Church Teachings on the Death Penalty

[devoutchristian]

I have no desire to go in circles with one with an agenda of promoting the death penatly. I only go around once then quit once I am convinced and see what I deem to be a logical disconnect. You will never change. I am more interested in understanding the mind of the Church.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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

It’s against it.

A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity; and that is something that must always be taken into account.

-John XXIII in Pacem in Terris 158

I would reiterate that the ends of justice in today’s world seem better served by not resorting to the death penalty. “Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform” (Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 27). While civil societies have a duty to be just, they also have an obligation to be merciful.

-John Paul II to the Ambassador of the Philippines

“God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things that they might exist” (Wis 1:13-14).

Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth.

-Evangelium Vitae 9

"Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide"
-St. Ambrose (De Cain et Abel, II, 10, 38: CSEL, 32, 408.)

Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty . . . This model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message» (Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia In America, 63).

 

[Ender]

I agree - but does that mean that ONLY capital punishment is just retribution for murder?

Good question, and I think this gets to the heart of the controversy. First of all we know that capital punishment is **a **just punishment for murder. If it wasn’t we would have to admit that the church behaved unjustly for 2000 years and that she was in fact wrong in labeling as heresy the claim that it was immoral to inflict this punishment (which she did at least twice in the past).

Second, there should be no disagreement that, even if capital punishment was the only just punishment for murder, there could still be practical reasons for not imposing it in particular situations. The fact that there are exceptions to the rule does not change the rule itself.

So, to your question, how do we determine whether capital punishment should be the default punishment to be imposed absent extenuating circumstances? I think in order to demonstrate this it is necessary to show that this is what the church teaches. We know that punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the sin (2266), which still doesn’t necessarily insist on the death penalty but does necessarily justify - and mandate - harsher punishments for graver crimes.

The argument is often made that capital punishment is contrary to the dignity of the human person but I think this position is hard to sustain. Again, the church explicitly supported the state’s use of the death penalty (and used it herself) for century upon century and this argument would condemn 2000 years of church behavior. An even stronger argument against this position is that it appears to misunderstand what it means to strip a person of his dignity.

Punishment is justified only if it is deserved and to punish a person less than he deserves is to diminish his responsibility for his own actions - and that is an affront to his dignity because it is to treat him as less than fully human. If a bear kills a person he is put down not because he deserves to die but simply because he is dangerous; a person on the other hand is justly executed not because he is dangerous but only if he deserves the punishment.

It is in fact the argument from dignity that supports capital punishment because it is the only punishment that acknowledges the full extent and nature of the crime. That is, it is the nature of the victim - that he was made in God’s image - that makes the crime so terrible. Executing a person because “*he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself” *(Catechism of Trent) makes one statement about the worth of a life. Executing a person because he is a threat to us makes an entirely different one.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It’s against it.

Not exactly.

Re: John Paul II to the Ambassador of the Philippines - JPII also said: *“Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it.” (Dives in Misericordia) *Nor is any argument to be made that mercy should be extended in every case.

Re: the Book of Wisdom - The church has never cited this passage in reference to capital punishment. The passage she had cited and the one on that formed her position is Gen 9:6.

Re: St. Ambrose - That God spared Cain is a particular anecdote that cannot be universally applied, else we would have to believe he changed his mind when he struck Ananias and Saphira dead for lying. The church fathers were virtually unanimous in their support of capital punishment.

Re: JPII culture of death - I think this is the reason JPII opposed capital punishment. That is, for practical rather than moral reasons.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

Not exactly.

Re: John Paul II to the Ambassador of the Philippines - JPII also said: *“Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it.” (Dives in Misericordia) *Nor is any argument to be made that mercy should be extended in every case.

Maybe I should’ve highlighted this:

I would reiterate that the ends of justice in today’s world seem better served by not resorting to the death penalty.

Re: the Book of Wisdom - The church has never cited this passage in reference to capital punishment. The passage she had cited and the one on that formed her position is Gen 9:6.

John Paul said in The Gospel of Life that “The biblical text is concerned to emphasize how the sacredness of life has its foundation in God and in his creative activity: “For God made man in his own image” (Gen 9:6).”

Re: St. Ambrose - That God spared Cain is a particular anecdote that cannot be universally applied, else we would have to believe he changed his mind when he struck Ananias and Saphira dead for lying. The church fathers were virtually unanimous in their support of capital punishment.

Maybe it can’t be universally applied for all times, but it goes to show that God prefers to show clemency when he can. After all, the Church is calling for a “universal abolition” of the death penalty.

The Church Fathers supported the state’s right to use the death penalty in extreme cases. They didn’t call for it to be used right and left.

Re: JPII culture of death - I think this is the reason JPII opposed capital punishment. That is, for practical rather than moral reasons.

By “moral reasons” do you just mean that the state has the right to use the death penalty? Because the application of the death penalty can’t be stripped of it’s moral consequences.

Here’s the bigger picture of the quote I gave earlier for anyone lurking here who missed it:

Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when other “bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State’s disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender ‘are now very rare, even non-existent practically’”. (229) This model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message. Faced with this distressing reality, the Church community intends to commit itself all the more to the defense of the culture of life.

In this regard, the Synod Fathers, echoing recent documents of the Church’s Magisterium, forcefully restated their unconditional respect for and total dedication to human life from the moment of conception to that of natural death

Ender

Thoughts after reading through most of this thread:

My problem is statements like this (Disagreeing with “me” is nothing less than disagreeing with the Traditional teaching of the church), while then saying this (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.)

You seem to think that you have a better grasp of what the “traditional teaching of the Church” is than Blessed John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Archbishop Levada, Archbishop Schoenborn, and various other members of the hierarchy, all of whom support(ed) the 2nd edition of the Catechism’s revised sections involving capital punishment. And you also try and pit the two editions against each other, as if the strain of thinking behind the two editions is radically different, that what it means isn’t the same. That is a risky path to take, and ultimately not the right one.

 

[triumphguy]

Good question, and I think this gets to the heart of the controversy. First of all we know that capital punishment is a just punishment for murder. If it wasn’t we would have to admit that the church behaved unjustly for 2000 years and that she was in fact wrong in labeling as heresy the claim that it was immoral to inflict this punishment (which she did at least twice in the past).

Maybe it was just in the context of the times, and is no longer just in the context of a modern western state.

Second, there should be no disagreement that, even if capital punishment was the only just punishment for murder, there could still be practical reasons for not imposing it in particular situations. The fact that there are exceptions to the rule does not change the rule itself.

And moral reasons for not imposing it in many contexts.

So, to your question, how do we determine whether capital punishment should be the default punishment to be imposed absent extenuating circumstances? I think in order to demonstrate this it is necessary to show that this is what the church teaches. We know that punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the sin (2266), which still doesn’t necessarily insist on the death penalty but does necessarily justify - and mandate - harsher punishments for graver crimes.

The argument is often made that capital punishment is contrary to the dignity of the human person but I think this position is hard to sustain. Again, the church explicitly supported the state’s use of the death penalty (and used it herself) for century upon century and this argument would condemn 2000 years of church behavior. An even stronger argument against this position is that it appears to misunderstand what it means to strip a person of his dignity.

Punishment is justified only if it is deserved and to punish a person less than he deserves is to diminish his responsibility for his own actions - and that is an affront to his dignity because it is to treat him as less than fully human. If a bear kills a person he is put down not because he deserves to die but simply because he is dangerous; a person on the other hand is justly executed not because he is dangerous but only if he deserves the punishment.

Many may deserve death., but whether it is just for our society to administer the death sentence may be quite a different question!

It is in fact the argument from dignity that supports capital punishment because it is the only punishment that acknowledges the full extent and nature of the crime. That is, it is the nature of the victim - that he was made in God’s image - that makes the crime so terrible. Executing a person because “*he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself” *(Catechism of Trent) makes one statement about the worth of a life. Executing a person because he is a threat to us makes an entirely different one.

Ender

 

[Ender]

John Paul said in The Gospel of Life that “The biblical text is concerned to emphasize how the sacredness of life has its foundation in God and in his creative activity: “For God made man in his own image” (Gen 9:6).”

Are you unaware that this statement in Genesis is not presented merely to explain the sacredness of human life but rather is given as the reason why murderers are to be executed? *“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” *

After all, the Church is calling for a “universal abolition” of the death penalty.

It is true that the last two popes and most bishops are opposed to the use of capital punishment but this is not at all the same as saying that church doctrine is now opposed to its use. The doctrine has not changed.

The Church Fathers supported the state’s right to use the death penalty in extreme cases. They didn’t call for it to be used right and left.

Nor have I. If you are confident of your position you should have no reason to exaggerate mine.

By “moral reasons” do you just mean that the state has the right to use the death penalty?

I mean that the use of capital punishment is no more opposed by church doctrine now than it was in the past.

My problem is statements like this (Disagreeing with “me” is nothing less than disagreeing with the Traditional teaching of the church), while then saying this (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.)

Do you deny that the statements in the two catechisms are different?

Ender

 

[Ender]

triumphguy:

Maybe it was just in the context of the times, and is no longer just in the context of a modern western state.

Here is Fr. John Hardon citing Pius XII on this very point:Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).

Many may deserve death., but whether it is just for our society to administer the death sentence may be quite a different question!

I don’t think the question is whether it is just to administer a just punishment but whether it is the best thing to do in the circumstances. We might agree that the punishment is just but we also might observe that society might see it as unjust which might well make it unwise not to apply it. I can accept that it may be unwise but I cannot accept that it is therefore unjust.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

Are you unaware that this statement in Genesis is not presented merely to explain the sacredness of human life but rather is given as the reason why murderers are to be executed? *“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” *

No, it’s the reason murderers can be executed under extreme circumstances, not why they are to be executed.

It is true that the last two popes and most bishops are opposed to the use of capital punishment but this is not at all the same as saying that church doctrine is now opposed to its use. The doctrine has not changed.

The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemned to death.
The Pope had most earnestly hoped and prayed that a worldwide moratorium might have been among the spiritual and moral benefits of the Great Jubilee which he proclaimed for the Year Two Thousand, so that dawn of the Third Millennium would have been remembered forever as the pivotal moment in history when the community of nations finally recognised that it now possesses the means to defend itself without recourse to punishments which are “cruel and unnecessary”. This hope remains strong but it is unfulfilled, and yet there is encouragement in the growing awareness that “it is time to abolish the death penalty”.
It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.
Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.

-DECLARATION OF THE HOLY SEE 
TO THE FIRST WORLD CONGRESS 
ON THE DEATH PENALTY

Do you deny that the statements in the two catechisms are different?

Ender

Do you deny that JPII and Benedict XVI understand traditional Church teaching?

 

[ljwahn]

Ah, “The Seamless Garment” is alive and well.

 

[triumphguy]

Ah, “The Seamless Garment” is alive and well.

Do you actually have an argument or discussion point to contribute?

You can argue against the death penalty in modern western nations without subscribing to the “seamless garment.”

You can also be anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and anti-death penalty (all at the same time!!! I know!!!) without subscribing to the “seamless garment” theology.

 

[Ender]

No, it’s the reason murderers can be executed under extreme circumstances, not why they are to be executed.

That isn’t what the passage says. Death is not suggested as an option, it is given as an obligation.*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. (St. Bellarmine)

Do you deny that JPII and Benedict XVI understand traditional Church teaching?

I have several times explained that there may be prudential reasons for not applying capital punishment and that this is almost surely the objection the popes had to its use.

But none of this applies to the assertion I made to which you so strongly objected. There are major differences between the 1992 version of the catechism and the 1997 version. Both have statements about the Traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment and those statements are different and therefore cannot be equally correct. The claim made in the 1997 version is the one that is inaccurate.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

That isn’t what the passage says. Death is not suggested as an option, it is given as an obligation.*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. (St. Bellarmine)

A punishment that is proportionate to the crime is an obligation. That doesn’t have to mean death for a murderer. Life in prison is proportionate to the crime of murder.

But none of this applies to the assertion I made to which you so strongly objected. There are major differences between the 1992 version of the catechism and the 1997 version. Both have statements about the Traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment and those statements are different and therefore cannot be equally correct. The claim made in the 1997 version is the one that is inaccurate.

Ender

So because the statements aren’t exactly the same one has to be wrong? It’s like saying: X or Y. But X is right so Y isn’t.

 

[CrossofChrist]

1. Nowhere is the contrast between the Gospel vision and contemporary culture more obvious than in the dramatic conflict between the culture of life and the culture of death. I do not wish to end this series of meetings without once more thanking the Bishops for their leadership and advocacy in support of human life, particularly the lives of the most vulnerable. The Church in your country reaches out in the defense and promotion of human life and human dignity in numerous ways. Through countless organizations and agencies she is an immensely generous provider of social services to the poor; active in support of laws more favorable to the immigrant, present in the public debate on capital punishment, aware that in the modern state the cases in which the execution of an offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 56; Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2267).

-ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER 
POPE JOHN PAUL II
 TO THE BISHOPS OF THE EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE 
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 (NEW ENGLAND AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL PROVINCES
OF BOSTON AND HARTFORD)

I think US Catholics should take it to heart when the Pope puts capital punishment on the side of the culture of death.

 

[Ender]

A punishment that is proportionate to the crime is an obligation.

Yes, we agree on this.

That doesn’t have to mean death for a murderer. Life in prison is proportionate to the crime of murder.

This is the point triumphguy raised when he asked whether execution was the only adequate punishment for murder. Simply stating that life in prison is proportionate to the crime isn’t very convincing, nor do we in fact even impose that much of a punishment. The average sentence for murder seems to be about 13 years. Given your response above, are you recommending that all murderers be sentenced to life without parole? Is it your position that life in prison is as severe a punishment as being executed? If you’re going to assert something you should at least provide some rationale to support your position.

So because the statements aren’t exactly the same one has to be wrong? It’s like saying: X or Y. But X is right so Y isn’t.

It is not simply that the two statements aren’t exactly the same; the differences are quite significant. In speaking of the Traditional teaching of the church the 1997 version says it:*
**"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."
*The 1992 version says only that:
*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.
*The caveat in the 1997 version that limits capital punishment to its need for defense was no part of the 1992 version. More to the point, it is not in fact part of the Traditional teaching of the church. Nowhere in anything I have yet seen from any pope, earlier catechism, or the Fathers or Doctors of the church has ever conditioned the use of the death penalty on its necessity for protection. The claim the 1997 catechism makes quite simply appears to be wrong.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

That isn’t what the passage says. Death is not suggested as an option, it is given as an obligation.*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. (St. Bellarmine)
I have several times explained that there may be prudential reasons for not applying capital punishment and that this is almost surely the objection the popes had to its use.

But none of this applies to the assertion I made to which you so strongly objected. There are major differences between the 1992 version of the catechism and the 1997 version. Both have statements about the Traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment and those statements are different and therefore cannot be equally correct. The claim made in the 1997 version is the one that is inaccurate.

Ender

St. Bellarmine, worthy though he is, is not the repository of all Church teaching.

And Fr. Hardon SJ, worthy commentator though he was, was prone to huge lapses of discretion.

I’ll stick with the thoughts of the last few Popes and the CCC.

 

[Ender]

I agree - but does that mean that ONLY capital punishment is just retribution for murder?

I want to come back to this question again since I think it is the key to the discussion.

The church’s position on capital punishment is based on two scripture passages: Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4. The first explains why capital punishment is necessary and the second explains why the state is justified in applying it. Throughout church history one can find allusions to those passages when this topic was addressed and the same position was expressed with uniformity and consistency.

Most of the comments simply acknowledge the justness of the punishment and the right of states to apply it without actually asserting that it ought to be applied, although several Doctors of the Church, Bellarmine (who I cited earlier), Liguori, and Canisius all acknowledged it as an obligation of the state.*It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority: it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it; and it is the duty of the officers of justice to execute the sentence ; God himself wishes malefactors to be punished. *(Liguori)

*And in another place God’s own voice doth testify. “Whoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed also, for to the image of God was man made.” The kingly psalmist singeth: “Men of blood shall not live half their days.” For this is a very heinous wickedness, and he doeth a most horrible injury to his neighbor, that bereaveth him of his life without lawful authority. For which cause, Christ himself saith also. “All that take the sword, shall perish with the sword.” *(Canisius)
The strongest argument for the position that capital punishment is the appropriate punishment for murder, however, comes from the Catechism of Trent, which was the church’s official catechism for 400 years.

After noting that the use of the death penalty is an act of* “paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder” *it goes on to state: *"*Of these remedies for the disease of murder] the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder." This is the point: how well does the punishment imposed convey society’s sense of the magnitude of the crime? When the sentence was death it was pretty clear that society considered murder a significant crime. What impression does a sentence of 13 years convey?

What has been lost in debates about capital punishment, indeed it is a point that practically never arises, is a sense of the enormity of the crime of murder. Retributive justice is not only not an objective it is seen as objectionable; it is rehabilitation for the poor murderer that sustains our interest… along with protection for ourselves of course.

Gen 9:6 has always been the basis of the church’s understanding of the appropriateness of capital punishment and she has always interpreted it to mean what it plainly says. Whatever practical argument can be made about how its use is counterproductive in modern societies does not change the point Bellarmine made: its use for at least the crime of murder is a *“decree and a precept.”

*Ender

 

[devoutchristian]

When someone continuously advocates the hermunetic of discontinuity, calling authoritative Church teaching a “break with Tradition” and the like, there isn’t really any point in arguing with them anymore.

 

[Ender]

When someone continuously advocates the hermunetic of discontinuity, calling authoritative Church teaching a “break with Tradition” and the like, there isn’t really any point in arguing with them anymore.

There is no argument possible if you simply dismiss comments without engaging in their substance. I have made several specific assertions that neither you nor anyone else has responded to, let alone tried to refute. I’ll list them again if you’d care to address them.

1. The statement about the Traditional teaching of the church made in the 1992 catechism differs significantly from the statement made in the 1997 version.
2. The statement in the 1992 version accords with everything (I have read) in virtually every church document that addresses the issue.
3. There is no (I have not found one) statement that supports the assertion made in the 1997 version other than Evangelium Vitae #56 … which itself points back to CCC 2267.

Ender

 

[devoutchristian]

There is no argument possible if you simply dismiss comments without engaging in their substance. I have made several specific assertions that neither you nor anyone else has responded to, let alone tried to refute. I’ll list them again if you’d care to address them.

1. The statement about the Traditional teaching of the church made in the 1992 catechism differs significantly from the statement made in the 1997 version.
2. The statement in the 1992 version accords with everything (I have read) in virtually every church document that addresses the issue.
3. There is no (I have not found one) statement that supports the assertion made in the 1997 version other than Evangelium Vitae #56 … which itself points back to CCC 2267.

Ender

1. Big whoop. The two versions phrase it slightly differently.
2. The two versions are not substantially different.
3. Aside from the already stated fact that the two versions are not substantially different, magesterial teachings are owed religious assent, aside from the strength of their arguments.