

Yes, I do recall it, and as I said, your “citation” was entirely your own invention; it was not a citation from the document you referenced. More to the point, that document echoed what I said. It assuredly did not suggest anything about capital punishment having been assumed to be a “divine command”.

If you had read the linked document you’d have read this:

“Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment? This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system. Since it was difficult to arrest highway robbers, firebugs, etc., those that were actually caught were punished the more drastically. Whether fewer, such criminals now escape arrest and full punishment than formerly, especially if they are rich, may be questioned. But the fact remains that what we now call the police system was extremely primitive in the days of old. Robbery on a grand scale, formerly conducted by a liberal use of physical violence, is now carried on in a more refined manner, though the effect is the same. It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether. So much seems to be sure, that the number of those has not died out who will be deterred from committing great crimes by nothing short of death.”

Do you agree with the Australian Church’s explanation that the death penalty was necessary by the inefficiency of the legal system to contain criminals but now unnecessary because of advances in that area?

Well you are not speaking for the Catholic Church because it accepts the Australian decision to abolish the death penalty starting nearly a century ago. You don’t concord with the Magisterium

 

[Brian_K]

Trials get plea-bargained. Having the death penalty on the table at least allows that a murderer might get the life in prison that will keep him off the streets.

 

[Ender]

If you had read the linked document you’d have read this:

If I had read the document I still wouldn’t have found what you presented as a citation. As I said, what you presented was entirely your own creation, whether you consider it an accurate paraphrase of what was actually said or not. Those were your words; they were not a citation from the document you cited. Just as I claimed.

Well you are not speaking for the Catholic Church because it accepts the Australian decision to abolish the death penalty starting nearly a century ago. You don’t concord with the Magisterium

Let’s see how this discussion has gone:

Ender: The right and responsibility for deciding when and whether to apply capital punishment belongs to the state. If a state decided they felt it was better not to apply it on what grounds could the church intervene?

Catholic Journal: It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether.

Wow. Are you objecting because I didn’t use their exact words? You just can’t pass up any opportunity to invent reasons to condemn me personally, can you? This charge is atrocious, and I’m frankly tired of them. When you have something reasonable to say I’ll respond…but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[godisgood77]

An essential part of any valid development is that it contain the original doctrine

An essential part of any valid development of doctrine is that it contains what is essential about the original doctrine. A development changes the original in that deepens the Church’s understanding.

In this case, as has been said many, many, many times in this thread, the Church has deepened its understanding of the inviolability of the human person (as explained in the CDF’s document and set forth in the Catechsim). This new understanding makes the death penalty inadmissible where it used to be admissible… The teaching is not a commentary on the morality of the death penalty.

The essential meaning of this teaching about the inviolability of the human person (even for the worst criminals) and that is natural growth on the original.

 

[Ender]

An essential part of any valid development of doctrine is that it contains what is essential about the original doctrine.
…
This new understanding makes the death penalty inadmissible where it used to be admissible… The teaching is not a commentary on the morality of the death penalty.

Well, if admissibility wasn’t essential to the original doctrine then it’s hard to see how inadmissibility could be essential to it today, especially if the new teaching doesn’t address the morality of the death penalty. The old doctrine did address that point, however, and found its use moral. I accept that this hasn’t changed.