Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[sealabeag]

Something cannot be fundamentally moral one day and fundamentally immoral the next. But of course circumstances and conditions etc. can change.

 

[sealabeag]

Just want to say thanks for the helpful replies guys, I’ve definitely gained some important understanding here that eases some worries I had!

 

[Ender]

These are horrendous crimes that proper authority has the right and the responsibility to exact the right punishments and appropriate measures to ensure the safety of the children.

Child trafficking is indeed a horrendous crime, and the right question to ask is whether death is the just punishment for those who commit it? If it is then unless a convincing argument can be made that there is a significant down side to using it then why should it not be applied? If it satisfies the primary objective of punishment (retributive justice), satisfies the secondary objective of providing protection against repeat offenses, and possibly satisfies the secondary objective of providing deterrence, on what grounds should one oppose it?

 

[Randolph]

Indeed, these numbers are just from China. We can not even comprehend the numbers in other third world countries throughout the world. The penal/legal systems in these countries can not hold the worst of the criminals in prison for life. In many cases, the kidnappers do have the means to buy themselves out of prison. If not for imposing the death penalty for the most horrendous crimes, these criminals would eventually return to the streets and repeat the crimes. This means that not only the common good/justice is not being served, but more children will be kidnapped/abducted. We can never know for sure what would happen to these children. But it is safe to say, it is equivalent to a death sentence to many of these children.

 

[TARRAT]

Criminals jailed in the US have shanked other prisoners they also have their contacts on the outside that they can command to kill somebody. To think that prisoners cannot kill is naive.

 

[Ender]

If not for imposing the death penalty for the most horrendous crimes, these criminals would eventually return to the streets and repeat the crimes.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but focusing on prevention of future crimes misses the central aspect of punishment, which is not to safeguard the future but to restore past disorder. The primary objective of punishment is retributive justice; it is not protection, and it is important to understand that distinction.

If a person deserves to die it is because of what he has already done in the past, not for what he may do in the future.

 

[Randolph]

I also agree with retributive punishment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…but focusing on prevention of future crimes misses the central aspect of punishment, which is not to safeguard the future but to restore past disorder. The primary objective of punishment is retributive justice; it is not protection, and it is important to understand that distinction.

I agree, but apparently the Church has not judged that the death penalty is the only punishment that can satisfy the demands of retribution, even in the case of murder. Thus the call to end the death penalty is not contrary to Catholic teaching, but is very much in keeping with it.

 

[Emeraldlady]

“I predict the Church will go further in teaching. So much as to teach applying the death penalty without reference to the common good, is murder.”

Impossible, this would be for the Church to actually change her position, to state that which was once moral is now immoral. No?

Not at all. The Church has always stated that the legitimacy of the death penalty is tied to the common good. Aquinas in the 13th century referred to this principle numerous times in his esteemed writings.

From Summa Theologica (II II Q64 3) - “it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”

In Art 2 of the same chapter he shows that using the death penalty is actually forbidden by God if it does more harm than good to the community.

“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.”

“Commanded them to forbear”. A strong prohibition against killing an evil doer if it damages the community. Or as Pope John Paul II said, contributed to ‘the culture of death’.

Then Aquinas in Art. 7 compares the death penalty and individual self defense.

“But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense , refer this to the public good,”

So you see, the death penalty must serve the public good and is forbidden if it causing more harm than good. So were that small but vocal faction of US Catholics who continue to claim the Church cannot teach abolition in response to the welfare of the community, I find it conceivable that she may need to go so far as to warn that to do is the sin of murder.

 

[Ender]

I agree, but apparently the Church has not judged that the death penalty is the only punishment that can satisfy the demands of retribution, even in the case of murder. Thus the call to end the death penalty is not contrary to Catholic teaching, but is very much in keeping with it.

Opposition to the use of capital punishment in particular circumstances is very much within the tradition of the church’s teaching. Opposition to its use per se is not, and the difficulty is not “merely” that her Fathers, Doctors, Magisteria, popes, and councils have acknowledged its legitimacy for two millennia, but the fact that its use is based on Scripture. Repudiating that is at least one bridge too far.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The gist of Church teaching is that it is no longer a moral option to use the death penalty. It causes more harm to the common good than health.

The assertion that capital punishment causes more harm than good is a practical judgment, not a moral one, and it is a judgment left to those who have responsibility for the common good to make.

It is a prudential judgement which is a moral judgement and it is the responsibility of the Church to teach moral truth to the world. Over the more than a century that across the globe the death penalty has been abolished, the Church has never stepped in to forbid abolition. The reason for her need to speak clearly now is to silence that false claims that abolition is against Catholic teaching. That is coming from the US faction of Catholics , seeking to distort Catholic teaching.

 

[Ender]

It is a prudential judgement which is a moral judgement and it is the responsibility of the Church to teach moral truth to the world.

A prudential judgment is simply a practical judgment made with the added intention of doing what one thinks is best. There is no moral choice involved in determining what is best, only in choosing it after that determination is made. There is no “moral truth” involved in predicting the likely result from a particular act. If you think an act will have a bad consequence and I think it will have a good one we are equally justified in choosing what we think is best, and there is no moral judgment involved.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I agree, but apparently the Church has not judged that the death penalty is the only punishment that can satisfy the demands of retribution, even in the case of murder. Thus the call to end the death penalty is not contrary to Catholic teaching, but is very much in keeping with it.

Opposition to the use of capital punishment in particular circumstances is very much within the tradition of the church’s teaching. Opposition to its use per se is not…

I don’t think that is what recent teaching is trying to do - repudiate capital punishment per se. They are trying to oppose its use in the particular circumstance of the modern world in 2019. It is conceivable that the world could degenerate into chaos, and then the teaching could be revisited.

, and the difficulty is not “merely” that her Fathers, Doctors, Magisteria, popes, and councils have acknowledged its legitimacy for two millennia,

Again, recent teaching does not challenge the legitimacy of the death penalty. So it looks like you are fighting a straw man.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

It is a prudential judgement which is a moral judgement and it is the responsibility of the Church to teach moral truth to the world.

A prudential judgment is simply a practical judgment made with the added intention of doing what one thinks is best. There is no moral choice involved in determining what is best, only in choosing it after that determination is made. There is no “moral truth” involved in predicting the likely result from a particular act. If you think an act will have a bad consequence and I think it will have a good one we are equally justified in choosing what we think is best, and there is no moral judgment involved.

Regardless of your interpretation of prudence, it is within the scope of public authority to abolish the death penalty if in their judgement it is damaging to the common good, agreed?

 

[Ender]

I don’t think that is what recent teaching is trying to do - repudiate capital punishment per se. They are trying to oppose its use in the particular circumstance of the modern world in 2019. It is conceivable that the world could degenerate into chaos, and then the teaching could be revisited.

If that was made clear I would have no problem with it; the church is certainly justified in making such pronouncements. In fact she would do well to clarify that her comments are judgments about the inadvisability of its use today and not new doctrines condemning its use forever.

Again, recent teaching does not challenge the legitimacy of the death penalty. So it looks like you are fighting a straw man.

Mostly what I do is respond to bad arguments, especially those which suggest the death penalty is in fact illegitimate.

Regardless of your interpretation of prudence, it is within the scope of public authority to abolish the death penalty if in their judgement it is damaging to the common good, agreed?

Of course. It is both their right and their responsibility to safeguard the common good by doing what they think best.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Regardless of your interpretation of prudence, it is within the scope of public authority to abolish the death penalty if in their judgement it is damaging to the common good, agreed?

Of course. It is both their right and their responsibility to safeguard the common good by doing what they think best.

So quit arguing that it is against Church teaching to abolish the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

So quit arguing that it is against Church teaching to abolish the death penalty.

Quite putting words in my mouth. Cite particular comments I have actually made and respond to what I actually say rather than to your interpretation of what you think my words mean.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Opposition to the use of capital punishment in particular circumstances is very much within the tradition of the church’s teaching. Opposition to its use per se is not,

Emeraldlady:

So quit arguing that it is against Church teaching to abolish the death penalty.

Quite putting words in my mouth. Cite particular comments I have actually made and respond to what I actually say rather than to your interpretation of what you think my words mean.

You said in post 70 - "Opposition to the use of capital punishment in particular circumstances is very much within the tradition of the church’s teaching. Opposition to its use per se is not, "

The Church is directly teaching the immorality of using the death penalty today. You are denying that?

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Pope Francis said ‘inadmissible’ not ‘immoral’. What that means is up for debate I guess.

 

[Ender]

The Church is directly teaching the immorality of using the death penalty today. You are denying that?

Yes. I deny that that is what is being taught. The teaching is not that it is immoral but that it is unwise, that its use in current circumstances is harmful. That is a judgment, not a proclamation of fact.