Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Bernoulli]

The idea that Christians are not allowed to avenge themselves is the teaching of St Paul in Romans 12:
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”

However, according to Romans 13, appealing to the state is still legitimate, and it actually honors the exhortation to “leave it to the wrath of God”:
Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

 

[Maximus1]

Appealing to the state? How much do you appeal for revenge? Theoretically, as much as Judas did( assuming Judas had a reason for revenge). While also making dinner for the victim?
Did Paul contemplate a representative Constitutional Republic? With a limited government power grant and all residual power retained in the people? Probably couldn’t imagine it. However, he was practical about not running into conflict with authority in an occupied nation with a hefty local theocratic order.
We always need to be mindful of the fact that the Bible is first, and foremost, a spiritual book.
Written by many authors with different life experiences in different times. " In their own hand" good days and bad days. And God’s inspiration of the authors writing is to be found in the spiritual message. Our task is to discern that message. Which often is not crystal clear, on purpose( spawning the idea rich practice of Christian contemplation).
Our task must begin with reading the scripture with a Christian heart. The text is capable of discerning all forms of dark interpretation if one comes at it that way. Much atrocity can be laid at the feet of such reading.
My understanding is Fransciscans do not let their initiates to read the Bible text in earnest until after courses in philosophy and other tools to discern it. That’s obviously hundreds of years of experience and wisdom.
So you have two seperate passages. They say things that require you to think. That beacon you to think. Individual behavior we know does not seem to include Christian vengeance for we as individuals. I imagine that is intended for the community as well.
The proper role of government includes a criminal justice system. What place does the Christian have in that system? Depends on the system! We have representive government which is not quite the same as Divine rights of Kings.
Regardless, we are charged as Christians to love enemies and turn the other cheek. So, I would imagine as individuals we cannot support indirectly what we cannot support directly. Support government, which is different than political support that helps choose policy repugnant to our individual ethic. Doing indirectly, what cannot be done directly.
And we see this idea with abortion( state sanctioned killing).

 

[Maximus1]

I want to address your discomfort. Specifically with what you describe as old and new interpretation.
History shows a very strong effort always, to retain core doctrine as close to the origin of that doctrine as possible.
But it I beyond cavill to imagine the body of Catechism does not evolve.
There is a great argument to be made that had Aristotle, Augustine, or Aquinas had the benefits of ultrasound, their ideas regarding when ensoulment takes place would be different. And it is different.
Astronomy has altered Church teaching. We no longer contemplate an earth- centric notion of creation. And we no longer engage in reasoned speculation about antipods.
Saint Pope John Paul II, drew on doctrine related to human dignity with respect to capital punishment. He begins with a body of church teaching that accepts capital punishment as legitimate. Derived from a history of the practice that goes back thousands of years.
At the same time our ideas continue to evolve. And our notion of HUMAN DIGNITY has evolved as well. And the doctrinal recognition of human dignity is a core value. And an expanding value.
Step back! Are we bound to a notion of human dignity from antiquity? Crucifiction? Beating beyond recognition? Burning alive? Slavery? Abortion?
I think not. Frankly, I would be repulsed by any notion that we were doctrinally locked into such things. And so we have this concurrent Doctrine pertaining to human dignity. And John Paul expanded it in this area strengthening what is our notion of human dignity.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If there is an apparent contradiction between old teaching and new teaching, it is likely not really a contradiction, but a misunderstanding on the part of the reader.

This is all vague and imprecise, and suggests what it does not say. Generalities are not a good substitute for clarity.

Talk about vague and imprecise, that response of yours takes the cake!

But really, what more specificity do you want? You claim that old teachings make the death penalty the norm for certain crimes. But 2267 seems to say otherwise. So what I am saying is that you likely misinterpreted the old teachings and ignored recent clarification of those teachings as embodied in 2267. The fact that I cannot produce for you the Church documents that document this clarification does not mean it does not exist. 2267 itself is evidence that some sort of process like that must have occurred. As I said, I trust the current Church leaders not to lead us astray. There. Is that specific enough for you?

…it is addressed in 2266 which is quite clear on the point: it must be of commensurate severity with the crime absent extraordinary circumstances.

But the Church does not interpret “commensurate severity” in the way you do, or we would not have 2267.

One can say that there is no point in looking back hundreds and thousands of years for moral guidance for the laity because the Church has summarized that teaching in documents especially suited to the laity, e.g. the catechism and other modern documents.

More generalities. There should never be a contradiction between old and new, and it is never true that because a doctrine is old it has somehow lost its validity.

That is something for the clergy to pursue. It is not the obligation of the laity to study the proceedings of the Council of Trent, even though it is a good thing to do if one wants to gain an appreciation of the depth and breadth of Catholic teaching. But it is not a good idea to delve into those proceedings with the intent of using them to challenge current Church teaching.

What typically happens is an older teaching that contradicts a position expressed here is dismissed as being no longer relevant simply because it is old, with no attempt made to show how it is in error.

No, they are not dismissed out of hand. They are dismissed when they obviously are contradicted by more recent teaching.

 

[Ender]

In 1995, the cases of potential application of the death penalty are declared by the catechism, " practically non- existent."

You need to recognize the nature of the teaching in EV: it is an opinion about the justness of capital punishment in current circumstances. It is not a new doctrine that capital punishment is inherently unjust. Yes, JPII personally opposed its use. Ditto BXVI, and Francis. They did not, however - because they cannot - declare it intrinsically evil, which leaves it just as it has always been: the questionable application of a morally legitimate penalty.

Today the greater cornerstone and Catholic emphasis is," the inviolatile dignity of human persons."

Morality is fixed and unchangeable; it is no different today than thousands of years ago. Only our understanding of it can change, and I don’t think you give sufficient thought to the implications of suggesting the church taught evil as good for 2000 years.

The “old” teachings were of the same nature as today’s teaching. ie prudential judgement.

The application of the penalty is a prudential judgment; the doctrines permitting its use are not.

The Church responds with authority on the moral issues of the times.

Her doctrines require assent. Judgments based on the application of those doctrines in particular circumstances do not.

 

[Ender]

You claim that old teachings make the death penalty the norm for certain crimes.

Yes, that’s correct.

But 2267 seems to say otherwise.

It does indeed, so which seems the more reasonable way to interpret it: such that it represents a complete break and repudiation of the past by presenting new doctrine, or that it maintains coherence with the past by presenting a new judgment about the application of that doctrine?

So what I am saying is that you likely misinterpreted the old teachings and ignored recent clarification of those teachings as embodied in 2267.

The old teachings were too numerous, too consistent, and too straightforward to be misunderstood. If you have to play with the meaning of simple sentences to get the result you want perhaps you should rethink your position.

But the Church does not interpret “commensurate severity” in the way you do, or we would not have 2267.

Sure she does, or she would have never have accepted capital punishment. If death is not a punishment commensurate with the severity of murder then, again, she has taught severe error basically forever.

But it is not a good idea to delve into those proceedings with the intent of using them to challenge current Church teaching.

One of the great things about Catholicism is that everything she believes is written down and accessible to those who look. This is what I have done with regard to capital punishment. I’ve searched through catechisms, councils, and the writings of her Fathers, Doctors, and popes to understand what was taught, and the disagreements here are not between me and the church. They are between me and you, me and Maximus1, and me and Emaraldlady. It is not what the church has said that I challenge, it is your understanding of it that I dispute.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You claim that old teachings make the death penalty the norm for certain crimes.

Yes, that’s correct.

But 2267 seems to say otherwise.

It does indeed, so which seems the more reasonable way to interpret it: such that it represents a complete break and repudiation of the past by presenting new doctrine, or that it maintains coherence with the past by presenting a new judgment about the application of that doctrine?

Your dichotomy presupposes that I am going to rely on my own intellect to resolve the question, rather than defer to those who have spent a lifetime in religious study and are currently leading the Church. I defer to them.

So what I am saying is that you likely misinterpreted the old teachings and ignored recent clarification of those teachings as embodied in 2267.

The old teachings were too numerous, too consistent, and too straightforward to be misunderstood.

Your theological assessment. I trust the assessment of those I mentioned above.

But the Church does not interpret “commensurate severity” in the way you do, or we would not have 2267.

Sure she does, or she would have never have accepted capital punishment. If death is not a punishment commensurate with the severity of murder then, again, she has taught severe error basically forever.

No, the Church has accepted capital punishment as sometimes acceptable, not “normally required”. The judgement of “commensurate” is not a one-size-fits-all judgement, nor is it one that is “normally this” or “normally that.”

But it is not a good idea to delve into those proceedings with the intent of using them to challenge current Church teaching.

One of the great things about Catholicism is that everything she believes is written down and accessible to those who look. This is what I have done with regard to capital punishment. I’ve searched through catechisms, councils, and the writings of her Fathers, Doctors, and popes to understand what was taught, and the disagreements here are not between me and the church.

Then you must not have looked at 2267 if you say that the disagreements have never been between you and the Church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

THE death penalty was no longer an appropriate form of punishment except I cases of absolute necessity.

That’s exactly my position. If you have nothing to hang over a person anticipating a life sentence, they are free to do whatever they want, no matter how vicious and deadly.

 

[Isearch]

One of the “ethical” aspects of slavery, according to the old Roman Catholic encyclopedia, was that the descendants of the master who unjustly acquired slaves could justly inherit their (the slaves’) descendants as slaves:

Was it lawful for owners to retain in slavery the descendants of those who had been made slaves in this unjust way? The last conspicuous Catholic moralist who posed this question when it was not merely a theoretical one, Kenrick, resolves it in the affirmative on the ground that lapse of time remedies the original defect in titles when the stability of society and the avoidance of grave disturbances demand it.

So I remain unconvinced that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t change their stance on slavery. This piece of information had made me compare this to the seemingly-changing stance of the church on the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

Your dichotomy presupposes that I am going to rely on my own intellect to resolve the question, rather than defer to those who have spent a lifetime in religious study and are currently leading the Church. I defer to them.

You are relying on yourself. It is your understanding that I have challenged.

Your theological assessment. I trust the assessment of those I mentioned above.

It doesn’t take a theological assessment to understand simple declarative sentences, of which there are 2000 years of examples. I will grant that understanding what has been written in the last 25 years is a good bit more of a challenge.

No, the Church has accepted capital punishment as sometimes acceptable, not “normally required”.

You assert this without any citation to support it. Have you any evidence to suggest this claim is true?

The judgement of “commensurate” is not a one-size-fits-all judgement, nor is it one that is “normally this” or “normally that.”

Perhaps, but what is surely true is that certain punishments are commensurate with certain crimes, like death in response to murder. That actually can’t change as the severity of neither the crime nor the punishment can differ with time or place.

Then you must not have looked at 2267 if you say that the disagreements have never been between you and the Church.

Does the new 2267 define capital punishment as intrinsically evil? If yes then you are charging the church with teaching evil as good for 2000 years. If no then you are acknowledging that its use is a prudential choice, and nothing has really changed inasmuch as that’s what it’s always been.

 

[Ender]

So I remain unconvinced that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t change their stance on slavery. This piece of information had made me compare this to the seemingly-changing stance of the church on the death penalty.

The implication of this argument is that because something changed somewhere everything is therefore changeable. Arianism was declared a heresy. Rejecting the right of States to use capital punishment was also declared heresy. If the-church-changed-on-slavery means the church can change on capital punishment surely it must also mean the church can change on Arianism. Other than doctrines expressly declared to be infallible why would we believe anything the church teaches cannot be reversed tomorrow by whoever is pope? Is this really an approach you find reasonable?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Your dichotomy presupposes that I am going to rely on my own intellect to resolve the question, rather than defer to those who have spent a lifetime in religious study and are currently leading the Church. I defer to them.

You are relying on yourself. It is your understanding that I have challenged.

My understanding of what? Of CCC 2267?

Your theological assessment. I trust the assessment of those I mentioned above.

It doesn’t take a theological assessment to understand simple declarative sentences, of which there are 2000 years of examples.

Yes it does when that assessment doesn’t agree with CCC 2267.

No, the Church has accepted capital punishment as sometimes acceptable, not “normally required”.

You assert this without any citation to support it.

CCC 2267 support this.

The judgement of “commensurate” is not a one-size-fits-all judgement, nor is it one that is “normally this” or “normally that.”

Perhaps, but what is surely true is that certain punishments are commensurate with certain crimes, like death in response to murder.

So you say. Apparently CCC 2267 says otherwise.

Then you must not have looked at 2267 if you say that the disagreements have never been between you and the Church.

Does the new 2267 define capital punishment as intrinsically evil?

No, but it does contradict your understanding the capital punishment should be the usual punishment for murder.

 

[Maximus1]

" Morality is fixed and unchangeable." For who?
For the millennium plus, where Jews were permitted to put their wives away , with a bill of divorce, under Moses, morality was fixed for 10+ generations. It being fixed was an incredible secret. Practically, how would anyone know about intrinsic evil, vel non, when Jesus taught?
In this situation, Capital punishment as a penalty, is no longer as it was previously. It wasn’t determined intrinsically evil, perhaps( based on the prior moral grounds upon which the penalty was assessed). But something else happened.
The Churches Doctrine regarding the inherent dignity of human beings was more fully developed. That doctrine subsumed the prior justification. The Inherent dignity of human beings remains integral in the catechism now. It isn’t going anywhere. The Church will not remove human dignity " prudentially" once that dignity is recognised. Especially by three Pope’s in succession.
Capital punishment is inherently unjust at this point, because human dignity has caused it to cease to be justifiable.

 

[Maximus1]

I know Aquinas speculated about ideas of deterrence," hanging over them" ( as you say). I think a body of evidence has been built up showing there is no correlation for the penalty and a deterrent effect.

 

[Isearch]

This is why I am not sure if Roman Catholicism is true at all. At best, I might concede that doctrines that come solely from Divine Revelation are unchanging while doctrines on morals, because they can be derived by human reason alone according to Roman Catholic theology, can be changed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is why I am not sure if Roman Catholicism is true at all. At best, I might concede that doctrines that come solely from Divine Revelation are unchanging while doctrines on morals, because they can be derived by human reason alone according to Roman Catholic theology, can be changed.

You see, @Ender? This is the result of your raising doubts about modern Catholic teaching from our clergy. All it does is cause those like Isearch to doubt the certainty of Church doctrine.

 

[Bernoulli]

We don’t live in a closed community, so issues don’t just disappear, if someone doesn’t speak about them. There are many ways to face these questions in the modern world. In the modern world, the only viable option is to have good answers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I know Aquinas speculated about ideas of deterrence," hanging over them" ( as you say). I think a body of evidence has been built up showing there is no correlation for the penalty and a deterrent effect.

Oh, but there is - a correlation of 1.0 with 100% confidence. No man who has been executed has ever committed another crime.

Consider Tommy Silverstein, who murdered three men in prison, one of them a Corrections Officer. If he had been executed after the first murder, the other men would still be alive.

 

[Ender]

My understanding of what? Of CCC 2267?

EV 56, 2267 old, and 2267 new. The irony here is that prior to last year you were making one set of arguments that have all been demolished by the changes Francis made. My interpretation is unchanged by his remarks.

Yes it does when that assessment doesn’t agree with CCC 2267.

My assessment agrees fully with 2267. My assessment doesn’t agree with your interpretation of that passage.

Ender: …certain punishments are commensurate with certain crimes, like death in response to murder.

So you say. Apparently CCC 2267 says otherwise.

First, 2267 says nothing at all applicable to that question, but second, what has changed? Is murder a more or less serious crime now than before? Is death a more or less serious punishment than before? The severity of neither that crime nor that punishment can change with time, so if death was just (because commensurate) before then the same is true today, and if it wasn’t just before then you have (yet again) charged the church with fostering evil for 2000 years.

No, but it does contradict your understanding the capital punishment should be the usual punishment for murder.

No, it doesn’t. You imply that from other comments unrelated to that question. It says capital punishment shouldn’t be used, but we all understand that as a prudential objection. That doesn’t necessarily mean it shouldn’t be considered the default penalty, it only means it should not be used, and whether it is or is not the proper default is unaddressed.

 

[Ender]

" Morality is fixed and unchangeable." For who?

For us.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history.

Capital punishment is inherently unjust at this point, because human dignity has caused it to cease to be justifiable.

If you mean by “inherently unjust” that it is “intrinsically evil” it would be better to use the term we all understand. Given that the natural law is immutable and permanent, if capital punishment is evil today it has always been evil, and that includes virtually the entirety of the church’s existence when she that that it was acceptable.

The other implication of the "only now do we fully understand man’s dignity" argument is that it charges everyone prior to Francis with failure to recognize the innate worth of man. All the Fathers, all the Doctors, all the prior Magisteria and popes including JPII and BXVI were wrong about man’s nature. Again, your position supports throwing out capital punishment, but with the cost of throwing out the church with it.