Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Bernoulli]

.Summa Theologica refers to something like that (q. 64 article 2: Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?):

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Psalm 48:21: “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them,” and Proverbs 11:29: “The fool shall serve the wise.” Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).

 

[Ender]

Neither has Pope Francis [changed the teaching on capital punishment].

I agree. It has always been my position that this teaching has not changed because it cannot change.

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.

He wasn’t dissenting, and given your recognition of the fact that the death penalty doctrine has not changed he’s not even disagreeing with you.

 

[godisgood77]

Neither has Pope Francis [changed the teaching on capital punishment].

This is not an accurate representation of my post… probably just an oversight.

The Church did in fact ‘change’ its teaching on the capital punishment … Change is not a dirty word or a synonym for contradict…the teaching has been reformulated to reflect The Church’s deeper understanding of human dignity.

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

Here is the post you were commenting on…

Pope Francis has NOT contradicted Church teaching on the dealth penalty… the teaching instead has been more fully formed… see the previously posted magisterial documents on the subject.

 

[godisgood77]

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.

I’m afraid this is way above my paygrade… I guess, I’d refer you to the CDF’s letter to the bishops on the topic and Catechism… both of which provide sources which the development relies on. The ones I find particularly strong are the references to both Popes Benedict and JPII on the topic.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

The use of the death penalty devalues human life itself

Funny how God didn’t know that. Good thing we have a Pope to correct him. Yikes.

 

[Ender]

This is not an accurate representation of my post… probably just an oversight.

Thank you…

The Church did in fact ‘change’ its teaching on the capital punishment … Change is not a dirty word or a synonym for contradict…the teaching has been reformulated to reflect The Church’s deeper understanding of human dignity.

OK, but here’s the problem as I see it: the traditional teaching of the church was that states had the moral right to employ capital punishment. You assert that the teaching has been changed but not contradicted, but I don’t know what that means. If states no longer have the right to use the death penalty then the doctrine has been contradicted, but if states still have that right then it is hard to see how the doctrine has been substantially changed.

Funny how God didn’t know that. Good thing we have a Pope to correct him. Yikes.

It is a bit of a problem that the church held capital punishment to be supported by scripture.

Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

 

[Emeraldlady]

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.

Before Pope Francis came along, you had the same contempt for the authority Pope St John Paul II to teach on the death penalty in the same way that previous Popes taught. It’s all there archived. None of your ad hominems can alter that.

 

[Emeraldlady]

OneSheep:

The use of the death penalty devalues human life itself

Funny how God didn’t know that. Good thing we have a Pope to correct him. Yikes.

You know I read these sorts of posts from some US posters and wonder how they view the rest of the Christian countries who’ve abolished the death penalty for that reason. We must all be so so much unholy and heathen to have legislated such an abominable sin as abolishing the death penalty?

 

[Mrboast]

Oh let’s not pretend the European Union is a bastion of Christianity. Representative governments are by definition subject to the whims of the current majority, so I don’t see how invoking them enhances the debate much.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Oh let’s not pretend the European Union is a bastion of Christianity. Representative governments are by definition subject to the whims of the current majority, so I don’t see how invoking them enhances the debate much.

How then would you describe traditional Catholic countries like Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica and the Philippines… all having abolished the death penalty as out of step with the growing awareness of human dignity?

 

[Mrboast]

With the exception of Argentina, those countries all have significantly higher murder rates than the USA. I just don’t think their secular governments having abolished capital punishment has any more to do with Christianity than do their murder rates, which is to say not much at all.

 

[Emeraldlady]

With the exception of Argentina, those countries all have significantly higher murder rates than the USA. I just don’t think their secular governments having abolished capital punishment has any more to do with Christianity than do their murder rates, which is to say not much at all.

Why do you think our countries abolished the death penalty?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

The question of admissibility comes in to play AFTER the development and deepening of the Church’s understanding

Understanding of the truth, no? For she, the Church, leads us into all truth, which is God. The implication being that God, who instituted the death penalty for murder (among many other crimes), did not understand the inviolability of human dignity when declaring that death was an appropriate punishment for certain crimes. That’s quite an accusation to make against He Who is Truth.

The development sits on the inviolability of the human person

Was the person less inviolable previous to their newfound understanding? Your assertion posits that not only did the Church not know about the inviolability of man’s dignity for 2000 years, but neither did God when He instituted the death penalty. I don’t know how one could feel comfortable making such an assertion.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

You know I read these sorts of posts from some US posters and wonder how they view the rest of the Christian countries who’ve abolished the death penalty for that reason… We must all be so so much unholy and heathen to have legislated such an abominable sin as abolishing the death penalty?

Trying to read a persons mind can be hazardous. I recommend against such fruitless behavior. It’s quite unbecoming.

I never posited that the abolition of the death penalty was a sin, let alone one that is abominable. Why are you saying things for me that I didn’t say nor imply? I posit that the reasoning for its abolition, if it is due to the “inviolable dignity of the human being,” at the very least, intimates that the One Who instituted it must have been unaware of the the inviolable dignity of the human being or that it mattered not to Who instituted it.

I am troubled by those who, it would appear, consider themselves more merciful and more cognizant of the nature of man than He Who made man. It seems extremely presumptuous.

Finally, the notion that a secular liberal governments receive such praise from a Catholic is rather mind boggling. When was Australia a confessional state anyway?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Trying to read a persons mind can be hazardous. I recommend against such fruitless behavior. It’s quite unbecoming.

I never posited that the abolition of the death penalty was a sin, let alone one that is abominable. Why are you saying things for me that I didn’t say nor imply? I posit that the reasoning for its abolition, if it is due to the “inviolable dignity of the human being,” at the very least, intimates that the One Who instituted it must have been unaware of the the inviolable dignity of the human being or that it mattered not to Who instituted it.

I am troubled by those who, it would appear, consider themselves more merciful and more cognizant of the nature of man than He Who made man. It seems extremely presumptuous.

Finally, the notion that a secular liberal government appears to be the epitome of morality in the eyes of a Catholic is rather mind boggling. Australia is hardly a confessional state. “Christian countries” indeed.

Remaking the trajectory of the discussion where other nations are supposedly claiming to be more merciful is deceptive. The greater issue is how rejection of the Magisteriums authority harms a Catholics faith.

Here is a quick recap of how the death penalty issue in the US came to draw in Catholics around the world.

In the mid 90’s we got to know about Sr Helen Prejean via the movie “Dead Man Walking”. Up to now over around a century and a half, countries moved by the Spirit, have abolished the death penalty without any finger pointing or criticism of each other.

Then we become aware of a unique force out of the US personified by well known Catholics like judge Anton Scalia, who’ve expressed a life long love of the dp and danes to interfere in the natural movement personified by Sr Helen, to abolish the dp in the US. Scalia’s preached a so called Catholic ideology that opposing the dp was anti Catholic and anathema. That is not Catholic teaching and never was.

With this falsehood being promoted in the US in the 80’s, only then does the Catholic Church need to correct that position. She confirms that the movement against the dp is due to “a growing moral awareness” about the inviolablity of human life. The Church recognises that as a movement of the Holy Spirit among men.

Then all heck breaks loose and this ‘ideological force’ goes on a crusade of words in order to diminish the authority of the Magisterium to teach on the dp.

It’s a position that is an insult to every Catholic around the world who desired or fought for abolition. It’s an insult to tell these people who like Sr Helen are from a ground roots Catholic social justice base, they are anathema.

So if a ideological faction doesn’t want to get pushback for an ideology that is clearly not Catholic, don’t make grandious claims that aren’t supported by the Magisterium.

 

[Trying2overcome]

I would say that the current teaching may be authentic, but not irreformable. The New Testament CLEARLY affirms the legitimacy of death penalty.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I would say that the current teaching may be authentic, but not irreformable. The New Testament CLEARLY affirms the legitimacy of death penalty.

It’s possible that the dp could be reinstated if a country were say, overcome by violent civil war and acts of treason and terrorism that can’t be contained by the peace time justice system. It would need to be referred to what serves the common good in that time.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

So the inherent dignity of man is violable under certain circumstances? Cool. We’re all on the same page then. It’s a prudential judgement.

 

[Emeraldlady]

So the inherent dignity of man is violable under certain circumstances? Cool. We’re all on the same page then. It’s a prudential judgement.

This is based on Aquinas principle of ‘double effect’. Self defense. It is permitted to ‘repel force with moderation’ to defend life. That defense is no longer weighed up as reasonable as the death penalty since our system is better able to protect life without going to the extent of killing the criminal.

 

[Ender]

With the exception of Argentina, those countries all have significantly higher murder rates than the USA. I just don’t think their secular governments having abolished capital punishment has any more to do with Christianity than do their murder rates, which is to say not much at all.

Again, your suspicions are well founded.

The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches.” (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)