Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[OneSheep]

True, I didn’t feel the necessity to justify morality. I accept it.

Well, you are accepting your own version of it, but if a person does not understand the purpose of morality, justice, order, etc. isn’t such acceptance a bit superficial?

We cannot have an in-depth discussion of this unless we start with the purpose of the things I mentioned above. It would be like talking about building an electric device without understanding electricity.

“if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed, the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice.” (Aquinas)

The use of the death penalty devalues human life itself, and sets an example that justice can involve killing someone, which is exactly the mindset in many murders. So yes, the death penalty, using that rationale, fits Aquinas’ reason to no longer use it as part of justice.

I repeat, though, that without going back to the purpose of justice, order, morality, etc., this is a very superficial discussion.

 

[Anrakyr]

An assertion is not an argument

I’m asserting a fact one you keep forgetting. If you didn’t I need not assert it.

and so far the arguments supporting this claim are quite weak.

We are past claims which is why I’m asserting the updated teaching of the catholic church which again you are forgetting.

If you want to argue the church is a mistake then take that point and law out why. Stop acting like the catechism wasn’t amended and the old stance still applies.

 

[Ender]

The use of the death penalty devalues human life itself, and sets an example that justice can involve killing someone, which is exactly the mindset in many murders. So yes, the death penalty, using that rationale, fits Aquinas’ reason to no longer use it as part of justice.

That claim is belied by the fact that Aquinas accepted capital punishment as not only just but set by divine law.

(ST II-II 108 Obj 3) … Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.

On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law as appears from what we have said above (I - II, 105, 2)

I repeat, though, that without going back to the purpose of justice, order, morality, etc., this is a very superficial discussion.

Fine, you define them and we’ll go from there.

 

[Ender]

We are past claims which is why I’m asserting the updated teaching of the catholic church which again you are forgetting.

We all know what the “teaching” says. The question is whether this represents new doctrine (and the repudiation of the old) or is simply a prudential judgment which represents no real change at all.

 

[Sftyvlv1]

So with a simple yes or no. What is the answer to the OP question?

 

[OneSheep]

That claim is belied by the fact that Aquinas accepted capital punishment as not only just but set by divine law.

I love St. Thomas, but when it comes to the death penalty, his outlook is exactly what later unfoldings of revelation addressed. To rejoice that people suffer punishment, especially that in hell, is not compassionate, nor is it holy.

St. Thomas was not infallible, and his philosophy was not perfect. He was just as human as you and I, quite capable of his emotions influencing his thoughts.

Fine, you define them and we’ll go from there.

It isn’t a matter of definition, Ender, it is a matter of purpose.

Let’s look at the questions, starting with “what is the purpose of order?”

Let’s face it, order for it’s own sake, depending on the individual, is simply satisfying in some way, it gives one a sense of beauty or control. When you are talking about order in terms of people in society following rules, we can look at the purpose of the rules themselves. Rules are there for the good of the people, are they not?

And then, let us look at morality. All morality is based on what is hurtful and what is helpful. All morality begins with what is conscionable, and the conscience itself is formed based on what is hurtful and what is helpful. We idealize one set of behaviors, and condemn another set. All of these behavioral mores are for the good of the people, are they not?

The same can be said for justice. Justice is an aspect of the Kingdom, a quality of the Kingdom. Punishment meted to bring about justice serves to enforce a morality, to enforce order in society, an order that has the objective of common good.

Notice, however, that all of these I have mentioned continue to beg questions. Why have a “common good”? Why do anything for the good of the people?

The Answer, the Catholic Answer, the Christian answer, is that the purpose is grounded, sustained, and finds its core in the Love of God. The purpose of morality, order, justice, common good, life itself, is because He loves us.

We have a human, innate desire for justice because God loves us. We create order in society, we create rules, because we share in his compassion and Love. All moral behavior is compassionate behavior; it is merciful behavior. It is behavior guided by the conscience, and the conscience is guided by Love; it is guided by the love of God, and the conscience is given to us because He loves us.

And as much as we may not like it, He loves every single one of us. We know from the Gospel that He loves the lost sheep and wants them to come to Him.

 

[OneSheep]

I tried to find a “yes” or “no” question to answer there, and could not find one. Which question do you share with the OP?

 

[Maximus1]

It I newly developed doctrine. Developed ideas from the past, not yet fully developed.
Moreover, it is the future. Or at least I am of the belief it is.
The Church will continue to transition from the TEMPLE ideas of retributive justice and champion restorative justice ideas. They will continue to develope the full scope and picture of HUMAN DIGNITY.
IT IS why the Church will be relevant in people’s lives and the world at large in the future. So Christ’s message can spread to everyone that hungers

 

[Sftyvlv1]

My mistake, I thought the OP was asking if capital punishment was a sin.
So now I’m curious if it is sinful?

 

[godisgood77]

We all know what the “teaching” says. The question is whether this represents new doctrine (and the repudiation of the old) or is simply a prudential judgment which represents no real change at all.

The question is not between these two…(new doctrine or prudential judgment). The question is whether or not one accepts the Church’s teaching on this topic as defined in the Catechism. The existing teaching has been further developed, codified in the Catechism and defended/explained buy the CDF head.

To accept the teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible based on a deeper understanding of the dignity of the human person is to be in accord with the Church on the subject… To reject it is to be disobedient…

 

[Maximus1]

For some, there does not appear to be an effort to understand. That is the real problem.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

You are going further than that though. You have stated a number of times in discussion that teaching abolition of the death penalty contradicts Church teaching.

That’s not exactly what I’ve said. I believe my comment was that the church could not justify its permanent abolition. I have said repeatedly that circumstances can render its use inappropriate, and hence justify banning it temporarily. Inasmuch as God himself has justified its use I do not believe there is any argument for banning it permanently without regard for the circumstances.

That’s a strawman. Unless a Pope specifically states something is a permanent state “without regard for the circumstances”, it’s common sense that he is teaching this generation according to the concrete conditions of the times. So other than that what’s your issue? Is that it now that that’s cleared up?

 

[Ender]

I love St. Thomas, but when it comes to the death penalty, his outlook is exactly what later unfoldings of revelation addressed. To rejoice that people suffer punishment, especially that in hell, is not compassionate, nor is it holy.

St. Thomas was not infallible, and his philosophy was not perfect. He was just as human as you and I, quite capable of his emotions influencing his thoughts.

It is reasonable to reject specific comments that St. Thomas held because they have been shown to be invalid, but it is not reasonable to reject Comment A because unrelated Comment B is invalid. If you reject his claim that capital punishment is set by divine law because you hold his comment to be invalid that the good will rejoice in the punishment of sinners then you are arguing for ignoring him altogether. You cannot selectively apply the argument “Ignore statement A because statement B is wrong”. B will always be wrong, and A could be everything else he said.

It I newly developed doctrine. Developed ideas from the past, not yet fully developed.

What is that new doctrine? Is it that capital punishment is intrinsically evil?

The Church will continue to transition from the TEMPLE ideas of retributive justice and champion restorative justice ideas.

This sounds very much like the process the Protestant churches used to “transition” from opposition to contraception to supporting it, from opposing homosexual behavior to accepting it. You have a very fluid concept of right and wrong.

They will continue to develope the full scope and picture of HUMAN DIGNITY.

I wonder that you don’t see the harm in proclaiming that the Catholic church for her entire existence failed to fully appreciate man’s dignity, and that it is only those of us in the modern church that were able to raise her to where she should have been all along.

IT IS why the Church will be relevant in people’s lives and the world at large in the future.

A church that can casually reverse what she has unambiguously taught for 2000 years has no future, and certainly no relevance.

 

[Ender]

The question is not between these two…(new doctrine or prudential judgment).

No, this is precisely the question, because while we are obliged to assent to doctrines, we are not obliged to assent to prudential judgments. It also matters as to what we understand the doctrine to actually be: whether it is the one taught for 2000 years or what was promulgated last summer.

To accept the teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible based on a deeper understanding of the dignity of the human person is to be in accord with the Church on the subject… To reject it is to be disobedient…

You just have to get this dig in, don’t you? Do you really not understand that disagreeing with a prudential judgment is not disobedience? Do I need to post those citations again explaining this? This goes back precisely to the question you refuse to address: is the change to the catechism a new doctrine or is it a prudential judgment, and if it is a new doctrine is it that capital punishment is now considered intrinsically evil?

 

[godisgood77]

This goes back precisely to the question you refuse to address: is the change to the catechism a new doctrine or is it a prudential judgment, and if it is a new doctrine is it that capital punishment is now considered intrinsically evil?

It is not a new doctrine… it is a development of an existing doctrine as shown in the Catechism and elucidated by the CDF

 

[Ender]

It is not a new doctrine… it is a development of an existing doctrine as shown in the Catechism and elucidated by the CDF

Good. Then if it is not a new doctrine then it remains what it has always been: States have a moral right to apply capital punishment.

…if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. (Christopher Ferrara)

 

[godisgood77]

Good. Then if it is not a new doctrine then it remains what it has always been: States have a moral right to apply capital punishment.

That’s not right… a development of doctrine is not exactly the same as it was before … it now includes a deeper understanding in some way. In this case, the dignity of the human person.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

See the CDF’s word on this legitimate development…the Church teaches that death penalty is inadmissible.

PS - Christopher Ferrara is not the authority on this matter… the Catechism, CDF and the Pope significantly outweigh his opinion.

 

[OneSheep]

My mistake, I thought the OP was asking if capital punishment was a sin.
So now I’m curious if it is sinful?

Wow, that is a great question. For example, is slavery, now that it is not admissible, sinful? I’d have to do some reading.

It is reasonable to reject specific comments that St. Thomas held because they have been shown to be invalid, but it is not reasonable to reject Comment A because unrelated Comment B is invalid. If you reject his claim that capital punishment is set by divine law because you hold his comment to be invalid that the good will rejoice in the punishment of sinners then you are arguing for ignoring him altogether.

I was not arguing for ignoring him altogether, I am arguing that his discussion on the topic is far behind what the Spirit has revealed since his time.

His statements about rejoicing in the punishment of others is completely related to the death penalty. It is very natural to find joy in satisfying the compulsion to punish others, as can be seen in any act of revenge. Jesus calls us to transcend this aspect of our nature. When we forgive, we find no joy in punishment, we find joy in “redressing the disorder” in mercifully rehabilitating the sinner.

What is significant is that you did not address the rest of that post, where I stated the purpose of justice itself. Are you ready to continue with the deeper discussion?

Do you see that the death penalty no longer serves the purpose of justice itself?

 

[Inquiry]

There are actually five motivations behind criminal justice, and Rehabilitation and Deterrence are two of them. The other three are Isolation (protecting society from the offender), Retribution (the offender injured society and needs to pay some sort of penance), and Retaliation (the offender hurt society so society should hurt them back).

Side Note: People don’t like to admit Retaliation is ever at play, but you can hear it in death penalty discussion. If you’ve ever heard someone say “Why should I care what happens to a murderer?” or “They should be locked in a room with the families of their victims.”

But really, the five motivations don’t play well with each other at all. That’s one of the reasons punishments seem to be in disarray. Rehabilitation sounds good (is good, in fact), but as you indicate, we can’t make it happen and we’re also bad at measuring it. It also calls for sentences much lighter than what Retribution or Deterrence call for. Isolation calls for indefinite sentences, either extremely light (if the subject rehabilitates) or disproportionately long.

 

[Maximus1]

In his time, Saint Thomas was quite progressive in many of the things he wrote. His synthesis of Hellenistic reason with our faith was an incredible accomplishment. It was an evolution in his time. It remains relevant which is an indicator of his gift.
I pointed out one very difficult issue he attempted to resolve and I didn’t criticize it in terms of it’s reason.
My criticism ends up being more of an emotion driven opinion, but one I think is shared. Especially in examples where the condemned would be a child, for example, damned. As an emotional statement of an admittedly finite being, I have difficulty with the notion that I would be happy.
It was never my argument to apply this difficulty in the damnation of my child example to carry over as a critique of his position regarding Capital punishment.
Protestantism, at least FUNDEMENTALISM, puritanism and the like, have not emphasized restorative justice as Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis have. And I see no evidence that they intend to. So your examples like contraception are not implicated. Abortion is more of a companion idea to capital punishment in terms of their development of human dignity. The Baptist Convention favored right to choose when Roe was issued by SCOTUS and the Baptists " seeing it our way" came about very differently in the few decades since. In fact political issues had much to do with it. So I don’t see your concern as applicable.
The Church did not determine Capital punishment intrinsically evil. You don’t want to accept this, but I will continue to point this out.
Intrinsic evil remains a concept that can be confusing. I am not going to represent that I have a full grasp on what it is exactly but I am getting there. The definition as applied is easy enough to understand. I still see inconsistencies.
What I can see plainly is that abortion is intrinsically evil and Capital punishment is not. Because they state this expressly. And so we are charged to do the best we can to know why. And we need not do this here. With Capital punishment, what I read is that it remains possible that the changes to the catechism could theoretically be no longer immaterial. But unlikely. I say this because they have not declared the practice intrinsically evil.
Did you consider why the change based on the " why" that accompanies the change?
Finally dignity. Why is it that we would not have different thoughts about human dignity? HUMAN DIGNITY has always been at the core of Christ’s Gospel teaching but appreciation had never been consistent from one age to another historically. And the times always influence thinking of men.
Let’s face it, the Gospel is not an exhaustive writing of everything going on. But this issue is addressed.
I gave example of Divorce, when men’s hearts were hard. That is Jesus recognising an evolution taking place sufficient to restore the law. You discount this, but Jesus himself did not condemn the practice within the time men’s hearts were hard. He said it is not appropriate any more in his time.