Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Mrboast]

My ears were first raised on this issue at a discussion table among men at my church. Capital punishment came up and an elderly gentleman at the table said “I just don’t understand all of this. When I was growing up it was the Catholics who were for it and the Protestants who were against it, now it’s the opposite.” I thought “this can’t be!” and so began my odyssey on learning what the Church actually had taught on this. Not a single priest had ever let me in on the actual teaching of the Magisterium - I felt robbed.

 

[AlNg]

choosing the death penalty as a Catholic is a big bad deal

In the Papal States, the death penalty was imposed many times. According to Michael Norko, the Popes ordered the execution of hundreds of criminals between 1796 and 1865.

 

[Ender]

In the Papal States, the death penalty was imposed many times. According to Michael Norko, the Popes ordered the execution of hundreds of criminals between 1796 and 1865.

Sixtus V (1585-1590) launched an anti-crime campaign that resulted in the executions of roughly 7,000 criminals. Just one of the 260+ popes who apparently got it all wrong.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Was it ok to support the death penalty in July 2018 but not the next month? Or better yet, the day before the Catechism was changed but not the day after?

Most non experts in the field are not placed to have an opinion one way or the other. There has been a growing social justice objection to the death penalty in the US and other experts who deem the system secure enough that killing a person is no longer necessary. Abolition has been coming on for a long time. The Church has found it necessary to speak up against the false claim that abolition of the dp is an anti Catholic position. Just like when she has spoken in the past against the false claim that the dp was essentially intrinsically evil.

The death penalty has been abolished in every other Christian country in the world over the last century without a peep from the Church as it wasn’t necessary. The problem in the US is the faction that oppose abolition as against Church teaching which it isn’t. That is why the Church needs to come out strongly to correct that false claim.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Why would you feel robbed? The position of the Church has been made very clear for at least the last 20 years. Pope St John Paul II.

“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

“A sign of hope is the 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 the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

 

[Mrboast]

The Church didn’t begin 20 years ago or with Saint JPII. I felt ignorant because instead of the perennial Church teaching on the subject, through the centuries, through hundreds of popes, synods and councils - I was taught that “the Church” was the personal opinions of the present Bishops’ - and then I discovered even they admitted their stance was not a doctrinal assertion and Catholics could in fact disagree on the matter. Now this is no small thing either, a majority opinion of the Bishops, and something that surely should make one think deeply when in opposition to such teaching, but I had never known the fundamental truth of the morality of the death penalty.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The Church didn’t begin 20 years ago or with Saint JPII.

St JPII was ‘in charge’ at the time when the correction needed to be made for the benefit of US Catholics. There was no such necessity during the process of abolition in all the other Christian countries but for some reason, some faction of US Catholics have strong love for the death penalty that is rather unique. It has always been a Catholic tenet that the death penalty constitutes a ‘physical’ evil so the most Christian and natural response to abolition has generally been positive.

I felt ignorant because instead of the perennial Church teaching on the subject, through the centuries, through hundreds of popes, synods and councils - I was taught that “the Church” was the personal opinions of the present Bishops’ - and then I discovered even they admitted their stance was not a doctrinal assertion and Catholics could in fact disagree on the matter. Now this is no small thing either, a majority opinion of the Bishops, and something that surely should make one think deeply when in opposition to such teaching, but I had never known the fundamental truth of the morality of the death penalty.

Perhaps there is an attachment to the death penalty as a ‘right’ of man to control life and death of others, is causing unnecessary angst?

Way back in the 13th century, Aquinas reminded us of the scripture teaching concerning use of the death penalty.

“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)

A reminder that use of the death penalty has always been conditional upon its service to society. So serious a consideration that Our Lord commanded them to forbear from such killing if its use was harmful to society.

And that’s what’s happening in society now for quite a long time. It has been seen as cruel and unnecessary. What happens if a society deems it unhealthy but certain factions say ‘too bad’ it’s our divine right to use it’? Against Our Lords command, that surely would constitute outright murder?

 

[Mrboast]

The source of my angst is seemingly being at odds with a doctrinal teaching of Christ’s Church, which is a first for me. It just happens to be regarding capital punishment, but could have easily have been any other long held teaching. And it’s especially awkward due to the current popularity of anti-capital punishment sentiment…the outlets for true debate on this are largely cut off unless you are in an FSSP parrish perhaps. But as I mentioned above, I no longer believe it’s true that I am at odds with the Church given that capital punishment is not immoral…until further “development” anyway.

 

[Ender]

The Church didn’t begin 20 years ago or with Saint JPII.

Neither JPII nor BXVI contradicted the teaching of the church on the death penalty.

It is not one of those teachings a Catholic has to accept, like, for example, abortion… If they’ve thought it through and prayed about it, they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this (death penalty) issue. (Bishop James Conley, 2016)

Nor, even though a major reversal is implied by the latest change, that change is more implied than real.

The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral. (Archbishop Jose Gomez the day after the change to the catechism in 2018)

The source of my angst is seemingly being at odds with a doctrinal teaching of Christ’s Church…

The bishop also considered “what the faithful Catholic would be bound by conscience to do if, God forbid, his or her properly formed conscience were to come into conflict with something a pope says. It could be Pope Francis or any pope.” Under such circumstances, the bishop argued, it would be necessary to “go with the sensus fidelium” – “the belief of the Church through the ages, yesterday, today, and forever” (Bishop James Conley, interview 2019)

 

[Emeraldlady]

The source of my angst is seemingly being at odds with a doctrinal teaching of Christ’s Church, which is a first for me. It just happens to be regarding capital punishment, but could have easily have been any other long held teaching. And it’s especially awkward due to the current popularity of anti-capital punishment sentiment…the outlets for true debate on this are largely cut off unless you are in an FSSP parrish perhaps. But as I mentioned above, I no longer believe it’s true that I am at odds with the Church given that capital punishment is not immoral…until further “development” anyway.

Out of curiousity, what is your objection to abolition of the death penalty?

 

[Mrboast]

Well personally, the following:

1. Abolition would lead to wildly unjust punishment in some cases (Hitler, Stalin, Bundy et al)
2. Abolition would increase the number of future murders and future innocents that will be harmed and/or killed (this is simply fact)
3. Abolition would mean fewer murderers will give up 1) where the victims bodies lay or 2) their other victims - as they otherwise would have worked to escape the ultimate penalty. (This also must be uncontroversially true)
4. And ultimately I think abolition would convey to our culture that we in fact don’t hold innocent life as dear as we used to - and will cause a further trivialization of life. Admittedly, this is the opposite of the popular opinion here, but it is at least reasonable right? Which was the whole point before, we could debate the issue on a case by case basis.

Outright abolition would in short be bad for the common good in my humble unimportant opinion.

A question to you: If you agree with me that 2 and 3 are true, why do you feel abolishing capital punishment is worth their sacrifice?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Mrboast:

The Church didn’t begin 20 years ago or with Saint JPII.

Neither JPII nor BXVI contradicted the teaching of the church on the death penalty.

That isn’t what you were saying back in 2012 before Pope Francis came along.

Ender in 2012 claiming Pope St John Paul II was out of step with the Traditional teaching of the Church.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Well personally, the following:

1. Abolition would lead to wildly unjust punishment in some cases (Hitler, Stalin, Bundy et al)
2. Abolition would increase the number of future murders and future innocents that will be harmed and/or killed (this is simply fact)
3. Abolition would mean fewer murderers will give up 1) where the victims bodies lay or 2) their other victims - as they otherwise would have worked to escape the ultimate penalty. (This also must be uncontroversially true)
4. And ultimately I think abolition would convey to our culture that we in fact don’t hold innocent life as dear as we used to - and will cause a further trivialization of life. Admittedly, this is the opposite of the popular opinion here, but it is at least reasonable right? Which was the whole point before, we could debate the issue on a case by case basis.

Outright abolition would in short be bad for the common good in my humble unimportant opinion.

A question to you: If you agree with me that 2 and 3 are true, why do you feel abolishing capital punishment is worth their sacrifice?

However I don’t agree that 2 and 3 are true because I live in a country where the death penalty was abolished in a rolling movement starting in 1912.

But if you with your own expertise in your country, believe that that would be true for your countries situation, I think that you could legitimately follow your conscience. That would mean though having studied the expert findings in a number of areas and weighing the role of the Magisterium in assessing the conditions of today ie. we live in a culture of death without true regard for mans dignity.

The bottom line is that your objections to abolition are related to your understanding of its service to the common good. What the Magisterium is debunking, is the false claim that justice is deficient without using the death penalty and that the death penalty is by it’s nature a divine law.

 

[JimG]

I don’t have a particular problem witn tne current catechism teaching on the death penalty, because I don’t think it overturns the previous teaching.

I don’t recall ever seeing the word “inadmissable” being used before as as a moral category in Catholic teaching. So I can’t help but view the word “inadmissable” as a prudential judgment about the application of the death penalty in most places at the current time. That judgment does not contradict the traditional teaching.

States certainly have the option of not using the death penalty at their option. I don’t have any attachment to the death penalty in practice, mostly because of the legal problems it places on prosecutors, and the expense of handling death penalty cases, although it can be of use sometimes in obtaining plea agreements.

So if "inadmissable’ is a statement of a prudential judgment about current conditions, the new policy does not contradict prior doctrine.

If the death penalty had been inadmissable in 33 AD, could we have been saved?

 

[goout]

I don’t have a particular problem witn tne current catechism teaching on the death penalty, because I don’t think it overturns the previous teaching.

I don’t recall ever seeing the word “inadmissable” being used before as as a moral category in Catholic teaching. So I can’t help but view the word “inadmissable” as a prudential judgment about the application of the death penalty in most places at the current time. That judgment does not contradict the traditional teaching.

States certainly have the option of not using the death penalty at their option. I don’t have any attachment to the death penalty in practice, mostly because of the legal problems it places on prosecutors, and the expense of handling death penalty cases, although it can be of use sometimes in obtaining plea agreements.

So if "inadmissable’ is a statement of a prudential judgment about current conditions, the new policy does not contradict prior doctrine.

If the death penalty had been inadmissable in 33 AD, could we have been saved?

Yes. This is the simple and sensible observation of the issue. ^^^

 

[Ender]

And ultimately I think abolition would convey to our culture that we in fact don’t hold innocent life as dear as we used to - and will cause a further trivialization of life.

This was a concern the Catechism of Trent addressed:

Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder.

I think we have lost all sense of just how heinous the crime of murder really is. Even when capital punishment is used it is reserved for murder with special circumstances. Clearly mere murder is not an awful enough a crime to deserve it.

Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? This seems unlikely. Consider the deviant who tortures small children to death for his pleasure or the ideologue who meditates the demise of innocent thousands for the sake of greater terror. Genesis says murderers deserve death because life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live. (J Budziszewski)

That isn’t what you were saying back in 2012 before Pope Francis came along.

[Ender in 2012 claiming Pope St John Paul II was out of step with the Traditional teaching of the Church.]

Given that you continually misunderstand what I say it is no wonder you make a hash out of Aquinas. Since I don’t believe even Francis has changed the doctrine on capital punishment (because it is unchangeable) it isn’t reasonable to claim I thought it was changed by his predecessors.

Nor did the comment you cited make that claim; it didn’t even address that point (what a surprise). Rather it made a very specific charge that an assertion about the traditional teaching of the church made in 2267 was inaccurate.

I don’t have a particular problem witn tne current catechism teaching on the death penalty, because I don’t think it overturns the previous teaching.

I don’t think it overturned the traditional teaching either; my problem with it is that it implies that it has been reversed.

 

[godisgood77]

Neither JPII nor BXVI contradicted the teaching of the church on the death penalty.

Neither has Pope Francis.

The Church has come to a deeper understanding of the inviolability of the human person where it is now clear that even after committing the most heinous crime, a person does not lose their dignity.

Citing quotes from dissenting voices in interviews does not carry the weight that you think it does. I recommend we look to the Catechism and the formal elucidation from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which clearly explains the development… these two sources are magisterial. Good Bishop Conley’s quotes are not.

 

[Mrboast]

Can you show me where the Church has said that such a person loses their human dignity? I have searched and can find nothing Magisterial on this.

 

[godisgood77]

Can you show me where the Church has said that such a person loses their human dignity? I have searched and can find nothing Magisterial on this.

Of course…

Here is the link the Catechism on the subject: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html

and here is the text…

2267. 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.

Here is the a link to the CDF’s letter…

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

and here is the first paragraph…

*1. The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum , by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church , asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times. 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.”

 

[Mrboast]

Let me clarify: You said we now know that a heinous criminal does not lose their dignity simply for being a heinous criminal. That implies we used to not know this. So I am asking for some proof that we used to not know this, that we used to teach such a person loses their dignity in other words.