Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[OneSheep]

Justice is here taken in its ordinary and proper sense to signify the most important of the cardinal virtues.

Okay. I don’t know your source, but I’ll go with that for now!

It is a moral quality or habit which perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them. …

And why do we render to each and all what belongs to them? What is the purpose of that?

Together with charity it regulates man’s intercourse with his fellow men.

Why regulate intercourse with fellow man?

But charity leads us to help our neighbour in his need out of our own stores, while justice teaches us to give to another what belongs to him .

Why help a neighbor in his need? Why give to another what belongs to him?

Ender, let’s get to the root of all this, shall we? I know, the questions seem a bit too much, but we can’t discuss this at any depth unless we get to the purpose of the whole of it.

I hope you get to my questions about being the executioner. Your answers would explain a lot.

 

[Ender]

Why give to another what belongs to him?

Isn’t “Because God says to” sufficient?

I know, the questions seem a bit too much, but we can’t discuss this at any depth unless we get to the purpose of the whole of it.

It seems like you’re asking me to explain why God says this is moral and that is immoral. I don’t give a lot of thought to questioning why we should behave as he has directed us.

I hope you get to my questions about being the executioner. Your answers would explain a lot.

I could not be an executioner, but then I couldn’t be either a cop or a veterinarian and put down animals either. I could, however, serve on a jury which handed down the death penalty.

 

[godisgood77]

I could, however, serve on a jury which handed down the death penalty.

Not if you wish to follow Church teaching on the subject…of course.

 

[Anrakyr]

Not to get to “um actually” on anyone but a jury only can deliver a verdict and a recommendation. It’s the judge who performs sentencing. Someone can be found guilty of murder in a death penalty state and not get it.

 

[OneSheep]

Isn’t “ Because God says to ” sufficient?

Actually, no. Why does God say so? Why does God want that?
Can you see that these questions are all going to the same place, a place that is not being stated yet?

It seems like you’re asking me to explain why God says this is moral and that is immoral. I don’t give a lot of thought to questioning why we should behave as he has directed us.

Yes, it is the same question! Why does God find some acts moral and others immoral? What is the purpose of morality itself?

I could not be an executioner, but then I couldn’t be either a cop or a veterinarian and put down animals either. I could, however, serve on a jury which handed down the death penalty.

Again, if you support the death penalty, you participate in the executions, and it is responsible to answer how you would think and feel in the executioner’s position. If you are unable to respond, this is called “irresponsible”.

If you were the executioner, what would you be thinking? How would you feel?

 

[Ender]

Ender:

I could, however, serve on a jury which handed down the death penalty.

Not if you wish to follow Church teaching on the subject…of course.

The irony of this claim is that I am supposedly forbidden by the church now to act as the church herself acted before, and that in the rush to condemn me those who take this position equally condemn the church.

It is reasonable (just not necessarily accurate) to claim that it is harmful to society to use capital punishment, and that we shouldn’t do it for practical reasons, but given that morality itself does not change with time or place there is no moral argument against its use today that does not condemn the church for immorally supporting it in the past.

 

[godisgood77]

The irony of this claim is that I am supposedly forbidden by the church now to act as the church herself acted before, and that in the rush to condemn me those who take this position equally condemn the church.

The Church teaches that the Death Penalty inadmissible. By adhering to this teaching, one is supporting the Church, not condemning it. Reference to the Church’s prior, not fully formed teaching, does not excuse one from following the more fully formed teaching… rejecting the Church’s teaching that the Death Penalty is inadmissible is simply disobedience

 

[Anrakyr]

It is reasonable (just not necessarily accurate) to claim that it is harmful to society to use capital punishment, and that we shouldn’t do it for practical reasons, but given that morality itself does not change with time or place there is no moral argument against its use today that does not condemn the church for immorally supporting it in the past.

Our deeper understanding of mental health and treatment there of.

 

[Ender]

The Church teaches that the Death Penalty inadmissible. By adhering to this teaching, one is supporting the Church, not condemning it. Reference to the Church’s prior, not fully formed teaching, does not excuse one from following the more fully formed teaching… rejecting the Church’s teaching that the Death Penalty is inadmissible is simply disobedience

Let’s start with your last claim first. Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger said regarding the legitimacy of differing from the church on this topic:

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty.

Given that Cardinal Ladaria said this about the new formulation…

All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.

…there is no reason to believe that what Ratzinger said before has suddenly become untrue.

Nor is it considered disobedience to disagree with the prudential judgments even of the pope and Magisterium.

Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)

As to the teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible, that undefined term implies what it cannot say: that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. If it actually meant that it would in fact be a condemnation of 2000 years of doctrine that allowed its use, but if it does not mean that then it is not in fact inadmissible because its use would be justifiable at least theoretically and there would be no essential change from what the church has always taught.

Charging me with disobedience is no substitute for a reasoned argument. I disagree with your understanding of what the church actually teaches. That hardly constitutes disobedience on my part.

 

[Ender]

Why does God find some acts moral and others immoral?

Elvis has left the building. Questioning why God does something is a path I am unwilling to take. If you want to come back to discussing what the church teaches I am prepared to do that, but I am not willing to speculate on why God commands “Do this; don’t do that.”

Again, if you support the death penalty, you participate in the executions, and it is responsible to answer how you would think and feel in the executioner’s position. If you are unable to respond , this is called “irresponsible”.

It is sufficient for me to accept what the church has done. The Papal States had its own executioner for centuries. My personal feelings about being that executioner are irrelevant. Augustine said of him that “he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws”. I can validly agree with that claim without having to agree to holding the post myself.

Our deeper understanding of mental health and treatment there of.

I have never held that there may not be any practical objections to the use of capital punishment, only that there are no valid moral objections to it.

 

[godisgood77]

Charging me with disobedience is no substitute for a reasoned argument.

I’m not charging you with disobedience… I am stating that if one rejects the Church’s teaching, one is disobedient. You’re not disagreeing with that are you?

 

[Ender]

I’m not charging you with disobedience… I am stating that if one rejects the Church’s teaching, one is disobedient. You’re not disagreeing with that are you?

It depends.

Actually I believe you’re being somewhat slippery with your use of the term “church teaching.” If that “teaching” is doctrine, then yes, to reject it would be an act of disobedience. If, however, that “teaching” is a prudential judgment, then no, to disagree with it is not an act of disobedience.

I have always held that the comments of the last three popes on capital punishment represent their prudential judgments and not new doctrine, therefore to disagree with them is not disobedience. This is what Cardinal Dulles said of the changes made by JPII (which I believe apply equally to Francis’ statement):

As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm… that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.

 

[godisgood77]

Actually I believe you’re being somewhat slippery with your use of the term “ church teaching.

I’m not attempting to be slippery… using the same terms the Church uses in the Catechism

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”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Personally, I’ll follow this teaching and work with the Church for the abolition of the death penalty

 

[OneSheep]

Questioning why God does something is a path I am unwilling to take. If you want to come back to discussing what the church teaches I am prepared to do that, but I am not willing to speculate on why God commands “ Do this; don’t do that. ”

There is a very accessible answer to this, and the answer may help you understand the reason why the death penalty is no longer admissible in the modern world.

Do you want me to provide the answer for you, or would you rather pray about it?

It is sufficient for me to accept what the church has done. The Papal States had its own executioner for centuries.

Okay, but remember that the “Papal States” were quasi-secular. Besides that, (and of more importance) the Papal States existed and ended long before the unfolding revelations of the 20th and 21st century.

My personal feelings about being that executioner are irrelevant.

They are relevant as to why you want the death penalty to continue. If you are the one carrying out the execution, much could be revealed.

I repeat, though, to say that you cannot answer for being the executioner is simply irresponsible. We make laws all the time. I could easily answer what I would be thinking and feeling when enforcing any law or carrying out any punishment that I approve of.

Why can you not respond for how you would think and feel as an executioner? An inability to respond, in this case in light of your approval of executions, is ir-respond-able. Do you also advocate irresponsibility?

 

[Ender]

I’m not attempting to be slippery… using the same terms the Church uses in the Catechism

The term is still undefined whoever uses it. I understand it to mean a prudential judgment.

Personally, I’ll follow this teaching and work with the Church for the abolition of the death penalty.

You are certainly justified in making that choice. As for me, I will follow what I believe to be the doctrines the church has taught unchanged for millennia, and continue to argue against abolition, at least on moral grounds.

 

[Anrakyr]

I have never held that there may not be any practical objections to the use of capital punishment, only that there are no valid moral objections to it.

Our deeper understanding of mental health and treatment thereof.

" Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the 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 imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

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”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."

Holy See Press Office. 2 August 2018. Retrieved 3 August 2018.

 

[godisgood77]

The term is still undefined whoever uses it. I understand it to mean a prudential judgment.

Are there other things that the ‘Church teaches’ that are prudential judgments? I ask sincerely… seems like a slippery slope toward relativism.

 

[Ender]

Are there other things that the ‘Church teaches’ that are prudential judgments? I ask sincerely… seems like a slippery slope toward relativism.

Well, yes - pretty much everything any bishop says about what solution we should implement to address immigration, healthcare, the budget, gun control, etc. Regrettably this is all too common.

 

[godisgood77]

I think those examples you provide seem different than the death penalty topic. I wouldn’t consider a bishops opinion on a given topic in the same way as a teaching that is formalized in to the Catechism.

Are there other examples in the Catechism that you can think of?

 

[Ender]

I think those examples you provide seem different than the death penalty topic. I wouldn’t consider a bishops opinion on a given topic in the same way as a teaching that is formalized in to the Catechism.

Are there other examples in the Catechism that you can think of?

I am not aware of anything else like this in the catechism, but this is not simply my opinion. Several others have commented on this as well.

Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching. (R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)

Parenthetically, in the ambiguities of the exhortation on conscience, we may be paying a price for the problematic way that a prudential opinion against capital punishment was edited into the Catechism . You can disagree about the application of natural law reasoning to civil punishment, but any loose sentiment in treating the matter tempts fragile thinkers to consider the death penalty as an intrinsic evil. (Fr. George Rutler)

There are others, but this should make the point.