Confused about right to self defense and death penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter FCS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FCS

Guest
Before I begin, I just want to make it clear that I do not intend to criticize Pope Francis.

The Pope said infallibly that the death penalty is always wrong. I assume that would mean that it would be wrong to execute someone even if not executing them would pose a significant threat to society or people in society. If this is so, how does it square with the teaching that killing in self defense is OK?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I wasn’t aware that Pope Francis said that speaking infallibly. Perhaps he thinks modern society has the means to jail those who are unsafe to ever be allowed in public.
 
That’s what I was thinking-but doesn’t infallible mean that what ever it is is always right or wrong?

Also, I’m not 100 percent sure about whether he said that infallibly, I will have to check.
 
You’re misunderstanding the basis for the Pope’s reasoning, as described here.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/08...s-teaching-on-death-penalty-its-inadmissible/

The Pope said that society had previously permitted the death penalty in cases where non-lethal means weren’t sufficient to protect society from the person. In other words, there wasn’t a good way to make sure he’d stay locked up for life and not kill anybody else. Nowadays we have Supermax prisons, life without parole sentences, etc so we don’t need to kill people in order to make sure they won’t be out committing more murders. A life without parole sentence will effectively accomplish the same thing, and therefore we no longer need the death penalty.

Obviously if a criminal manages to break out of the Supermax and is running around on the lam threatening people, it’s okay to use deadly force to defend yourself against him. Likewise, if a perp comes at you with a gun, it’s okay to defend yourself in any possible way.
 
I wish the Pope had addressed the lives of those who work to keep hardened criminals locked up and out of society. From the quotes in the article above he didn’t mention this aspect of the death penalty at all.

Most of my male relatives work in law enforcement, specifically as correction officers. Some violent felons, particularly those with a life sentence and no chance of parole are a great risk to thier lives every day they work. In some cases they have been seriously injured by an inmate who knows he will never be released, so the state has no more recouse against him (my state doesn’t effectively have the death penalty). Not every officer carries a gun. Not every officer has the ability to use deadly force should the situation arise for self defense. The Pope’s explanation doesn’t address this.
 
FCS said:
If this is so, how does it square with the teaching that killing in self defense is OK?
Click to expand...
Killing in self defense is not the same as capturing, then incarcerating, then putting to trial, the reincarcerating, then executing someone
 
Before the current teaching, it was taught that death penalty was only warranted in circumstances where the criminal would continue as a threat to society.

He, the Pope, is referring to convicted murderers. Not to modern day security types that believe they are themselves the secret jury and the secret judge.
 
Last edited:
First of all, your relatives chose to work as corrections officers, with all the risks that that entailed. If they feel the risk is too great, they can go into another line of work.

Second, it is unlikely that even if we had the death penalty, every person in a prison who is a violent threat to the corrections officers or the other inmates would qualify for it, unless you want to turn the clock back to the days when large numbers of people were executed (sometimes unjustly).

Third, if officers are being placed in danger by violent offenders in the prison system, it sounds to me like that is a failure of the processes of the prison system, not a problem with what the Pope said. He only said it a few months ago and your state obviously didn’t make the decision to not have the death penalty because of anything said by the Pope.
 
Last edited:
Self defense is not intentional killing. It is understood that the offender may receive a fatal wound in the defense of innocent life, but the death is not intentional. From the catechism:
Legitimate defense

[2263] The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
Click to expand...
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Click to expand...
This is identifies and understands the role of civil authority in the defense of innocent life. It is also how civilian police in the US are trained. Stop the threat, using lethal force if necessary, understanding that death may occur - but the intentional taking of life (rather than stopping a threat) is still and always has been homicide.
 
The CAN gain another line of work. But, what’s the cost?

It’s easier said than done.
 
Just to add, “stop the threat” requires probable cause and is due process.
 
OK, so if they want to continue in that line of work, they need to bring the unsafe conditions to their superiors’ attention so they can better protect and defend themselves as they will need to do.

Working in corrections will always expose you to dangerous people. Like I said, most of them wouldn’t even qualify for the death penalty; many have not even committed murder but are still dangerous and violent.
 
I think you mean to “blow the whistle”.

That doesen’t always work in the whistleblower’s favor, but is probably the best moral choice.
 
Stopping a perceived bank robbery or murder in progress requires probable cause.

Let’s see… Bob is probably not going to murder Susan, but Bill decides to shoot Bob to put away a perceived possibility that Bob could murder Susan. How will that play out in Civil Court?
 
Last edited:
ZemD said:
Some violent felons, particularly those with a life sentence and no chance of parole are a great risk to thier lives every day they work.
Click to expand...
I won’t get into the pro- con- aspect of the debate. I have heard from people who work in Corrections, including guards, that lifers are among the best behaved inmates.

As lifers, the system treats them a little bit better. For example, they get cells to themselves, cells in good locations, they have more freedom and opportunities, etc., they want their “community” to be livable, and therefore they are reluctant to do anything that would jeopardize the more lenient treatment they receive.

I’ve even known of them forming charitable organizations to help people on the outside.

Now–they’re lifers for very serious, tragic, horrific reasons. They’re not upstanding citizens. But on the inside, they tend to be model prisoners.

It’s the guys in for short periods who are the most dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Nobody really knows what “inadmissible” means. Which isn’t much of a surprise. It’s what, 4-5 years after Amoris Laetitia, and nobody really knows what the most controversial parts of it mean either. In other words, the recent statements about the death penalty are in line with other pronouncements and opinions offered over the last 6 years: an obvious break with Church teaching and tradition, but somehow sold as something like “evolution” of teaching or “development” of doctrine.
 
Last edited:
JimmyTolder said:
  1. The pope was not speaking infallibly.
  2. The only infallible teachings on the death penalty are that to declare it intrinsically evil are heretical. In other words, anyone who claims that the death penalty is intrinsically evil are in serious error.
  3. The pope did not claim the death penalty is intrinsically evil. He made a prudential judgement about a hypothetical society in which the death penalty was being used unjustly. Understanding that is very important. The new passage in the Catechism (not a teaching) is hypothetical.
  4. Self defense is not the primary justification for the death penalty. Rather it is retributive justice. God established this Law in Genesis when he made His Covenant with Noah.
Click to expand...
It is as ‘hypothetical’ as any other statement the Church has made regarding the death penalty.
 
bobperk said:
Nobody really knows what “inadmissible” means. Which isn’t much of a surprise. It’s what, 4-5 years after Amoris Laetitia, and nobody really knows what the most controversial parts of it mean either. In other words, the recent statements about the death penalty are in line with other pronouncements and opinions offered over the last 6 years: an obvious break with Church teaching and tradition, but somehow sold as something like “evolution” of teaching or “development” of doctrine.
Click to expand...
Is it your position that the rest of the Christian countries of the world have deviated from Catholic teaching over the last century and more for abolishing the death penalty?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top