Church Teachings on the Death Penalty

[Ender]

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?

The answer here must surely be the same as the answer given to the question of who has the right to declare war: The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (CCC 2309)
That is, the right belongs to the government.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

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 have gone first to church teaching; don’t you recognize that? 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.
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

Ender, I’m not questioning your right or your ability to come to a decision on this matter - you have put in the homework.

The reason I keep posting in these threads is that an entirely different and entirely moral conclusion may be reached by a moral catholic who does their own homework and their own prayer: eg., bishops and popes ()

There is not only one conclusion to this debate.

I believe in the western world the “higher” morality is to recognize that we need to call our societies to be more just, more equitable, and to be less willing to trade death for votes - whether its the “humaneness” of abortion and euthanasia, or the “strict justice” of capital punishment.

 

[Ender]

The reason I keep posting in these threads is that an entirely different and entirely moral conclusion may be reached by a moral catholic who does their own homework and their own prayer: eg., bishops and popes

There can surely be multiple valid conclusions reached on any prudential matter and while I believe the practical opposition to capital punishment is in error, that’s all I believe it to be. There is no moral distinction between the side that supports its use and the side that opposes it.

I believe in the western world the “higher” morality is to recognize that we need to call our societies to be more just, more equitable, and to be less willing to trade death for votes - whether its the “humaneness” of abortion and euthanasia, or the “strict justice” of capital punishment.

To say there are some people who support capital punishment for personal gain is probably true but is surely irrelevant. I’m sure there are people who oppose it for improper reasons as well but that doesn’t add any strength to my arguments. What I strongly oppose is the idea that opposing capital punishment is higher up on the moral scale than supporting it, and the validity of that position is unaffected by those whose position is determined by self advancement.

Argue however you will that we are better off without capital punishment than with it; that’s an acceptable position to take, but it is not acceptable to assert that opposing it is morally preferable to supporting it. That position is not sustainable except by erasing or condemning the Traditional teaching of the church.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The second edition of the catechism has really muddled what the church teaches about punishment in general and capital punishment in particular. You would not learn it from the section you cited but punishment has four objectives:Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles)
And while it is not immediately obvious, 2266 identifies which objective is primary:* The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
*That is - and this is the hard part for most people to accept - the primary objective of all punishment is retribution (retributive justice). The USCCB, which is generally unhelpful in most things, actually provided some clarification on this point:*The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution **or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment. *(1980)
The “order of justice” they refer to is the same as the “disorder” the catechism identifies and by this is meant a good deal more than simply “law and order.” (The “third justifying purpose” does not mean third in importance but merely the third objective they addressed in their unordered list.) Aquinas (of course) is more specific:*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 *(ST I-II, 87,6)
Where 2267 fails is in suggesting that it is the defense of society that determines the proper punishment when in fact, as a secondary objective, this is incorrect; that determination is made by the primary objective which is retribution.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

Would it not be closer to state that the Church recognizes that Capital Punishment is not contrary to the Divine Will in certain circumstances, as opposed to ‘allowing’ it.

And it would seem that the Church, in the Catechism of Trent, seemed to imply that it was not just a matter of ‘allowing’ the Death Penalty, but that it’s just application was actually a conformity to the 5th Commandment. ( see my previous post)

So then the Justice of a particular instance might be a matter of prudential judgment, but not the relation of the Capital Punishment to the Divine Will.

 

[jwinch2]

Thanks Deacon, for pointing out my missing that.

However, I would still suggest the language is different. And, it is certainly an alteration in the manner that this teaching has traditionally been expressed.

 

[Ender]

I think this is a little weaker than the church actually taught. As Brendan pointed out earlier, the Catechism of Trent held that: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.
To acknowledge something as “paramount” is a fair bit stronger than saying that something is merely “permitted”. Beyond this, however, are the comments of St. Robert Bellarmine, who did support it as a matter of doctrine.For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but* a decree and a precept.***

• And as for “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. (De Laicis, ch 13)
  The same idea was expressed in his catechism which was approved by Clement XIII:Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace. And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice* Ender

 

[Ender]

*The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
(2267, 2cd edition, 1997)

Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. The traditional teaching of the church** has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
*(2266, 1st edition, 1992)
It is one thing to claim that church doctrine can change over time but it is a bit disturbing to think that the past can change over time but here we have two different statements about the traditional teaching of the church. The statement in the first edition is accurate; the statement in the second edition is not. Indeed, since they are clearly different it should be apparent that they cannot both true.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

The second edition of the catechism has really muddled what the church teaches about punishment in general and capital punishment in particular. You would not learn it from the section you cited but punishment has four objectives:Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles)
And while it is not immediately obvious, 2266 identifies which objective is primary:* The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder* caused by the offense.
That is - and this is the hard part for most people to accept - the primary objective of all punishment is retribution (retributive justice). The USCCB, which is generally unhelpful in most things, actually provided some clarification on this point:*The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution ***or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment. (1980)
The “order of justice” they refer to is the same as the “disorder” the catechism identifies and by this is meant a good deal more than simply “law and order.” (The “third justifying purpose” does not mean third in importance but merely the third objective they addressed in their unordered list.) Aquinas (of course) is more specific: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 (ST I-II, 87,6)
Where 2267 fails is in suggesting that it is the defense of society that determines the proper punishment when in fact, as a secondary objective, this is incorrect; that determination is made by the primary objective which is retribution.

Ender

What is the best way to restore justice? By killing another human?
Maybe when you live in a tent city on the edge of a war zone, but not in a modern society.

What is the best way to restore justice - by conversion of the sinner and a life of reconciliation/penance. Metanoia - it’s an ancient Christian concept.

That’s precisely why prisons were called penitentiaries.

 

[triumphguy]

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
(2267, 2cd edition, 1997)*

Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
*(2266, 1st edition, 1992)
It is one thing to claim that church doctrine can change over time but it is a bit disturbing to think that the past can change over time but here we have two different statements about the traditional teaching of the church. The statement in the first edition is accurate; the statement in the second edition is not. Indeed, since they are clearly different it should be apparent that they cannot both true.

Ender

Shouldn’t our job as Catholics submitting our will to the Church be one of trying to find the concordance between the two statements, rather than proving that there is discord?

 

[triumphguy]

There can surely be multiple valid conclusions reached on any prudential matter and while I believe the practical opposition to capital punishment is in error, that’s all I believe it to be. There is no moral distinction between the side that supports its use and the side that opposes it.
To say there are some people who support capital punishment for personal gain is probably true but is surely irrelevant. I’m sure there are people who oppose it for improper reasons as well but that doesn’t add any strength to my arguments. What I strongly oppose is the idea that opposing capital punishment is higher up on the moral scale than supporting it, and the validity of that position is unaffected by those whose position is determined by self advancement.

Argue however you will that we are better off without capital punishment than with it; that’s an acceptable position to take, but it is not acceptable to assert that opposing it is morally preferable to supporting it. That position is not sustainable except by erasing or condemning the Traditional teaching of the church.

Ender

I take the stand that preserving ANY life is ALWAYS morally preferable to ending life - all other things being equal.

Like I teach kids at my school - if you can’t make it what gives you the right to think you can break it (when I see them being rough or careless with things).

The state is taking lives every day in my name, and I am not about to overturn the state, but my own part in the democratic process means that I have a voice. I am increasingly less sure that the state is acting in the interests of its citizens as it is, I do not trust that the state executes justice fairly and equitably either - or indeed competently. However, while democratic institutions remain and the infrastructure exists the state does not need to have recourse to execution for retribution, for rehabilitation, for deterrence or for any other reason.

Nothing can trump he fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and if I’m going to err I’ll err on this side of the argument rather than any other.

Not that I say I’m wrong, since I read the 2 versions of the CCC as being in line with each other:

The state has the right…
but should only exercise that right in dire circumstances.

 

[Brendan]

What is the best way to restore justice? By killing another human?
.

Justice, according to Aquinas, is the Virtue by which we give to another what they are due.

Either the crime is capital, and the punishment due is capital, or it is not.

Justice, by definition, would be to enact the punishment due for the commission of the crime.

We saw that in last Sunday’s Gospel in the words of St. Dismus

Have you no fear of God,
for you are subject to the same condemnation?
And indeed, we have been condemned justly,
for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes,

So the general answer is yes, Justice IS sometimes served by the death of a person.

 

[pnewton]

What is the official position of the Church on the death penalty and if there is, is it dogmatic?

I think you have hear good links to the doctrine of the Church. Now, whether the death penalty is moral in a given time and a given country for a given situation is a matter of ethics. The result can change though the principle remains. I would say that if you do not want to put in the time on this that some have, you can choose who you wish to trust. I have always believed we should look first to those who God has given use as shepherds, because that is what sheep do. We should then try and reason within ourselves and understand the mind of the Church.

Posters here are a distant, … last. Too political.

 

[Ender]

What I was comparing were the statements about the traditional teaching of the church in the two versions. Whatever else was said one would expect that the traditional teaching would remain the same but that is not the case. In the 1992 version there is no claim that the traditional teaching included the caveat that capital punishment was appropriate only when it was needed to protect society. The 1992 version correctly sets forth the traditional teaching, the 1997 version does not.The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.
(Kevin L. Flannery, S.J. Professor, Pontifical Gregorian Univ., Rome)
Ender

 

[The_Bucket]

Ah this subject again. Lovely.

Ender, no one is arguing that the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the death penalty when it is carried out justly against someone who is clearly guilty of the most grievous crimes.

The Church nevertheless notes that civil authorities should find ways to avoid this punishment if it can still maintain the safety of the public in order to allow the convicted criminal time to repent. I don’t see the disconnect there.

What is justice after all? What is human justice and is it always just? Is it even frequently just? I would dare say no. That is why we are called to emulate the mercy of God in our daily lives and not His justice.

We as human beings are incapable of delivering perfect justice. This is why we do not have the right to condemn anyone or judge anyone’s soul. We are not omnipotent, we are not omniscient, we are not both all-merciful and all-just. The Church is right to emphasize this in its teaching on the death penalty.

 

[triumphguy]

Justice, according to Aquinas, is the Virtue by which we give to another what they are due.

Either the crime is capital, and the punishment due is capital, or it is not.

Justice, by definition, would be to enact the punishment due for the commission of the crime.

We saw that in last Sunday’s Gospel in the words of St. Dismus

So the general answer is yes, Justice IS sometimes served by the death of a person.

Yes, that’s ONE version of justice.

 

[Ender]

What is the best way to restore justice - by conversion of the sinner and a life of reconciliation/penance. Metanoia - it’s an ancient Christian concept.

Retribution is concerned with justice, rehabilitation is not; they are completely different concepts. 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)
Acts of sin deserve punishment; that is the demand of justice and justice is not satisfied otherwise. Assume that a person commits a murder and then fully repents of his crime: should he be punished or not? If the objective is solely the conversion of the criminal the task is completed and punishment would be superfluous but if the primary objective is justice then the punishment is still necessary. Forgiveness of the sin does not erase the necessity of punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What is the official position of the Church on the death penalty and if there is, is it dogmatic?

“There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.” (Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ender, no one is arguing that the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the death penalty when it is carried out justly against someone who is clearly guilty of the most grievous crimes.

It would aid this discussion if there was a better understanding of why the church considers capital punishment to be legitimate; that really is where much of the disagreement lies.

The Church nevertheless notes that civil authorities should find ways to avoid this punishment if it can still maintain the safety of the public in order to allow the convicted criminal time to repent. I don’t see the disconnect there.

This disconnect results from choosing different objectives of punishment as primary. Our perspective on the death penalty is affected by what we think is the most important objective and if different objectives are chosen we will inevitably have different opinions about the use of capital punishment. The problem is that the church has stated that the primary objective is retribution while 2267 infers that it is protection. This is the disconnect.

What is justice after all?

This is not complicated. Justice is no more than treating people the way they deserve to be treated based on their actions; good actions deserve rewards, bad actions deserve punishment.

That is why we are called to emulate the mercy of God in our daily lives and not His justice.

These are not mutually exclusive virtues; indeed, it cannot be said that one virtue can cause another to be ignored.Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?
A. God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. (Baltimore Catechism)

We as human beings are incapable of delivering perfect justice. This is why we do not have the right to condemn anyone or judge anyone’s soul.

This is an argument against all punishment and surely you cannot believe nothing should be punished.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

The problem is that the church has stated that the primary objective is retribution…

I think not. “Redressing disorder” is not “retribution”.