Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[nfinke]

Really blows my mind when people still read “turn the other cheek” as “if a man violently murders 10 people with premeditation, definitely don’t feel the need to punish him accordingly”

How does it figure into “loving your neighbor” if you let someone tie your neighbor up, rape them, and light them on fire, and then you say “the worst we can punish this man is to give him free food until he dies of old age”? The love really doesn’t call out for justice?

 

[Maximus1]

And that is what makes following Jesus very hard. But you can’t really argue that Jesus didn’t walk the walk.
He forgave the people who had just crucified him from the cross where he was innocent. He took the time to save a stranger while in agony. That is a lot more personal than a newspaper account of strangers.

 

[nfinke]

Jesus also drove the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip of cords. He even punished a tree because it wasn’t bearing fruit (I get this was mostly symbolic but still, He said turn the other cheek, then sentenced a tree to death for not giving him a fig).

Lets not forget Jesus prayed for the Father to forgive those men because they were wrongfully executing Him. Neither when talking about them or to the thief did he say they were wrong for executing them. The thief even said out loud “we receive the due reward for our deeds” and did Jesus contradict the man? No, He canonized him.

Also don’t forget are talking about the state. Jesus was focused on our interactions with our fellow men, and famously avoided making statements about “Ceasar”. Im not saying it’s morally good for me to execute the death penalty.

The way I see it God is primarily preoccupied with love, and justice is a natural consequence of loving others, and punishment is sometimes an unfortunate consequence of justice.

We should love our enemies, but we should also love victims, and that love demands justice be done.

 

[Ender]

And that is what makes following Jesus very hard. But you can’t really argue that Jesus didn’t walk the walk.
He forgave the people who had just crucified him from the cross where he was innocent.

Two things about forgiveness:

1. Forgiveness does not eliminate punishment, and
2. Not everyone is forgiven.

That we are forgiven in no way means that we will escape punishment.

At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” ( Ex 34: 6-7). In the Second Book of Samuel, King David’s humble confession after his grave sin obtains God’s forgiveness, but not the prevention of the foretold chastisement. (JPII, General Audience 1999)

Forgiveness and punishment are not mutually exclusive.

As for forgiveness, in that same document JPII wrote this:

However, in the logic of the covenant, which is the heart of the whole economy of salvation, this gift does not reach us without our acceptance and response.

Or as the catechism puts it:

1847 God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us." To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults.

He took the time to save a stranger while in agony.

Yes, but it needs to be noted that he only saved one and not both.

 

[Maximus1]

The tree is a stretch.
Remember also, we are talking about state sanctioned homicide. Jesus never makes a statement supporting it.
You seek to make a distinction between state and individual. If you live I the USA, is that distinction viable?
The model of the State then was monarchy. Power flows from God, to the monarch, the monarch then decided what limited rights he freely chooses people to have.
In America, by design, power flows from God to the people, the people then decide what LIMITED POWER they choose to endow government to possess. So, we the people decide the death penalty. A concept alien to first century Jews. Or to Aquinas for that matter.
Finally, there I no repeal of retributive justice. Just the death penalty is implicated.( In the catechism)

 

[Maximus1]

Your ideas of punishment are unfortunate. Sinning for example, always has consequences.
I will just use two quick examples which represent perhaps the most famous in the Gospel.
The prodigal son. This is an example of being punished with more love. The suffering is shame, but it does not emminate from the father. The more interesting part of the parable is the good son. It is his reaction that represents the true Christ message.
The other, the Adulteress, is punished via her sin, and forgiven. But the punishment is not retributive.
Of course there was actually a reason for Christ. One reason, is to eliminate the transactional view of punishment from the OT. STILL, IF you wish, I can cite Ezekial and Isaiah passages of God responding with punishment of enhanced love. Just ask.
So yes their is punishment. Julian of Norwich spoke of sin as death. But she also spoke of it having qualities necessary to teach right thinking.
If punishment happened as some form of grist for the mill, or pound of flesh, there would be no prodigal son or Adulteress passages prominent in the Gospel. You cannot read those passages and imagine God vindicating his Divine Justice being Paramount. Not receiving repentance either. Repentance is for our good. God has no imperfect ego to be fed. A finite mortal need. A PROJECTION OF OUR OWN IMPERFECTION ON GOD.
And yes, he answered the prayer of the one thief, but we know nothing about the final outcome with the other.
The Conference of Catholic Bishops do not read the punishment for generations language of Exudus 34 as you do. They point out the " many " passages where future generations are not punished for the sins of the parents, although circumstances might be that a parents sins create punishing circumstances for kids.
At this point I see a pattern. You have culled out the darkest passages in scripture as your Christian Bible.
Fransciscans do not let their entry level people read scripture initially. They first educate them in philosophy and other coursework to permit them to discern.
They also educate them to read the Bible from the vantage of the Cross. Their teaching is based upon the dark message the Bible can communicate if you approach it from a dark mindset. I guess hundreds of years of Wisdom accounts for experience.

 

[Bernoulli]

Catholic theology doesn’t mandate a particular form of government. The idea that a monarchical state has some powers given by God which don’t belong to a democratic state or a republic is foreign to Catholic thought.

 

[Maximus1]

There is a distinction to be made or not. The fact nobody else mentions it is really less important.
I will say the CCC sections about pro choice politicians, and voting for pro choice candidates, is based upon this representive government argument.
If we had a king, those sections would not be there

 

[Maximus1]

If you pack the court, you would obtain more death with that idea.
But if it’s death, a jury should know the gravity of their decision. The defendants gets rights here. This is true in the mitigation stage as well.
OTHERWIZE a defendant could get you. Or Roy Bean, also “could get you.”

 

[Maximus1]

Fortunately your idea is not the law.
The jury needs to know the gravity of their decision. It may very well be they do not think death penalty is warranted.
I can’t help but notice that there is no empathy in your posts.

 

[Maximus1]

Those arguments are good thinking. But not relevant. The courts have determined it is a jury function under the 8th Amendment and recently the 6th.

 

[Bernoulli]

If we had a king, those sections would not be there

Some countries still have kings. The Catechism is not addressed solely to democratic countries. And it’s not like kings would have better authority to carry out abortions.

Naturally, if one does not have the power to vote, one does not have to be concerned with voting problems. In any case, voters act as representatives of the state, so they get to impact the use of powers given to the state. Juries also don’t give their verdict as individuals but as members of the judicial system.

 

[Maximus1]

There were no democracies in the first century and none were contemplated by scripture.

 

[FranciscoLaureano]

Except that they victimize other inmates, prison staff and guards. I support speedy executions.

 

[FranciscoLaureano]

You should turn YOUR OWN cheek-once. You don’t turn other people’s cheeks. It’s our duty as Christians to punish lawbreakers victimizing the innocent.

 

[Ender]

Your ideas of punishment are unfortunate.

My ideas? The reason I provide citations from church sources is to present what the church teaches. Citing Aquinas gives his perspective on punishment, not mine.

the Adulteress, is punished via her sin, and forgiven. But the punishment is not retributive.

“…it would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of principle, the function of retributive punishment. The result of retributive penalties is in no way opposed to the function of punishment, which is the re-establishment and restoration of the order of justice which has been disrupted, a function which is essential to all punishment.” (Pius XII)

You have culled out the darkest passages in scripture as your Christian Bible.

What I have done is to cite church sources citing scripture. Like this for example:

2260 …For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.

That’s a direct citation of Gn 9:5-6. From the catechism. It’s not from my Bible; it is what the church teaches today.

 

[Maximus1]

Adultery was a commandment and punishable by stoning. Where did that retributive bedrock go?
There are no lesser commandments in the ten.
I do not call for complete opposition for retributive justice. At least today. I oppose the death penalty. Because we have evolved beyond it.
The justification underpinning retributive justice just like restorative justice, stems from the fall.
Our views of retributive justice should never be fixed. Our faith remains a journey and evolution to the original state. To lock that journey into it’s lowest points forever, is to admit no progress. Failure.
People need a pound of flesh. Nothing Jesus said or did matches this thinking. To satisfy the public call in this manner is to admit how far we remain from loving one another, as I have loved you.
I for one think shedding the need for blood is a step toward God’s plan for us. God came as a forgiving victim. In 2019, we finally can see a little piece of what that means.
Every Justice Jesus performed in the Gospel was restorative for human beings. We have a long way to go. ( To achieve love one another as I have loved you.) Society remains radically un-Christlike, leaving a place for a retributive system of the temple. But shedding this one punishment is a progress. Restoring the sinner was Jesus work in every human interaction in Jesus ministry. We must never forget that standard. This is the law of his one Commandment. I like the step forward. Modest as it is.
Aquinas lived in brutal times preceded by a history of brutal men. God never seeks more than what we are capable of. But God did not incarnate to maintain the status quo

 

[Ender]

I oppose the death penalty. Because we have evolved beyond it.

It is supported by scripture. There is no evolution beyond that.

Our views of retributive justice should never be fixed.

The church’s understanding is based on Natural Law…which is fixed.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history…

Aquinas lived in brutal times preceded by a history of brutal men.

And thus is dismissed the wisdom of the Church’s greatest theologian, not to mention all of the Fathers as well. I keep pointing this out: there are arguments used to oppose capital punishment that provide powerful ammunition for those who oppose the church. This is one of those arguments.

 

[C.Longinus]

I keep pointing this out: there are arguments used to oppose capital punishment that provide powerful ammunition for those who oppose the church.

So why oppose the Magisterium who has taken a shift against it?

 

[Ender]

So why oppose the Magisterium who has taken a shift against it?

Mostly what I oppose are the seriously harmful arguments used to oppose capital punishment. How is it “opposing the Magisterium” to point out that their statements on this matter are prudential judgments and not doctrines?