Church Teachings on the Death Penalty

[triumphguy]

Very true … and all of these teachings have existed side by side, for 2000 years, with the acceptance of capital punishment as a just penalty for certain crimes, so clearly the traditions you list have been accounted for in that teaching.
True again; I think most people understand the nature of this assertion.
If this was a doctrine it would be new and it would be a discontinuity. It is not a discontinuity because the doctrine has not changed. It is a practical objection, not moral one.In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

And in principle the rich young man satisfied the Law, yet Jesus told him to sell all and follow Him…

In our dealings with God we always seem to be called beyond the Law to charity.

And this is more from Avery Dulles:firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

1. The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.

1. The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

1. The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.

1. Persons who specially represent the Church, such as clergy and religious, in view of their specific vocation, should abstain from pronouncing or executing the sentence of death.

1. Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should **be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. **Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition.

If I was to read Dulles again for the first time I would be convinced once again to not uphold the death sentence as a moral “remedy” in an advanced western nation.

 

[triumphguy]

…

 

[Ender]

And in principle the rich young man satisfied the Law, yet Jesus told him to sell all and follow Him…

In our dealings with God we always seem to be called beyond the Law to charity.

The implication of this is that the church got it wrong for two millennia and has just now figured out that we “seem to be called beyond the Law to charity.” That is the problem with this line of attack: it rejects the Traditional teaching of the church.

If I was to read Dulles again for the first time I would be convinced once again to not uphold the death sentence as a moral “remedy” in an advanced western nation.

Dulles accepted JPII’s prudential evaluation that the death penalty “on balance, does more harm than good.” That is not a rejection on moral grounds but on practical ones. I’ll point out again: there is no moral objection to the use of capital punishment today that does not at the same time repudiate the church’s Traditional teaching. That is a very high price to pay to maintain your position, and it is not one Dulles would have supported.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Dulles)
Ender

 

[triumphguy]

The implication of this is that the church got it wrong for two millennia and has just now figured out that we “seem to be called beyond the Law to charity.” That is the problem with this line of attack: it rejects the Traditional teaching of the church.
Dulles accepted JPII’s prudential evaluation that the death penalty “on balance, does more harm than good.” That is not a rejection on moral grounds but on practical ones. I’ll point out again: there is no moral objection to the use of capital punishment today that does not at the same time repudiate the church’s Traditional teaching. That is a very high price to pay to maintain your position, and it is not one Dulles would have supported.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Dulles)
Ender

1. Maybe in present day society the Church has a chance to preach a higher standard since the “state” is now more capable of providing a safe/“civilized” society for its people. In other words - fundamental teachings haven’t changed, but times and conditions (and therefore morality rather than ethos) have.
2. You’re picking your Dulles quotes quite narrowly.

 

[Francoist]

Cardinal Ratzinger:

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
July 2004

 

[Ender]

1. Maybe in present day society the Church has a chance to preach a higher standard since the “state” is now more capable of providing a safe/“civilized” society for its people.

Think about this charge for a minute: for 2000 years the church had low standards and her moral standard is only improved with the implementation of modern prisons. The main problem with this approach is that fails to account for what the church teaches, which is that the primary objective of punishment is retribution, not protection. How is it that the lower standard is the one that satisfies the primary objective of punishment while the higher standard is the one that satisfies a secondary objective? This argument only reinforces what I said earlier: no moral objection can be made to the use of capital punishment that does not define 2000 years of church teaching on the subject as wrong.

In other words - fundamental teachings haven’t changed, but times and conditions (and therefore morality rather than ethos) have.

If the fundamental teaching has not changed then you can have no ethical objection to using capital punishment.

You’re picking your Dulles quotes quite narrowly.

This is an unpleasant charge. I select citations based on their relevance to the particular point being discussed and I don’t edit them or present them in altered context. Regarding your citations from the Dulles article, you would have been better advised to pick one and explain its implications rather than simply list several of them without comment.

Re #6: This is the traditional teaching; I don’t think anyone disputes this point.
#7: This is the one you should have examined more closely. If you think this one supports your position, explain why.
#8: The church has always taught this as well; Aquinas certainly covered it.
#9: This is based on a decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; nothing new here.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

Other traditional Church teaching that hasn’t changed over 2,000 years:

Thou shalt not kill…

Exactly, and this is what the Church teaches on the 5th Commandment ( Catechism of Trent on the 5th Commandment)

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

If one is to reference the 5th Commandment, is it not better to reference in the context of how the Church interprets it, rather than any personal opinion?

 

[triumphguy]

Think about this charge for a minute: for 2000 years the church had low standards and her moral standard is only improved with the implementation of modern prisons. The main problem with this approach is that fails to account for what the church teaches, which is that the primary objective of punishment is retribution, not protection. How is it that the lower standard is the one that satisfies the primary objective of punishment while the higher standard is the one that satisfies a secondary objective? This argument only reinforces what I said earlier: no moral objection can be made to the use of capital punishment that does not define 2000 years of church teaching on the subject as wrong.
If the fundamental teaching has not changed then you can have no ethical objection to using capital punishment.
This is an unpleasant charge. I select citations based on their relevance to the particular point being discussed and I don’t edit them or present them in altered context. Regarding your citations from the Dulles article, you would have been better advised to pick one and explain its implications rather than simply list several of them without comment.

Re #6: This is the traditional teaching; I don’t think anyone disputes this point.
#7: This is the one you should have examined more closely. If you think this one supports your position, explain why.
#8: The church has always taught this as well; Aquinas certainly covered it.
#9: This is based on a decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; nothing new here.

Ender

No NOT that the Church had low standards - not at all!!!

But that society is now able to live up to a higher standard: we know that Christianity ha had a progressively civilizing affect on society and has raised the bar on all kinds of issues, not lest of which is human dignity. Society has also developed to where it is far more safe (despite all the horror stories). The infrastructure has also improved. Society is now able to live up to the Church’s high standards. Which is why recent Popes have said that in western countries in the modern world the death penalty is untenable.

Show me how that means the Church’s standards or teachings have changed.

When we grow up we are called to adult behaviour.
Society IS now far more “grown up” by most metrics.

 

[Brendan]

Which is why recent Popes have said that in western countries in the modern world the death penalty is untenable.s.

So you are saying that the Church opposes Capital Punishment in industrialized countries, but supports in in developing countries?

 

[triumphguy]

So you are saying that the Church opposes Capital Punishment in industrialized countries, but supports in in developing countries?

Not quite so black and white: the Church teaches that in countries with a developed judiciary and prison system the death penalty is untenable. In times of war, or where there is no such infrastructure then the death penalty may be used.

But I’m about to take kids to various schools right now so have to run… so this was a drive-by posting.

 

[jwinch2]

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
July 2004

Thanks,

He says as much in his interviews with Seewald also, but since I have them on audio books rather than hard copy, I have been having a hard time tracking down the quote.

 

[triumphguy]

Think about this charge for a minute: for 2000 years the church had low standards and her moral standard is only improved with the implementation of modern prisons. The main problem with this approach is that fails to account for what the church teaches, which is that the primary objective of punishment is retribution, not protection. How is it that the lower standard is the one that satisfies the primary objective of punishment while the higher standard is the one that satisfies a secondary objective? This argument only reinforces what I said earlier: no moral objection can be made to the use of capital punishment that does not define 2000 years of church teaching on the subject as wrong.
If the fundamental teaching has not changed then you can have no ethical objection to using capital punishment.
This is an unpleasant charge. I select citations based on their relevance to the particular point being discussed and I don’t edit them or present them in altered context. Regarding your citations from the Dulles article, you would have been better advised to pick one and explain its implications rather than simply list several of them without comment.

Re #6: This is the traditional teaching; I don’t think anyone disputes this point.
#7: This is the one you should have examined more closely. If you think this one supports your position, explain why.
#8: The church has always taught this as well; Aquinas certainly covered it.
#9: This is based on a decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; nothing new here.

Ender

What about #10? I presume you agree that Catholics should be attentive to the Popes and the bishops?

1. Catholics, in seeking **to form **their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition

What does attentive mean to you?

What does “in seeking to form their judgement” mean?

I believe it means that Catholics should first go to Church teaching including the current teaching of the Popes and bishops, and not look for the teachings that support their previously held views.

It means we should be open to conversion.

 

[Brendan]

Not quite so black and white: the Church teaches that in countries with a developed judiciary and prison system the death penalty is untenable. In times of war, or where there is no such infrastructure then the death penalty may be used…

Ok here is the CCC

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. (2306)

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

When the Church places the requirement that non-lethal means be shown to be insufficient before capital punishment is used, who is the authority that the Church recognizes as being able to make that determination?

What authority does the Church recognize as being able to determine if the use is sufficiently rare. I personally have seen no objective criteria published by the Church as to the permissible level, such as Y permissible cases of capital punishment per X cases of capital crime.

That would seem to indicate that it is a subjective judgment on a case by case basis. So what is the Church recognizes authority that can make that determination?

 

[jwinch2]

I believe it means that Catholics should first go to Church teaching including the current teaching of the Popes and bishops, and not look for the teachings that support their previously held views.

How can teachings on faith and morals change from one pope to the next?

 

[Francoist]

I certainly don’t see how something can be right for almost 2000 years and then all of a sudden it’s wrong. In my heart I’m actually very uncomfortable with the death penalty. What sinner would not be? But it’s in the Bible. I’m not about to accuse God of making a mistake. And it has been the consistent teaching of the Church. Especially since the Papal States used to execute people!

Consider this guy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Bugatti

I find it rather odd and unpleasant, but here’s an interesting list:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_by_the_Holy_See

I don’t dig the whole “drawing and quartering” scene. To me, if you have to execute somebody a firing squad is probably the cleanest. It would really stink to get sentenced to drawing and quartering by the Pope… you would know you were in pretty hot water at that point.

Anyway, for what it’s worth.

 

[Ender]

But that society is now able to live up to a higher standard…

If the standard is higher now it must have been lower before and my point is that before 1995 the church never had a standard either opposing capital punishment or suggesting that its use was in any way dependent on its perceived need in protecting society. The standard you consider to be lower was not the one society was able to keep but was in fact the one the church taught.

we know that Christianity has had a progressively civilizing affect on society and has raised the bar on all kinds of issues, not lest of which is human dignity.

It is one thing to argue that civilizations are slowly coming up to the measure of Christianity but quite another to suggest that Christianity is slowly raising its own bar. Your position here can mean only one of two things: either the church didn’t fully recognize man’s dignity in the past and has only come to a true understanding in the last 20 years or the church recognized it in the past but still allowed a punishment that violated it. If capital punishment is a violation of man’s dignity today then it was a violation 50 years ago when Vatican City still had the death penalty in its own laws.

The infrastructure has also improved. Society is now able to live up to the Church’s high standards.

But the church never had opposition to capital punishment as her standard; in fact, just the opposite is true. She frequently had to defend that very position from heretical assertions that Christian societies had no moral right to use it.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

Ok here is the CCC

When the Church places the requirement that non-lethal means be shown to be insufficient before capital punishment is used, who is the authority that the Church recognizes as being able to make that determination?

What authority does the Church recognize as being able to determine if the use is sufficiently rare. I personally have seen no objective criteria published by the Church as to the permissible level, such as Y permissible cases of capital punishment per X cases of capital crime.

That would seem to indicate that it is a subjective judgment on a case by case basis. So what is the Church recognizes authority that can make that determination?

I’ll answer your question with a question, because I know where you are going, but I don;t want to paint myself into a corner

When can the church challenge the authorized authority?

Absolutely in terms of the absolutes like abortion and euthanasia,
And definitely when the state could be doing far better in terms of other human dignity issues like poverty, justice and the death penalty.

 

[triumphguy]

How can teachings on faith and morals change from one pope to the next?

They don’t but circumstances change.

The church teaching on just war never changes, but some wars are just and others are not.

 

[Brendan]

When can the church challenge the authorized authority?

How are you defining ‘challenge’? As in how a teacher challenges a student to exceed, or in questioning the grounds for authority.

An example might be the bishop as the authority of the liturgy in his diocese. I could challenge the bishop ever more faithful to a fruitful prayer life, or I could challenge the bishops’ authority to have everyone stand after the Agnus Dei.

Which definition of ‘challenge’ are you referring to?

Without further clarification, all I can really say is that the Church should always be challenging an authority to conform to fulfill the mandate given by God (who is the ultimate source of authority). This is the positive command of authority ; while not exceeding the boundaries give by God.(the negative command)

 

[Ender]

What about #10? I presume you agree that Catholics should be attentive to the Popes and the bishops?

Absolutely. But “being attentive to” and “being obliged to assent to” are not the same and I think I have more than fulfilled the “be attentive to” part. Here is our favorite commenter’s observation:Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Dulles)

I believe it means that Catholics should first go to Church teaching including the current teaching of the Popes and bishops…

I have gone first to church teaching, not only first but exclusively. There is absolutely nothing in any comment I have made on this subject that is not taken directly from … church teaching. This is why I keep pointing out that attacking “me” is in fact attacking the Traditional teaching of the church. It is also why I provide such voluminous citations to make the point that it not simply my personal opinion that I am presenting.

… and not look for the teachings that support their previously held views.

The church teaches that morality does not change from time to time or place to place so what was taught in the past is just as true today as when it was new. This is the whole value of the sacred Tradition. It would be completely contrary to that Tradition to ignore or discount the past, and on this subject what was taught has been reinforced unchanged by any number of Popes, Doctors, and Fathers of the church for twenty centuries. Surely that body of work cannot be dismissed.

Ender