Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[leonhardprintz]

My position is simple, I support the Holy Father if what he wants is that I don’t campaign for the death penalty, or defend its use. I didn’t do that, to begin with, so ceasing to do that, and tell people that the Catholic Church does not support the use of the death penalty is no problem at all.

Beyond that, though there is an ambiguity I don’t think the Church has adequately answered, about whether the Church now teaches that the Death Penalty is intrinsically wrong. This ambiguity is something I hope to see addressed at some point.

I also believe it is fair for Catholics to point out this ambiguity, and to ask for a resolution to it.

 

[leonhardprintz]

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.

St. Thomas Aquinas himself definitely isn’t saying that a saint in Heaven is taking joy in the pain that an eternally damned soul endures, but rather he is clearly saying that they’re happy that Justice has taken place according to God’s will.

I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

 

[Ender]

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

What does “inadmissible” mean? Does it mean the death penalty is now intrinsically evil? It’s a yes or no question, surely you can answer it.

Regarding the citation from Christopher Ferrara, I didn’t cite him because he is an authority, but because his argument is precise. Dismissing him does nothing to rebut his observation, which stands unchallenged.

His statements about rejoicing in the punishment of others is completely related to the death penalty.

Aquinas’ statements on the death penalty, however, are all exactly in line with what the church taught until (possibly) last year. They cannot be dismissed simply by referencing another comment of which you disapprove.

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?

I have no idea where you’re going with this or how it applies to this discussion.

The purpose of morality, order, justice, common good, life itself, is because He loves us .

God loves us. OK, that’s good. And he wants us to be just. OK, I can accept that. And he tells us what justice is:

“Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.” (Is 3:10-11)

This is surely why the church teaches “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

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

No, I don’t. The death penalty is in fact commensurate with the gravity of the crime of murder. It is therefore as just a penalty today as it ever was.

 

[Ender]

The Church did not determine Capital punishment intrinsically evil. You don’t want to accept this, but I will continue to point this out.

Of course I accept it; that’s been the basis of my entire position. Given that, how would you respond to this argument?

…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.

Beyond that, though there is an ambiguity I don’t think the Church has adequately answered, about whether the Church now teaches that the Death Penalty is intrinsically wrong. This ambiguity is something I hope to see addressed at some point.

We can all agree with this. The changes to the 1997 catechism were ambiguous, and Francis’ changes even more so. At some point this will of necessity be clarified since the question is absolutely critical: is capital punishment intrinsically evil? Yes or no.

 

[Maximus1]

You didn’t read what I wrote I think. Having read the text again thanks to you, I am pleased I recalled the passage having read it decades ago.
I used a simple hypothetical. My child. And specifically stated mine was the emotional argument not his.
Much has been written in this area.
The gates of hell are locked from the inside.
Commentators have written that God does not place people in hell.( People place themselves there).
There is the God Wins commentary.

 

[Maximus1]

Read your last paragraph. Is that your final answer?
Commensurate with gravity is a purpose?
What public authority? Caligula. Nero? How about the self governed? Did the initial statement consider representive government?
What evidence did they have that innocent men sit on death row with significant frequency? Did Aquinas have data to support one of the lynchpins of his opinion. A just conviction of a lawful authority? Or do they assume it? Pope Francis had data.

 

[godisgood77]

What does “inadmissible” mean? Does it mean the death penalty is now intrinsically evil? It’s a yes or no question, surely you can answer it.

Regarding the citation from Christopher Ferrara, I didn’t cite him because he is an authority, but because his argument is precise. Dismissing him does nothing to rebut his observation, which stands unchallenged.

inadmissible - adjective

1. • (especially of evidence in court) not accepted as valid.
2. • not to be allowed or tolerated. “an inadmissible interference in the affairs of the Church”

Inadmissible is a word that is commonly used. Its definition is simple and clear…and precise.

Relative to Ferrara… I was not attempting to rebut his position as I do not believe it to be necessary… My point is that his opinion differs significantly from that of the authority on the matter. Any one can read the Catechism or look to the CDF’s letter regarding the revision to the Church’s teaching.

Ultimately, I believe you present a false choice … it is not a question of intrinsic evil - yes or no?

Instead the development "centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.” (see the reference to the CDFs letter poster earlier)

In other words… the thing that’s changed is the Church’s understanding of human dignity in the first order. After that development, the death penalty must be considered through that lens.

 

[Maximus1]

What is your definition of intrinsic evil?

 

[Maximus1]

What are your thoughts. If your children went to hell, would you be happy justice took place?( Assuming you love your children of course)

 

[Emeraldlady]

We can all agree with this. The changes to the 1997 catechism were ambiguous, and Francis’ changes even more so. At some point this will of necessity be clarified since the question is absolutely critical: is capital punishment intrinsically evil? Yes or no.

I predict that the next necessary statement by the Church on the subject will address the false claim that the death penalty can never be forbidden predicated on the common good.

 

[leonhardprintz]

What are your thoughts. If your children went to hell, would you be happy justice took place?( Assuming you love your children of course)

Do you believe that people in Hell deserve to be there? Or do you consider it deeply unfair?

As hard as it can be to accept, God has given humans freedom of will. I’m not saying that to be offensive to you. Its just the truth. And despite all the reasons for believing in God, and the calls of the spirit, more often than not people seek their own will. Its the same for you and me, if anyone of us decide to pursue something other than God as our highest goal, and to sin, we’ll also fall.

And if we die in that state we’ll be in Hell, then. Damned because of us choosing our desires over God’s.

The gates of hell are locked from the inside.
Commentators have written that God does not place people in hell.( People place themselves there).

It is true. People in Hell, if they only repented. If they even could. Would recieve forgiveness. However it also true that God condems people to Hell. This is a hard teaching, but it is true.

The condemnation is for all eternity, without parole or relief.

It is also a just punishment. No one deserves Heaven, we all deserve Hell. Your children, my friends, my parents, my countrymen, are not unique exceptions. It is a grace to recieve the opportunity to washed of sin, and be allowed to stand clean before God again. No one is owed that.

People in Hell don’t repent of their sin. At least not of what they’ve done. I have no doubt they’ll be very sorry for all the pain and misery they’re suffering. They’ll constantly desire that to end. But they won’t be sorry for what they’ve done to get there, they won’t repent from that. Their wills have become fixed on it. Just as the saints wills are fixed on God.

One can say that they want to be in Hell, the same way a lazy person wants to be jobless. The lazy person certainly hates not having money, and the general bad state of his house, but he also won’t get out of the couch to do the one thing needed of him to get out of that mess. **

** Note that the person I’m considering of here is a person healthy person, of able-body and mind. People suffering from illness, or severe depression don’t fit well within this analogy.

 

[Maximus1]

God DOES NOT love us because we are good. God loves us because God is good.
When I reflect on that idea it comforts me. Ultimately it assures that there can be any salvation at all. For anyone.
I also fall back on James 2. Mercy and it’s absolute necessity in salvation. It comforts me. It is important to approach hell as an issue in humility. That we have no control of it’s occupancy. Our vaunted free will won’t help that. Ultimately we must trust in God’s goodness. Everything we hope from comes from God’s own free will to act out of his goodness.
I know the features of hell. I attended Catholic School in a traditional Irish Catholic Parish and one cannot emerge from such an experience without an appreciation of hell and all the ways you might find yourself there. That isn’t a criticism. My youngest still attends Catholic School. I think Children require the boundaries that the faith provides and an good understanding of the basics of our faith.
So I know what hell is. We were not really discussing what it is.
You ask questions that essentially can be answered with," thy will be done." And now we get to what I said.
My love for my children is real and I feel it from the heart not the mind. And so would I be happy ? Reason does not provide a yes for me. That is my honest answer.

 

[leonhardprintz]

My love for my children is real and I feel it from the heart not the mind. And so would I be happy ? Reason does not provide a yes for me. That is my honest answer.

God bless you Maximus1, don’t think much more about it then. I encourage you to love your children, to love God and to live in peace.

 

[Ender]

Commensurate with gravity is a purpose?

No, commensurate with the crime is the means of achieving justice according to its scriptural definition. We are to seek justice presumably because it is necessary to our well being.

What public authority? Caligula. Nero?

Yes, them too. That they abuse their authority doesn’t mean their authority is illegitimate.

Thirdly, from St. Augustine, who says, “Since this is the case, let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven only to the good, but the kingdom of earth both to the good and bad, as is pleasing to Him to Whom nothing unjust is pleasing.” And below, “He Who gave dominion to Marius, gave it also to Caesar, He Who gave it to Augustus, gave it also to Nero… (St Bellarmine)

Did Aquinas have data to support one of the lynchpins of his opinion.

Aquinas was relying on Scripture; morality is not determined by data.

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep:

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?

I have no idea where you’re going with this or how it applies to this discussion.

You will see with the next question below:

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

Ender:

No, I don’t. The death penalty is in fact commensurate with the gravity of the crime of murder.

The purpose of Justice itself has the love of God as its core. The desire for Justice, an innate desire, is part of the workings of the conscience, all of which come from God.

God loves those whom He punishes, that is key. Punishment is for the individual being punished., it is not for satisfaction of the person who wants someone else punished. The primary value is love, and the act of love in these cases begins with forgiveness. The faithful can know that God forgives sinners, all of us, including those who are sentenced to death.

So, what does capital punishment have to do with God’s love and forgiveness for the person being executed?

And he wants us to be just. OK, I can accept that.

Yes, God wants us to be just, because justice, when exercised with its core purpose in mind, communicates God’s love and demonstrates God’s love. How does the death penalty communicate and carry out God’s love for the person being executed?

 

[Ender]

Inadmissible is a word that is commonly used. Its definition is simple and clear…and precise.

Inadmissible is not a word commonly used by the church because it is anything but precise, and I think that is demonstrated by the fact that you either cannot or will not answer the question as to whether it means “intrinsic evil.” The answer to this question determines everything with respect to capital punishment; if you cannot answer it you cannot claim to understand what is being taught.

What is your definition of intrinsic evil?

The church has defined it. It is an act that is never morally permitted; it is evil in all circumstances.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church. (JPII, Evangelium vitae)

I predict that the next necessary statement by the Church on the subject will address the false claim that the death penalty can never be forbidden predicated on the common good.

Since no one has ever made this claim it is unlikely the church will address it.

 

[Maximus1]

It seems that there is a bigger problem declaring abortion intrinsically evil, then not declaring it so with respect to capital punishment.
Before you react, this is why.
First, I am not challenge the determination that abortion is intrinsically evil using that definition.
But , first Trimester abortions have not always been treated as murder, as the COMMANDMENT intends murder defined. We had ensoulment. And as far as my reading, the " crime" of abortion before ensoulment was once fornication, not murder.
The identification of what is intrinsic evil seems to have changed.
Fornication is a crime or sin that really does not involve the child at all. The child is proof. That’s all.
In the Capital punishment case, having no declaration now of intrinsic evil avoids a conflict then and now.

 

[Maximus1]

Morality is not defined by data? I have to wonder what reason says when data disproves a reasoned interpretation of scripture. Like an earth- centric Universe. Antipods. Ensoulment and others.
You use " defined" by data. I say the truth becomes illuminated through data. Truth is the gold standard. Discernment. You would cling to something clearly inaccurate?

 

[godisgood77]

Inadmissible is not a word commonly used by the church because it is anything but precise, and I think that is demonstrated by the fact that you either cannot or will not answer the question as to whether it means “intrinsic evil.” The answer to this question determines everything with respect to capital punishment; if you cannot answer it you cannot claim to understand what is being taught.

You keep saying that it is a choice between intrinsically evil or not. I fully disagree and as stated before, is a false choice - that is why I choose not to answer it. The answer to this question does not determine everything

Instead the development "centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.” (see the reference to the CDFs letter poster earlier)

You refuse to address the Church’s position on the development of its doctrine relative the dignity of the human person which is the actual core question…which has been taught by successive Popes and is now codified in the Catechism of the Church. Either you can’t or won’t respond to what, at face value, is a pretty simple question.

Yes, them too. That they abuse their authority doesn’t mean their authority is illegitimate.

I find it interesting that you defend Caligula’s and Nero’s authority… but seemingly reject the Church’s authority to more fully develop her doctrine.

 

[Maximus1]

Take a look at Teilhardt De Chardins work writings, and tell me what you think.