Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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,

No, you were discussing what was considered the standard punishment during the bulk of the church’s history. I was discussing what the Church teaches (present tense) about a “standard punishment.”

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.

What would be the purpose of asking if there has been a change in those things if not to argue that the death penalty is the “norm” for murder? If that was not your purpose then your question was irrelevant. If that was your purpose I saved you the trouble of the follow-up to a “nothing has changed” answer.

 

[Ender]

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

Yes, both are concerned with the common good. The “common good”, however, is a broad term that can include any number of things, and the church has always been more specific in her explanations…which is why she always referred to war and capital punishment separately.

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore catechism)

 

[Ender]

,Inherently unjust is a different description than intrinsically evil.

I’m seeking to clarify the discussion. Why is yes or no so difficult?

No, you were discussing what was considered the standard punishment during the bulk of the church’s history. I was discussing what the Church teaches (present tense) about a “standard punishment.”

Well yes, that is what I was discussing. Do you agree or disagree that death was the standard punishment for (at least) the crime of murder over virtually the full extent of church history at least into the middle of the 20th century?

What would be the purpose of asking if there has been a change in those things if not to argue that the death penalty is the “norm” for murder? If that was not your purpose then your question was irrelevant. If that was your purpose I saved you the trouble of the follow-up to a “nothing has changed” answer.

Equivocation yet again. Why are simple answers so difficult to come by? I will assume you accept that nothing has changed over time with regard to the nature of either the crime of murder or the punishment of death. That seems pretty straightforward.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, you were discussing what was considered the standard punishment during the bulk of the church’s history. I was discussing what the Church teaches (present tense) about a “standard punishment.”

Well yes, that is what I was discussing. Do you agree or disagree that death was the standard punishment for (at least) the crime of murder over virtually the full extent of church history at least into the middle of the 20th century?

As a practice is was common.

What would be the purpose of asking if there has been a change in those things if not to argue that the death penalty is the “norm” for murder? If that was not your purpose then your question was irrelevant. If that was your purpose I saved you the trouble of the follow-up to a “nothing has changed” answer.

Equivocation yet again. Why are simple answers so difficult to come by? I will assume you accept that nothing has changed over time with regard to the nature of either the crime of murder or the punishment of death. That seems pretty straightforward.

I already answered that question in the affirmative in post #276.

 

[Maximus1]

Let’s simplify this. I agree!
You clearly have one argument. It was the norm in the past, therefore it is just today. That is the format of your argument.
This is the format of the classic defense of slavery made before our SCOTUS, so the argument is very familiar.
"Slavery existed in the past, therefore slavery is proper. "Obviously it has been rejected in American courts. It is a poorely reasoned argument.
The reason is simple.
During the history you speak of, the form of DEATH PENALTY we are talking about includes Crucifiction.
Stoning to death.
Tortures that are unspeakable.
Burning to death.
In short, cruel and unusual punishment.
To make things simple, you believe these things were not intrinsically evil. To you, they are the norm.
Clearly the appreciation for the inherent rights of human beings was well below the standards Pope Francis speaks of when he continues on the path SPJPII began. Is that simple enough. Jesus was not bound to the Bill of Divorce. It did not implicate Moses as supporting intrinsic evil.
Clearly, the possibility of rehabilitating the soul was not the value then, that it is today.
Let’s make it simple!
There has been a major shift in Church teaching.
Torture and burning a human being to death because of religious beliefs is evil by today’s secular standard. Why would we promote the idea that anything identified with Jesus Christ would support these things as consistent with his teaching? His will?
This is what is meant when Francis says it is inconsistent with the Gospel.
And I agree.
You identify the body of these acts as " STANDARD PUNISHMENT THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
I SAY, clearly that does not make these acts moral today. I say there are to many examples in history where they were immoral. Everytime I stare at my crucifix I am reminded of one example.
In history, they were not concerned with the idea of cruel and unusual. They had much in common with Sharia in this regard.
I think my position remains pretty simple. The Churches position is a theology of life. Of restoration of the soul. From most innocent to most guilty.
Where it was when Jesus taught us:
Love one another, as I have loved you.
Where are your accusers now, go and sin no more.
Love your enemies.
Unlike you I do not look back and see a fully developed theology of life. I wish I did. I am pleased to see it now.
And it is not yet complete. The crusade to develop and promote human dignity in the world goes on.

 

[Isearch]

I want to clarify whatever confusion I unintentionally caused: I was already doubting the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, such as the apparent change on slavery and the near-undeniable evolution of papal power, before the controversy with the catechism change on the death penalty. It is just that the catechism change wasn’t helping to alleviate my already-existing doubts.

 

[Ender]

You clearly have one argument. It was the norm in the past, therefore it is just today.

Not at all. In the past the church considered it the normal, just punishment for (at least) murder. If it was a just punishment before, it is equally just today (circumstances notwithstanding). If it is unjust now it was unjust for all those centuries when the church supported it. It’s use is either just or unjust over all time.

To make things simple, you believe these things were not intrinsically evil. To you, they are the norm.

What things are to me is irrelevant. I am addressing only what they are/were to the church, and the church does not hold capital punishment to be intrinsically evil even today under Francis.

There has been a major shift in Church teaching.

I don’t think so. What has changed? Capital punishment was not before, and is not now evil per se. It’s use has always been determined by whether it was just in the abstract and wise in the circumstance. That has not changed. What has changed is the assertion that circumstances are such that it is now always unwise - and therefore unjust - but the doctrines that permit or even call for its use have not been altered. It is the pope’s judgment only that circumstances disallow its use, despite suggestions and implications that it is evil per se.

 

[Maximus1]

“A sign of hope is increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of
protecting itself , without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, WHICH IS BOTH CRUEL AND UNNECESSARY.”( HOMILY AT PAPAL MASS IN THE TRANS WORLD DOME,
Saint Louis, Jan,99).
The death penalty is an Afront to human dignity…Pope Francis.
Application of the death penalty by the state is morally inadmissible…Catechism.( most recent)
" There is an increased awareness that the DIGNITY of a person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions by the state."
…" Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protections of citizens but, at the same time, do not deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption."
" …It is for this reason, AND IN LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL, that the Church teaches that the practice is now inadmissible."
…Catechism
Pope Francis said," Capital punishment
heavily wounds human dignity and is an Inhuman measure."
And
It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel."
Because
" A decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always
Sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom , in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and GUARANTOR."
As I see it the two Pope’s rendered immaterial, any past history of the penalty being just. The death penalty contradicts the Gospel today. It is an Afront to human dignity, today.

 

[Ender]

As I see it the two Pope’s rendered immaterial, any past history of the penalty being just. The death penalty contradicts the Gospel today. It is an Afront to human dignity, today.

NO, this cannot be. Whatever else is true it cannot be true that the same act can have been moral yesterday and immoral today. We can have been mistaken in our belief of its morality before, but its actual morality will not change over time.

It is not possible for the death penalty to contradict the gospel today unless it has always contradicted it. It cannot be an affront to human dignity today unless it has always been so.

 

[Maximus1]

I disagree. The moral justification that once existed, no longer exists.
An example,
The doctrine of Ensoulment existed from Aquinas till the late 19th century. If memory serves, the official change in the catechism happened very early I the 20th Century.
Before the change, abortion I the first 3 months was not an act of intrinsic evil, as it was after as stated by Pope Benedict.
Knowledge changed!
The Catechism on the issue apparently is being rewritten again.
Today Catholics left and right, pick and choose the catechism they follow.
One thing is for certain, this focus on human dignity will continue.

 

[Elf01]

NO, this cannot be. Whatever else is true it cannot be true that the same act can have been moral yesterday and immoral today. We can have been mistaken in our belief of its morality before, but its actual morality will not change over time.

Yes it is. If a way to save a baby implanted in a fallopean tube is discovered the currently accepted moral method will become immoral.

 

[Ender]

Yes it is. If a way to save a baby implanted in a fallopean tube is discovered the currently accepted moral method will become immoral.

Again, no. I am required to do what I think is best. If today that requires whatever the current “best method” is then I am bound to do it. If tomorrow a better method is discovered then I am bound to use it and not the old procedure, not because the old procedure has suddenly become immoral, but simply because a better one is available.

If a doctor amputates a limb that he knows he could have saved it is not the amputation that is immoral, it was the doctor’s choice to use it. Amputation does not become immoral because it is used improperly. In the same way capital punishment itself does not become immoral because it is used unwisely.

 

[Elf01]

Again, no. I am required to do what I think is best. If today that requires whatever the current “best method” is then I am bound to do it. If tomorrow a better method is discovered then I am bound to use it and not the old procedure, not because the old procedure has suddenly become immoral, but simply because a better one is available.

I disagree there. Letting a baby die if the child could survive would not just be a case of not using the best treatment.

 

[Ender]

I disagree there. Letting a baby die if the child could survive would not just be a case of not using the best treatment.

We are not allowed to do evil that good may come of it. This means that the existing procedure of removing the tube even though it leads to the death of the fetus is not in itself evil, and the reason it is not evil is that the act is not directed at the death of the fetus but at saving the life of the mother. If in the future a procedure was available that saved both lives then what would be the reason for choosing to save only one? In this case it would be an immoral intent that made the action immoral, not the nature of the act itself. The nature of the act is unchanged and is not itself immoral (or it could never have been used).

 

[Maximus1]

The doctrine that made the death penalty just in the past, was a Doctrine that failed to consider the Gospel of Life of SPJPII and the Doctrine of Human Dignity of Pope Francis. That seems the point of both Popes.
Are these valid Doctrines? It appears yes. These are modern Doctrines, which are valid, as long as they existed in some form as a seminal Gospel idea. And they did.
As Pope Francis points out, the Doctrine is based I the Gospel teachings of Divine Mercy. And he goes on to state, the idea of justness of the death penalty that existed previously did not account for Divine Justice as a modern day “DEVELOPED” church teaching

 

[Ender]

The doctrine that made the death penalty just in the past, was a Doctrine that failed to consider the Gospel of Life of SPJPII and the Doctrine of Human Dignity of Pope Francis.

Just so I understand: you’re saying the church’s doctrines allowing the death penalty were wrong until last year? JPII would have to have been wrong as well because he allowed it under some circumstances while Francis has condemned it without exception. They cannot both be right.

Are these valid Doctrines? It appears yes. These are modern Doctrines, which are valid, as long as they existed in some form as a seminal Gospel idea. And they did.

The church has always held that capital punishment was supported by scripture. To claim now that it is rejected by scripture makes a mockery of doctrine by implying truth is no more than whatever the church wants it to be.

As Pope Francis points out, the Doctrine is based I the Gospel teachings of Divine Mercy. And he goes on to state, the idea of justness of the death penalty that existed previously did not account for Divine Justice as a modern day “DEVELOPED” church teaching

Let’s be clear about this: “development” does not extend to reversal, which is what this would be. No doctrine can develop to include the repudiation of what went before. Calling it development doesn’t make it so.

 

[Maximus1]

First, take a look at Church history. Specifically development of doctrines.
There are requirements. Like seed ideas in scripture not yet fully developed but present.
These ideas are then developed over time. It is still happening today.
Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither was the fullness of the theology and tradition of it’s church.
As I am writing, this frightening figure popped into my head from fiction. Frightening to me. Perhaps comforting to you.
I don’t recall the name of the movie or the Head Monk who said it. The movie has Sean Connery and a young Kevin Bacon.
It is a cloistered dark age monestary.
This old blind monk in the story is the librarian. He is a gatekeeper of knowledge for all practical purposes, since the books themselves represent the only outside world information.
He gives a speech because arguments have strayed into a bit of freelance thinking. His terror laden phrase is this:
“There is nothing new! All there is, is sublime recapitulation.”
That was a nightmare thought. It almost seems like clinging to the death penalty is that sublime recapitulation.
The Church and it’s community have a long way to go in it’s transformation. In it’s mission. We are not saturated in all we need.
The point is the Doctrine of life, and of the Dignity of Human beings are a treasure. The refocus on Mercy is a treasure.
You only get a Francis it seemed once every 500 years. Lol.
The solid basis for Right to life is grounded in these Doctrines. They make " immaterial" the blemishes of Ensoulment and the circuitous route to the current position on abortion.
You cut the legs out! Why! To save Capital punishment? Jesus died a forgiving innocent victim of Capital Punishment. What virtue was there in his historical suffering?
Pope Francis speaks to this. The suffering in the " waiting" for death. In the illegitimacy we know of now( not back then) due to innocent men dying. ( They didn’t have. DNA or forensics).
Jesus trial was far from this notion of TRUTH being found in a fair trial. I imagine centuries of trials that were equally lacking in a true search for truth.
This was the world men had as experience. They weren’t wrong. The world was brutal. The cross. Beating men till " unrecognisable." Stoning pregnant women. The unborn, already buried before they begin.
Mercy was an undeveloped concept.
We remain just as far at loving our enemies as then. Barely made any headway at all loving one another as Christ loved us.
This is the Churches mission. Not denying absolution to an 19 year old because he is masturbating. This is the NON NEGOTIABLE. I love Francis because despite his shortcomings, he knows Love , mercy, and fellowship are the heart of the Gospel message.
Not thinking the whole thing comes apart if we cannot save the death penalty. Holy smokes find that idea in the Sermon.
The development of doctrine can alter the catechism. It has. It doesn’t require intrinsic evil prior and it hasn’t.
We abandon antipods, earth centric theology, ensoulment, even when these ideas are entertained by two of the great church thinkers of all time.

 

[Ender]

First, take a look at Church history. Specifically development of doctrines.
There are requirements.

Yes, there are requirements, and here is one of the most essential of them:

“A development , to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started.” (Cardinal Newman)

It also seems a bit odd to look at church history for instances of development while at the same time dismissing all of the church’s history on capital punishment as irrelevant.

The point is the Doctrine of life, and of the Dignity of Human beings are a treasure. The refocus on Mercy is a treasure.

What doctrine of life? What refocus on mercy? All of the things you refer to exist only in your abstract interpretation. If you look at the way our discussion has gone you will see that I deal in specifics while you respond with generalities.

You cut the legs out! Why! To save Capital punishment?

I make my arguments to save a lot more than capital punishment. I have always thought that way too many of the arguments used to oppose capital punishment are extremely damaging to the church, especially the cavalier way her doctrines are treated.

Calling the complete repudiation of a doctrine a “development”, suggesting that moral and immoral is simply whatever a pope says it is, dismissing sacred tradition and the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors as not meaningful is hacking at the roots of the church. It suggests the church isn’t actually serious about what she teaches if she can so readily abandon her doctrines whenever she finds it convenient to do so.

What started me defending capital punishment a dozen or so years ago was not any special feeling for saving the death penalty. I started defending it because the arguments used against it were untenable, were positively harmful. That has not changed.

 

[Maximus1]

The Doctrine that developed regarding Mercy and Human Dignity, did retain its origins. Capital punishment was never part of Christ’s teaching on that subject.
Parallel Doctrines. That is why the Popes( and Magisterium) did not change the teaching of just punishment.
When Jesus was scrolling something in the dirt, he was in the presence of a women caught in the act of adultery. He was asked what should be done.( The law called for capital punishment by stoning).
As in this case
Jesus never REPUDIATED or eliminated the law of Moses requiring capital punishment. Jesus left it intact.
Instead , he published a new doctrine.
" Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. "
A doctrine which by it’s terms left nobody worthy of executing the Adulteress…
I guess all of the righteous stone throwers that came before in YOUR estimation, were evil. Or Jesus was determining them evil.
But like the present case, without the new Doctrine, those prior righteous stone throwers were without notice. They had no sinful Culpability. No Mens Rea!
As for Moses, Jesus did not impugn him as you fear in this case. This is true even though nobody responsible directly or indirectly for all of the legal homicides before ever executed a person while sinless.
I think your problem here is something other than allegiance to a conclusion recognised by:
Two Pope’s( one is a saint).
The Catholic Conference of Bishops.
And The Magesterium
Today.
I wonder if I will find out what that is.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Maximus1:

You clearly have one argument. It was the norm in the past, therefore it is just today.

Not at all. In the past the church considered it the normal, just punishment for (at least) murder. If it was a just punishment before, it is equally just today (circumstances notwithstanding). If it is unjust now it was unjust for all those centuries when the church supported it. It’s use is either just or unjust over all time.

That is not and never has been the position of the universal Church as explained by Aquinas. Justice is derived from natural law and the conclusions of reason. Human laws aren’t objectively just in and of themselves.

Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (I-II:91:2 ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.

But it must be noted that something may be derived from the natural law in two ways: first, as a conclusion from premises, secondly, by way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated conclusions are drawn from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that whereby, in the arts, general forms are particularized as to details: thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to some particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g. that “one must not kill” may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that “one should do harm to no man”: while some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.

Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human law. But those things which are derived in the first way, are contained in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also. But those things which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human law. (ST I II q95 art2)