Church Teaching on Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no equity in taking life. For many reasons.
The unequal application of capital punishment is one. Poor people and people with low IQ, are disproportionately sentenced.
Mistakes are made that cannot be remedied. The premeditated nature of legal homicide places the population into the business of murder itself. It creates a state system that devalues a human beings life, into a transactional thing. Devoid of human dignity. It is a species of the same dignity choice abortion makes on human life.
Killing does not return a life. It takes 2. What’s the equity?
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 (to Le_Cracquere) said:
In terms of capital punishment I totally disagree with your position.
You are a retributive justice fan. Frankly, I see retributive justice absent in any of Christ’s own teaching. Eye for an eye was replaced by Christ… …

The Churches proper role is one of Restorative Justice. The saving of souls.
Click to expand...
I think it is both - restorative and retributive. Furthermore, I think it is possible to be a “retributive justice” fan at the same time as being dead set against capital punishment. How is that possible? By considering that even for crimes in which someone is killed, the “proper” level of retribution may not be the death of the wrong-doer. Indeed many see life in prison as equal or perhaps worse punishment than a quick death. In any case, retribution need not be defined by “an eye for an eye”. It could be totally consistent with opposition to the death penalty for the vast majority of situations.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The meaning of Leviticus 20:10 is just as plain as the meaning of Ex 21:12-14. Yet the Church now interprets Leviticus to mean other than its plain meaning. So why not Exodus as well?
Click to expand...
I disagree that the church has reinterpreted those passages. You might make a case that they have simply been ignored, or possibly deemed not relevant, but there really is no way they can be interpreted to mean other than what they say.
I don’t have the time to do an exhaustive search of the bible for all passages that support mercy vs. punishment…
Click to expand...
Finding passages on mercy would be irrelevant. It is wrong to consider mercy and punishment at odds with one another as both are virtues, and they compliment each other; they do not compete.

Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. (JPII, Dives in misericordia)
 
Maximus1 said:
I see retributive justice absent in any of Christ’s own teaching.
Click to expand...
You are severely misinformed on this point inasmuch as retribution - retributive justice - is in fact the primary objective of all punishment.

…it would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of principle, the function of retributive punishment. The result of retributive penalties is in no way opposed to the function of punishment, which is the reestablishment and restoration of the order of justice which has been disrupted, a function which is essential to all punishment." (Pius XII, Discourse 1954)
Eye for an eye was replaced by Christ
Click to expand...
No, this is not accurate either.

…when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. (St Bellarmine, De Laicis)
the dignity recognition is for the guilty…
Click to expand...
We understand the nature of man’s dignity because God himself told us man is made in God’s image. More than that, however, that is given as the explanation for why a murderer deserves to die, because his crime is so terrible. That is, God told us the murderer should die because the life of his victim was sacred. Your interpretation turns this on its head and holds that the murderer should live because his life is sacred.
 
Johann_du_Toit said:
Necessity is something that should be left to those in public authority as I understand it.
Click to expand...
If you replaced "when it is necessary" with “when it is just” then I would agree. Necessity can be interpreted to be dependent on protection, but determining what provides security is no part of determining what is just.
 
A grossly inadequate punishment is no punishment at all. And in cases of homicide, anything short of a human life itself is infinitely inadequate.
 
First, that is an argument for applying it to more killers of all income levels & capacities, not fewer.
Second, universally imposing an injustice that cries out to heaven (which is what withholding the death penalty is) is no solution to individual injustices or mistakes.
Third, kindly refrain from calling every taking of a life “murder,” unless you consider every magistrate & executive legal authority who ever lived prior to the 20th century a murderer.
Fourth, the distinction between innocent and guilty life is the stuff of Being a Functioning Moral Entity 101. I’m not prepared to humor any argument that ignores such a distinction.
 
Le_Cracquere said:
A grossly inadequate punishment is no punishment at all. And in cases of homicide, anything short of a human life itself is infinitely inadequate.
Click to expand...
The assessment of “grossly inadequate” is a matter for prudential judgement, not a matter of doctrine. So if someone asserts that life in prison is adequate retribution for murder, there is no way you can disprove that assertion by doctrine, on by personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
I;m not sure that I agree. But even granting what you say, his assertion wouldn’t be any better than mine or preferable to it. On those grounds, we can’t say that a small fine isn’t adequate retribution.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So if someone asserts that life in prison is adequate retribution for murder, there is no way you can disprove that assertion by doctrine, on by personal opinion.
Click to expand...
But the death penalty is more than retribution. Look up Tommy Silverstein on the internet:

"Thomas Edward Silverstein was an American criminal who spent the last 42 years of his life in prison after being convicted of four separate murders while imprisoned for armed robbery, one of which was overturned. Silverstein spent the last 36 years of his life in solitary confinement for killing Corrections Officer Merle Clutts at the Marion Penitentiary "

What do you do with a man who kills IN prison? And whose victims include a Corrections Officer?

Imagine there is no death penalty and a powerful drug lord is facing life in prison. And he orders his minions to kill the prosecutor, the judge and the foreman of the jury. The worst you can do is give him more life sentences!! On the other hand, where will you find a judge, prosecutor and juror who will try him? He’ll get off scot free and so will other dangerous criminals who see they can’t make their situations worse, no matter how many people there are.
 
vern_humphrey said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
So if someone asserts that life in prison is adequate retribution for murder, there is no way you can disprove that assertion by doctrine, on by personal opinion.
Click to expand...
But the death penalty is more than retribution. …
Click to expand...
That is true. I was only addressing the retribution aspect of it, since that is what Le_Cracquere and Maximus1 were discussing.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That is true. I was only addressing the retribution aspect of it, since that is what Le_Cracquere and Maximus1 were discussing.
Click to expand...
Right you are. Perhaps I was too quick to introduce the public safety aspect.
 
From a legal standpoint, the system remains retributive.
From a Catholic standpoint, we seek restoration of our fellow human beings, and we seek to maintain human dignity. Clearly we hold onto remnants of the temple system as well.
 
I wrote about what Jesus, himself said. And I was right.
You didn’t address what Jesus said. Making your claim specious.
This is what Jesus said:
…You have heard that it was said,’ An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
BUT I SAY TO YOU, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
You have heard that it was said ,’ You shall love your neighbor and HATE YOUR ENEMY.’
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, THAT YOU MAY BE CHILDREN OF YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
I imagine the entire passage must shock you. It is clear that Jesus is clearly supplanting the law of the OT in this passage from Matthew 5.
The eye for an eye was an idea that retribution and revenge not exceed the offense.
But here in the Sermon, Jesus teaches a very different and radical form of love.
Honestly, it is alien to the average Christian to concieve of what Jesus is saying.
We can handle saying pro life( when there is no chance of actually having an abortion.
We can strictly not eat fish on Friday. And people do, and think this makes them Pius and good.
These are simple things with very little investment ( skin in the game).
But Jesus teaching to love enemies and pray for those who persecute you, honestly, that’s almost unthinkable right?
Offering no resistance to one who is evil? Your post is clearly repugnant to that idea.
Yes! Jesus did change aspects of the law. Here it is.
In fact if you charted all of the quotes Jesus is said to have referenced in the Gospel, they are limited, specific, and do not include many " favorites" of the retributive justice fans.
 
A few decades ago, the public safety aspect was the last vestige of Christian support for the death penalty. Saint John Paul II retained it.
But it’s days were clearly numbered then. As housing prisoners safely became more widespread.
 
Maximus1 said:
But it’s days were clearly numbered then. As housing prisoners safely became more widespread.
Click to expand...
It’s more than housing prisoners safely. It’s about having one more step for those who seek to murder prosecutors and judges, destroying the whole justice system.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Le_Cracquere:
I;m not sure that I agree. But even granting what you say, his assertion wouldn’t be any better than mine or preferable to it.
Click to expand...
That is true. And for my part, I am not taking a side in the debate between these two assertions.
Click to expand...
The idea that a valid punishment is whatever someone thinks it is is completely contrary to the church’s teachings on punishment. The catechism states quite unambiguously that a just punishment is one that is of comparable severity with the crime, and that is independent of a particular individual’s opinion on the matter. Aquinas, too, was quite clear on this:

Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.

Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, wherefore it is written (Prov. 13:24): “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.” But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances.

Yes, the selection of the proper punishment is inevitably a prudential decision, but that in no way means the choice is without guidelines or is simply arbitrary. Do we know that death is a just punishment for the crime of murder? Yes, we do, or the church could never have sanctioned it for two millennia. Is there an argument to be made that a lesser punishment is also just? I guess that depends on whether one believes there is something of commensurate value with life.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
Le_Cracquere:
I;m not sure that I agree. But even granting what you say, his assertion wouldn’t be any better than mine or preferable to it.
Click to expand...
That is true. And for my part, I am not taking a side in the debate between these two assertions.
Click to expand...
The idea that a valid punishment is whatever someone thinks it is is completely contrary to the church’s teachings on punishment. The catechism states quite unambiguously that a just punishment is one that is of comparable severity with the crime, and that is independent of a particular individual’s opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
On the first part of your last sentence I will agree with you, but on the second part I don’t know what you could possibly mean. If the appropriately just punishment is not dependent on prudential judgement, then what is it dependent on? Is there an explicit doctrine that states what punishments are appropriate for each crime? I don’t think so. There is a doctrine that the punishment should be of comparable severity with the crime. But that doctrine does not say exactly what is comparable with what. Many would say (and doctrine would not contradict them) that life in prison is a comparable punishment to the taking of a life. Also, you have exaggerated my position terribly by saying that a valid punishment is whatever someone thinks is valid.
Yes, the selection of the proper punishment is inevitably a prudential decision, but that in no way means the choice is without guidelines or is simply arbitrary. Do we know that death is a just punishment for the crime of murder? Yes, we do, or the church could never have sanctioned it for two millennia. Is there an argument to be made that a lesser punishment is also just? I guess that depends on whether one believes there is something of commensurate value with life.
Click to expand...
Answered above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top