Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[sealabeag]

When did I say I think that? I just asked some questions.

 

[sealabeag]

So what about the quote from him?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Okay then, we’re all on the same page that Catholics are expected to agree with all of what’s in the Catechism.

And if they find something troublesome, then they must accept it and behave according to what it says (in other words, you cannot execute someone or vote for death as a juror, or go around publicly advocating for a death penalty) and if you have mental doubts discuss with a priest, read and think about it on your own, and ask God to open your mind, and pray.

 

[sealabeag]

What about the vagueness of the term “inadmissible”? Does this affect the situation in any way? It doesn’t have a particularly clear meaning in the context. Evidence could be “inadmissible” in court, however, what does it actually mean in this context? Never allowed? Unacceptable? Arousing disapproval? Immoral?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Don’t you think you’re being a bit legalistic here in trying so hard to find a justification for rejecting a teaching with which you disagree?

 

[sealabeag]

Nope. I’m seeking to understand. Can one not ask questions without being accused of “legalism”?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You can ask, but as you have received several good answers with sources in the thread already, you should expect others to question your motives and methods of continuing to ask.

 

[sealabeag]

I’ve received some good answers but I’m still not 100% clear on everything so continuing to ask.
Is there something wrong in my motives and methods of asking?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Have you read the sources you were given?
Have you looked up and reviewed past threads as it was suggested that you do?
Have you given this some thought and still have a question?

The forum bot is telling me I have responded too many times on this thread, so I will be muting now. Have a nice day.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

It is also not an acceptable remedy in the modern age.

And these conditions are extant throughout the entire world? That seems rather dubious.

 

[Ender]

I cannot find myself able to accept this “new” teaching of Pope Francis. Does a Catholic have to accept everything in the Catechism? Can I disagree with this teaching of the Pope in the Catechism? And if so, why this teaching and not others?

We are morally obligated to assent to all the doctrines of the church. We are not, however, required to assent to all prudential judgments, even those of the pope and Magisterium, so the real question here is: which does this change represent, a new doctrine or a new judgment?

As several people here have already noted, capital punishment has not been declared to be intrinsically evil, which means that determining when its use is legitimate is a judgment.

It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. And, if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments (Christopher Ferrera)

I agree with this opinion.

How can a teaching of the Church change?

Church teaching can develop, but development cannot include repudiation so that what was a heresy to accept before becomes a heresy to reject today.

I understand societies ability to reform and house prisoners without the need for the death penalty has increased greatly, especially in the west, however surely what is morally acceptable cannot change?

The “need” for capital punishment is not determined by whether it provides protection but by whether it is the just punishment for the crime.

[inadmissible]
Seems like a very vague word for the Church to use, though…

It is very ambiguous. It implies that capital punishment should be treated as intrinsically evil even though it cannot be explicitly defined that way.

 

[Londoner]

I make no excuses for the UK having used the death penalty until 1964. This isn’t really a USA vs. UK issue. It’s more a USA vs. most of the rest of the world issue. And the age of a country doesn’t seem to have that much to do with whether or not they have abolished the death penalty. New Zealand, Canada, and Australia are all much younger countries than the USA, but carried out their last executions in 1957, 1962, and 1967, respectively. The former Spanish and Portuguese colonies from Mexico down to Chile achieved independence in the 19th century, but mostly abolished the death penalty between the 1830s and 1980s. In fact, the USA is the only country on the American continent that carries out executions (Cuba and some small former British colonies are the only other countries in the region that retain the death penalty even notionally). A number of African countries which did not become independent until the 1960s or 1970s, and which are considerably less developed than the USA, have abolished the death penalty. All of the former eastern bloc countries in Europe, except Belarus, abolished the death penalty in the 1980s or 1990s. So, the fact that England was still hanging, drawing, and quartering people in the 18th century doesn’t seem to have much bearing upon the fact that the USA is still executing people in 2019. And I’d say exactly the same about a country such as Japan.

As for you wider point, I largely agree. However, the thing that seems to distinguish Catholics who support the death penalty from Catholics who disregard the Church’s teaching on sexual and reproductive ethics is that the latter group do generally accept that they are in disagreement with Church teaching. I have known Catholics who quite openly have sex outside marriage, use birth control, or engage in homosexual activity, but I think that they would be the first to admit that they understand that this is contrary to Church teaching. When one debates with Catholics who support the death penalty, on the other hand, they won’t say, “Oh, I know that this is contrary to Church teaching, but I believe it anyway.” They cite the Bible and the Church fathers and use formal logic to argue that the Church says something that it doesn’t actually say or to try to show that the pope is mistaken. I tend to suspect an overlap with the kind of reasoning used by people who claim to believe that Benedict XVI is still the reigning pope, even though Benedict XVI appears to believe otherwise.

 

[sealabeag]

Thanks for this, very clear and helpful. I’m a bit more enlightened now.

 

[Ender]

I’m pretty sure Pope Benedict formerly Cardinal Ratzinger would not tell you “yeah that’s fine, if it’s just some little moral issue feel free to ignore what the Catechism says.” I just can’t see that coming out of his mouth.

We are required to assent to doctrines. We are not required to assent to judgments. If there is a prudential judgment in the catechism we are not in fact obliged to assent to it simply because it is in there, as Cardinal Ratzinger himself made clear when the catechism was first promulgated:

“The individual doctrines that the catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess. What is important is the catechism in its totality: It reflects the church’s teaching; anyone who rejects it overall separates himself unequivocally from the faith and teaching of the church.” (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

[sealabeag]

Wow that’s a great quote. Really helpful!

 

[Randolph]

“We are required to assent to doctrines. We are not required to assent to judgments. If there is a prudential judgment in the catechism we are not in fact obliged to assent to it simply because it is in there, as Cardinal Ratzinger himself made clear when the catechism was first promulgated:

“The individual doctrines that the catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess. What is important is the catechism in its totality: It reflects the church’s teaching; anyone who rejects it overall separates himself unequivocally from the faith and teaching of the church.” (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church)”

Well stated, Ender… Thank you for shedding light on this topic/confusion. I just wish that there are less ambiguity and confusion in the Church. But it seems that it can’t be helped in recent time. The word “inadmissible” is indeed a vague and loaded word. If not careful, it could be misunderstood as doctrinal. The teachings of the church should be simple and clear so that ordinary folks could comprehend them. We often forget that the Holy Mother and most of the apostles were indeed simple peasants and fishermen. And yet, they spread Christianity to all corners of the world.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I make no excuses for the UK having used the death penalty until 1964. This isn’t really a USA vs. UK issue. It’s more a USA vs. most of the rest of the world issue.

I mentioned all of Europe in my post.

For the record, I do not support the death penalty and have in the past represented at least three people on death row appealing their sentences. As I have explained, I came to the conclusion to not support it independently of any moral judgment of the Church or the Pope on the issue, during a time when I was a lukewarm Catholic at best. It is a happy serendipity that the Church and I ended up on the same side of the issue as it is one less thing for me to concern myself with.

However, I generally tend to tune out Europeans’ speeches on this subject; most of them do not have any understanding of USA and are simply out to criticize the country while ignoring the horrible histories of their own lands that drove many of our ancestors to settle here in the first place in order to survive. Have a nice day.

 

[Ender]

This isn’t really a USA vs. UK issue. It’s more a USA vs. most of the rest of the world issue.

It is simply a search for the truth of the matter, which is quite independent of the country from which an argument originates. What used to be done in England, and what is currently done in the US is also irrelevant. What was done by popes, the Papal States, and the Vatican, however, does matter.

When one debates with Catholics who support the death penalty, on the other hand, they won’t say, “Oh, I know that this is contrary to Church teaching, but I believe it anyway.” They cite the Bible and the Church fathers and use formal logic to argue that the Church says something that it doesn’t actually say or to try to show that the pope is mistaken.

My disputes are not with what the church has said. What I disagree with are the interpretations others give to those comments. My arguments are not with the church but with other posters who understand their words differently. We disagree over what the church has “actually” said.

 

[Randolph]

The late Father Hardon wrote a good article regarding Capital Punishment in the history of the Church

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

In countries throughout Asia, it is quite reasonable for Catholics to support Capital Punishment. Putting aside arguments for punishment/justice or for deterrence, Capital Punishment insures that the crimes could not be repeated by the same offenders. For examples: (1) The mobs/gangsters who committed murders can buy their way out of prisons or even escape out of prisons. Once out, they will return to their murderous way; (2) Kidnappers of children and women, who sell them to sexual slavery, can also buy their way out of prison. Once out, they will also return to kidnapping. The penal/legal system in most countries in Asia is inadequate to keep the worst of criminals in prison for life.

This is a much more complicated issue than commending the progression of countries that have eliminated Capital Punishment from their legal system through the years.

 

[DaveBj]

Also, they always seem to be American conservatives who feel a strange cultural attachment to the practice of people being killed by the state.

. . . or, simply observant Christians who haven’t yet gotten around to razoring Genesis 9:6 and the 13 chapter of Romans out of their Bibles.

D