Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Ender]

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.

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.

If you look more carefully at the arguments given here you will see the opposite is true. @Isearch is concerned about the validity of church doctrine because of the appearance given that her position on capital punishment has been changed, but that’s your argument, not mine. My argument is not only has it not been changed but that it cannot be changed. Ever.

The doubts about church doctrine flow directly from the casual approach taken to reversing a doctrine as old and as universally approved as the one on capital punishment.

The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium. Consistency with Scripture and long-standing Catholic tradition is important for the grounding of many current teachings of the Catholic Church; for example, those regarding abortion, contraception, the permanence of marriage, and the ineligibility of women for priestly ordination. If the tradition on capital punishment had been reversed, serious questions would be raised regarding other doctrines. (Edward Feser)

You (et al) are responsible for the doubt Isearch feels, not me.

 

[Elf01]

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.

How long does the average prisoner spend on Death Row?

 

[vern_humphrey]

How long does the average prisoner spend on Death Row?

Ah, there you have put your finger on the fatal flaw. Our system is so sluggish that it is both cruel and ineffective.

 

[Elf01]

Ah, there you have put your finger on the fatal flaw. Our system is so sluggish that it is both cruel and ineffective.

Not quite my point. You seem to concede that they would have time to commit or order more murders though, and nothing to lose by doing it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not quite my point. You seem to concede that they would have time to commit or order more murders though, and nothing to lose by doing it.

Not if you’re familiar with how death penalty prisoners are handled. But the flaw in our system IS its sluggishness.

 

[Elf01]

Not if you’re familiar with how death penalty prisoners are handled.

If a Death Penalty Prisoner can be prevented from committing murders a lifer can

 

[vern_humphrey]

If a Death Penalty Prisoner can be prevented from committing murders a lifer can

Only if you impose the same conditions on all lifers – and those are very harsh conditions indeed. however if we had a faster, more responsive system the results would quite different.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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.

Aquinas had laid out the position of the Church concerning the death penalty, very clearly in the 13th century. The commandment set in stone is “thou shall not kill”. Only two situations which are defined by the Churchs moral authority permit the killing of another. That is blameless self defense and defense of the common good by legitimate authorities. Summa Theologica II II q64 art 2 -

Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

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.

When a Pope and the Church have officially addressed use of the death penalty especially since then, it has been under the topic of the 5th commandment and clearly informed by the conditions of of society at the time, making both the defense of its use and the inadmissibility of its use, judgements according to concrete circumstances.

 

[Elf01]

Only if you impose the same conditions on all lifers – and those are very harsh conditions indeed.

I have no problem with that. In fact even if the Death Penalty is retained I would want it if it ensures the safety of prison staff. I do not want a single death to occur that could have been prevented.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have no problem with that. In fact even if the Death Penalty is retained I would want it if it ensures the safety of prison staff. I do not want a single death to occur that could have been prevented.

And one of the ways to do that is to permanently put the real savages out of action permanently.

Have you ever been in a prison? My business is training and I did training under contract after I retired from the Army. I did training for the Bureau of Prisons, and the rules were I could use only REAL events for training purposes. Here is a simple training problem:

You are the warden of a prison. You have just learned that an inmate gave a photograph to one of your Corrections Officers. The photo shows the Corrections Officer’s 6-year old daughter playing in the back yard.

What is your assessment of this, and what should you do about it, if anything?

 

[Elf01]

And one of the ways to do that is to permanently put the real savages out of action permanently.

There has been at least one preventable death by that point.

You are the warden of a prison. You have just learned that an inmate gave a photograph to one of your Corrections Officers. The photo shows the Corrections Officer’s 6-year old daughter playing in the back yard.

Organize protection for the family and rehoming them (at least on a temporary basis).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Organize protection for the family and rehoming them (at least on a temporary basis).

Wrong.

1. The Corrections Officer is compromised and must be relieved from prison service. He works for the inmate who gave him the photograph.
2. You do not control your prison – the inmates do. The fact that you just heard about this incident doesn’t mean this is the FIRST time it happened.
3. You need to bring in replacements and replace your whole prison staff until a thorough investigation is complete.
4. Given the pervasiveness of such corruption, YOUR life is in danger, and you must take great precautions.

 

[Maximus1]

I wrote “inherently unjust” because it is accurate. It isn’t mine except to the extent I fully agree with it.
There are many ways to support it. Here are some I haven’t described:
Innocent men have been executed. One in particular!!
A trial and conviction does not ensure just application. It ensures," gotcha"
It is disproportionately administered to the poor and those with very low IQ and/ or disorders. As the Pope points out, it is no longer necessary to protect society.
There are others but clearly the words apply.
Your " fear" that a finding today of human dignity might impugn former church writers, thinkers and “Doctors” is a sad one in it’s conception.
It is an idea fueled by vanity and the idolotry of immutable( your word).
Stepping back, the church sanctioning capital punishment, and other terrible punishments is not worth defending as sublime justice.
Slavery is not worth the efforts I see either. And of course ensoulment was not either. I find it perplexing that these blemishes just have to be shown " immutable and permenent". I prefer the COURAGE OF JOHN PAUL AND FRANCIS.
However, they don’t really have to loose the immutable warriors. The world was in fact different including the ability to protect the public not being what it is today. This is just one of many ways to find cover if one deems it necessary.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

LeafByNiggle: So you say. Apparently CCC 2267 says otherwise.

First, 2267 says nothing at all applicable to that question.
[/quote]
It is hard to see how the death penalty could be declared the normal punishment for murder while simultaneously accepting this:

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

, but second, what has changed? Is murder a more or less serious crime now than before?

Nothing has changed. The death penalty never was declared the “norm” for murder.

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.

So it is the proper default that should not be used by default. Is that it?

 

[Ender]

Aquinas had laid out the position of the Church concerning the death penalty, very clearly in the 13th century. The commandment set in stone is “thou shall not kill”. Only two situations which are defined by the Churchs moral authority permit the killing of another. That is blameless self defense and defense of the common good by legitimate authorities. Summa Theologica II II q64 art 2 -

Despite your subsuming capital punishment under either self defense or defense of the common good, the church has always been rather explicit that there are three situations that justify killing:

3Q.
Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor… (Catechism of Pius X)

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Aquinas had laid out the position of the Church concerning the death penalty, very clearly in the 13th century. The commandment set in stone is “thou shall not kill”. Only two situations which are defined by the Churchs moral authority permit the killing of another. That is blameless self defense and defense of the common good by legitimate authorities. Summa Theologica II II q64 art 2 -

Despite your subsuming capital punishment under either self defense or defense of the common good, the church has always been rather explicit that there are three situations that justify killing:

3Q.
Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor… (Catechism of Pius X)

Just war and capital punishment are both referred to the common good. They don’t have separate justification. Deflection alert.

 

[Maximus1]

You don’t throw out the church when the church stands as a beacon in a fallen world for teaching that world about the inherent dignity of human beings.
Saint Pope John Paul II was full of courage. As were his successors. It is one of our finest moments and remains so.
It is an act of spiritual relevancy. They wrote(SJPII through Francis) leading the world on issues like Abortion, capital punishment, the rights of workers to the dignity of work and owning the fruits of their own labor, indentured labor/ slavery and other issues of human rights including the persuit of our church mission of rehabilitating and saving souls, even of people that committed terrible crime. They stood fast proclaiming one of Christ’s teachings about WELCOMING the stranger. Even I the face of powerful opposition. Nothing could be more in keeping with the teachings of our Lord.
Courage! Courage to put in the past acts like cutting out the tongue of our finest, like Maximus the Confessor, holding slaves, including Galley slaves, chattel slaves that were not Catholic as a qualification, abortion in the first 3 months of pregnancy, a lesser sin of fornication because the unborn was considered without a human soul first. Burning at the stake, executions, and other acts which now and in the future are antithetical to basic human dignity.
I never understood the devotion to a boast of perfect adherence to natural law ( being lost or tarnished) as an alternative to recognition that a truer adherence to natural law was attainable if we had the humility to attain it. I don’t understand how that could diminish the church a bit.
Paul, Timothy, and others were candid in confessing their nature’s as sinners. That recognition is our strength not a blemish. Our mission is transformation of men. Taking the community from point A to point B. Preparing the way of the Lord. I was inspired by SPJPII’s courage. An act befitting a saint.

 

[Ender]

I wrote “inherently unjust” because it is accurate

Perhaps it is, but until you clarify exactly what it means there’s no way to tell. It’s easy enough to do: does it mean capital punishment is intrinsically evil? A yes or no will resolve this.

Innocent men have been executed…It is disproportionately administered to the poor…

These are practical objections, not moral ones. I’m interested in addressing the moral concerns.

Your " fear" that a finding today of human dignity might impugn former church writers, thinkers and “Doctors” is a sad one in it’s conception.

If you assert that X is immoral, doesn’t that necessarily mean that everyone who thought it was moral was wrong? And if you further say you know it is immoral because of your greater understanding of human dignity doesn’t that also mean that those who were wrong were so because their understanding was flawed and incomplete? You cannot say you are right because your understanding is greater without simultaneously asserting that others’ understanding was flawed and inadequate.

 

[Ender]

It is hard to see how the death penalty could be declared the normal punishment for murder while simultaneously accepting this:

We were discussing what was considered the standard punishment during the bulk of the church’s history, not what should be considered the standard since last August.

Nothing has changed. The death penalty never was declared the “norm” for murder.

Wrong question. What was asked was whether there has been any change in the nature of either the crime of murder or the punishment of death.

 

[Maximus1]

,Inherently unjust is a different description than intrinsically evil.
Evil has no substance in Catholicism. It is the privation of good.
Intrinsic privation of good would not be a fair assessment in the past( Although it might be fair today)
First, the social norms of the times previous percieved a good. One reason was the penal systems then did not adequately protect the public. They do now.
Without looking it up exactly, that is essentially an argument made.
Something can " become recognized" as no longer possessing good.
Augustine and Thomas proposed ensoulment at the approximate 90 day mark. That idea was not intrinsically evil then. With ultrasound, it is today.
Back then an abortion in the first 90 days was punished as fornication or lesser sin. Murder upon ensoulment.
From what I read today, including the all important human dignity argument, it appears today, there is little to no " good" left in Capital punishment. A circumstance Pope Francis points out as not the case in the past.
In terms of your idea of " practical objections" not " moral ones." ( Lack of equal protection under the law, it is difficult to understand your argument that this does not raise a moral question.
Our Constitutional ideal of equal protection is a legal one, but it is based upon a moral set of values.
Next, I never asserted anyone in particular was immoral. Flawed or incomplete notions of human dignity in earlier times does not automatically result in impeaching the morals of men in those times. You would need to consider the fact that justification was believed to exist then. But in light of human dignity concerns, does not today.