Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

If you had read the linked document you’d have read this:

If I had read the document I still wouldn’t have found what you presented as a citation. As I said, what you presented was entirely your own creation, whether you consider it an accurate paraphrase of what was actually said or not. Those were your words; they were not a citation from the document you cited. Just as I claimed.

Well you are not speaking for the Catholic Church because it accepts the Australian decision to abolish the death penalty starting nearly a century ago. You don’t concord with the Magisterium

Let’s see how this discussion has gone:

Ender: The right and responsibility for deciding when and whether to apply capital punishment belongs to the state. If a state decided they felt it was better not to apply it on what grounds could the church intervene?

Catholic Journal: It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether.

Wow. Are you objecting because I didn’t use their exact words? You just can’t pass up any opportunity to invent reasons to condemn me personally, can you? This charge is atrocious, and I’m frankly tired of them. When you have something reasonable to say I’ll respond…but I’m not holding my breath.

So if the Church has never intervened in decisions of the State regarding the application of capital punishment, we can safely accept that all her teachings on the subject are solely for the purpose of dispelling false ideas of the Catholic position, that interfere with healthy civil debate. ie. when the death penalty was permitted in the old days, the Church taught about it’s admissibility in response to false ideas that it was intrinsically evil. And when today that the death penalty is regarded as cruel and unnecessary and harmful to the common good, the Church is highlighting Scripture prohibiting it on the basis of its harm to the common good, in response to false ideas that Scripture prevents abolition because it is a divine law.

Your convoluted theories have failed to convert into practical situations as you have constantly demonstrated.

 

[godisgood77]

Well, if admissibility wasn’t essential to the original doctrine then it’s hard to see how inadmissibility could be essential to it today, especially if the new teaching doesn’t address the morality of the death penalty. The old doctrine did address that point, however, and found its use moral. I accept that this hasn’t changed.

'This 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.” CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty

The question of admissibility comes in to play AFTER the development and deepening of the Church’s understanding of the inviolability of human dignity. Pre-development, the death penalty question was limited to the question on the morality of the the penalty itself. Post development, the question is no longer about the morality of the death penalty, but instead the understanding that the criminal doesn’t lose his dignity and right to life

 

[Ender]

Post development, the question is no longer about the morality of the death penalty…

If the morality of the death penalty is not questioned then its use cannot have gone from moral to immoral, therefore the doctrine remains essentially unchanged: States may still legitimately employ it when they believe it to be justified. A “deeper appreciation” of man’s dignity doesn’t change this.

 

[godisgood77]

If the morality of the death penalty is not questioned then its use cannot have gone from moral to immoral, therefore the doctrine remains essentially unchanged: States may still legitimately employ it when they believe it to be justified. A “deeper appreciation” of man’s dignity doesn’t change this.

Magisterium by Ender!!

I’ll stick with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on this on … and its thorough elucidation on this development of doctrine. A deeper understanding of the inviolability of the human dignity does indeed change the admissibly of the death penalty… it clearly went from previously admissible to inadmissible.

I’m very happy to have seen this positive step forward in my life. The Church commitment to a culture of life in a holistic way is not only heartening, but just and deeply rooted in Gospel.

States may still legitimately employ it when they believe it to be justified.

Not if those states desire to be in accord with the Catholic Church… Of course, states have the freedom to whatever they see fit. Catholics on the other hand should aspire to follow the Church on things like the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

I’ll stick with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on this on … and its thorough elucidation on this development of doctrine. A deeper understanding of the inviolability of the human dignity does indeed change the admissibly of the death penalty… it clearly went from previously admissible to inadmissible.

You cannot reasonably say you stick with the CDF if you cannot explain what they mean. Explain inadmissible. As I’ve said before, if it means intrinsically evil then they will have repudiated not merely a doctrine taught for 2000 years but scripture itself, but if it doesn’t mean that then nothing has changed and its use is still what it has always been - a prudential judgment that belongs to the State. Even the US bishops admitted they didn’t know what the word meant, in the end calling it “eloquent ambiguity”.

Not if those states desire to be in accord with the Catholic Church… Of course, states have the freedom to whatever they see fit. Catholics on the other hand should aspire to follow the Church on things like the death penalty.

States that employ capital punishment are still in accord with the Catholic Church. They are not in accord with your interpretation of what the church teaches, which is a quite different thing. You have made an assumption about church doctrine that you cannot reasonably defend, which is unsurprising inasmuch as it depends entirely on ambiguity, which is anything but eloquent.

 

[godisgood77]

You cannot reasonably say you stick with the CDF if you cannot explain what they mean.

I’ve explained what they mean many, many times in this thread… I remain fully committed to the idea that you can take the CDF’s explanation of the development of this teaching at face value… so I remain baffled at your continued obstinacy.

States that employ capital punishment are still in accord with the Catholic Church.

Not if they exact the death penalty they aren’t… per the Church’s teaching on the subject.

There are always those that reject the Church’s teaching… unfortunate, but true. This is especially true what a teaching develops and is more fully understood as is the case here. People become locked in fixed formulas - like is the death penalty intrinsically evil or not.

Here is the Church via the CDF:
“no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”

The development sits on the inviolability of the human person… and the new understanding that even after committing awful crimes that may have been punishable by death a person does not lose their right to life

I’ll stick with the CDF… not Ender’s magisterium… sorry buddy

if it means intrinsically evil

As an aside, do you believe that something has to be intrinsically evil to be outlawed?

 

[Emeraldlady]

You cannot reasonably say you stick with the CDF if you cannot explain what they mean. Explain inadmissible . As I’ve said before, if it means intrinsically evil then they will have repudiated not merely a doctrine taught for 2000 years but scripture itself,

This has been explained to you over and over. The Australian Church back in 1924 explained that “In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law”.

That tells you that back in the day, when it was commonly employed is was thought or assumed to be ‘divine law’. There was no greater context in which to understand it any more intricately. Pope St JPII made reference to a “growing moral awareness” of man’s dignity (which is a known thing in civilisation) that has revealed a context in which to understand the nature of the death penalty more accurately. If you remember back in the day, Limbo was considered a doctrine. Today with greater understanding we have context to see that it was a theoretical hypothesis that served the doctrine of Original Sin.

What the Church has encountered in some sections of lay US catholicism is a false defense of capital punishment that is interfering with the natural ‘growing moral awareness’ that it is ‘cruel and unnecessary’. They are trying to convince Catholics that no foreign Pope can tell the US Church whats what.

I predict that the Church will eventually be required declare that false defense, anathema.

 

[Ender]

I’ve explained what they mean many, many times in this thread… I remain fully committed to the idea that you can take the CDF’s explanation of the development of this teaching at face value… so I remain baffled at your continued obstinacy.

I admit to forgetting who has said what, so even if you’ve explained it before perhaps you can explain again whether inadmissible means intrinsically evil. The bishops seemed unable or unwilling to answer that question.

There are always those that reject the Church’s teaching… unfortunate, but true.

I could reasonably charge you with the same failing inasmuch as, like you, I believe my position reflects the real teaching. Let’s just say we reject each other’s interpretation.

As an aside, do you believe that something has to be intrinsically evil to be outlawed?

No. I do, however, believe that if something is not intrinsically evil it can only be called unwise, not immoral.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I admit to forgetting who has said what, so even if you’ve explained it before perhaps you can explain again whether inadmissible means intrinsically evil. The bishops seemed unable or unwilling to answer that question.

Everyone can clearly see that you are trying to disguise your agenda ie to promote the death penalty as intrinsically just, by obsessing on the ‘instrinsic evil’ distraction.

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, ST II II 64 2

If God commands them to forbear, who are you to say that that doesn’t mean “inadmissible”. If it harms society, it no longer is just. It’s just murder and to that end it’s intrinsically evil. That’s all.

 

[Emeraldlady]

No. I do, however, believe that if something is not intrinsically evil it can only be called unwise, not immoral.

That sounds suspiciously Protestant. Nothing is a sin unless it qualifies as intrinsically evil?? That’s not Catholic at all.

 

[AlNg]

This new understanding makes the death penalty inadmissible

What does inadmissable mean? Is that a sin or not? Is it morally wrong or not? Suppose I do something that is inadmissable. Do I then have to confess this before going to Holy Communion? Or is it OK to receive Holy Communion after you have done something inadmissable?
Another question would be this: In the case of the death penalty, the teaching has changed from capital punishment being admissable to now it is inadmissable. Can you go the other way so that what is now inadmissable becomes admissable in the future? Say for example, artificial birth control is now inadmissable. Could artificial birth control become admissable in the future because overpopulation is a larger evil or because of some other reason.

 

[OneSheep]

I could reasonably charge you with the same failing inasmuch as, like you, I believe my position reflects the real teaching. Let’s just say we reject each other’s interpretation.

What your position does not reflect are the deeper theological questions. I have presented you questions, and you remain silent.

Here, again, are the questions:

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 ?

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 ?

 

[Bernoulli]

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

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 ?

Someone sentenced to a death penaly would have the opportunity to receive the sacraments. If they confess their guilt and accept the punishment willingly, they make an act of reparation, which removes consequences of sins for the afterworld, and the criminal can enter Heaven like the Good Thief:

“Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” – – And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23)

 

[Ender]

Punishment is for the individual being punished.

You assert these things with nothing to substantiate them, and in this case it isn’t true. The primary purpose of punishment is retributive justice, to restore the balance upset by the crime.

The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (CCC 2266)

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

…the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice. (Aquinas ST I-II 67,6)

That is, the criminal must make expiation for his sin if he is to return to "the order of Divine justice."

Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime. (Aquinas ST II-II 25 6 ad 2)

If the person sentenced to death accepts his punishment this constitutes expiation for even the sin of murder.

For guilt cannot be restored to order save by punishment: wherefore it is impossible for punishment to cease, unless first of all guilt be expiated. (Aquinas ST III 71 5 ad 2)

So, the salvation of a man’s soul is the highest good, but when a man sins he removes himself from the order of Divine justice until his sin is expiated. Now death, if it be accepted, fully expiates the sin and leads to the salvation of his soul.

 

[godisgood77]

What does inadmissable mean?

Inadmissible means not to be allowed or tolerated.

Is that a sin or not? Is it morally wrong or not?

Good questions, but not critical to understanding the Church’s teaching on whether or not the death penalty is allowed…

 

[Kullervo]

The more I read from Benedict XVI. the more I like him.

 

[Emeraldlady]

…the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice. (Aquinas ST I-II 67,6)

That is, the criminal must make expiation for his sin if he is to return to "the order of Divine justice."

You are citing here the section of the Summa that is not addressing civil punishment but addressing penance in relation to restoring the relationship between the person and God. Repeat. This citation has no bearing on the issue of civil punishment!

The CCC verse that states “redressing the disorder” refers to the civil/natural disorder caused by a crime.

BTW the citation from the Summa is actually Q87 not 67.

Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime. (Aquinas ST II-II 25 6 ad 2)

If the person sentenced to death accepts his punishment this constitutes expiation for even the sin of murder.

Now we have moved to another chapter of the Summa altogether that is addressing civil punishment which clearly addresses the divine redress as an adjunct… if the person accepts their punishment.

Absolute proof the primary purpose of civil punishment is not divine retribution but a redress of the human order.

For guilt cannot be restored to order save by punishment: wherefore it is impossible for punishment to cease, unless first of all guilt be expiated . (Aquinas ST III 71 5 ad 2)

So, the salvation of a man’s soul is the highest good, but when a man sins he removes himself from the order of Divine justice until his sin is expiated. Now death, if it be accepted, fully expiates the sin and leads to the salvation of his soul.

Now we jump back to a section of the Summa exclusively addressing penance and whether penance of the living can be applied to the deceased damned. This in no way has any relevance to the question of human law and human justice and civil punishment.

 

[Ender]

You are citing here the section of the Summa that is not addressing civil punishment but addressing penance in relation to restoring the relationship between the person and God. Repeat. This citation has no bearing on the issue of civil punishment!

The only thing you got right is that this was Q87 rather than Q67, and is titled The debt of punishment. That it refers to all forms of punishment - civil included - is made clear right from the beginning (section 1):

In the first place a man’s nature is subject to the order of his own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters . . . . thirdly, it is subject to the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience; another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God.

The rest is not simply wrong but is just more of your tiresome, personal insults.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

You are citing here the section of the Summa that is not addressing civil punishment but addressing penance in relation to restoring the relationship between the person and God. Repeat. This citation has no bearing on the issue of civil punishment!

The only thing you got right is that this was Q87 rather than Q67, and is titled The debt of punishment. That it refers to all forms of punishment - civil included - is made clear right from the beginning (section 1):

In the first place a man’s nature is subject to the order of his own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters . . . . thirdly, it is subject to the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience; another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God.

The citation simply distinguishes between the three levels of punishment in general. Article 6, which you cherry picked, is exclusively related to penance for sin and a persons relationship with God. Here is the Article in it’s fullness as proof.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2087.htm#article6

 

[Ender]

Article 6, which you cherry picked, is exclusively related to penance for sin and a persons relationship with God. Here is the Article in it’s fullness as proof.

Is it now? Here is the entire section my citation was drawn from:

Two things may be considered in sin: the guilty act, and the consequent stain. Now it is evident that in all actual sins, when the act of sin has ceased, the guilt remains; because the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice; so that, according to the order of Divine justice, he who has been too indulgent to his will, by transgressing God’s commandments, suffers, either willingly or unwillingly, something contrary to what he would wish. This restoration of the equality of justice by penal compensation is also to be observed in injuries done to one’s fellow men. Consequently it is evident that when the sinful or injurious act has ceased there still remains the debt of punishment.

Given that “penal compensation is also to be observed in injuries done to one’s fellow men” it would seem that your insistence that this section applies “exclusively…to penance for sin and a person’s relationship with God” is…less than accurate.

Pointing out a blatant deception is not a personal insult. It is the grave duty of those defending the Church against false claims.

Charging me with blatant deception for your misreading of Aquinas is closer to calumny than duty. Your comments really are - aside from being wrong - inappropriate.