Conservative catholics and the death penalty

[Kendy]

I am little confused and frustrated by catholics on the left and the right arguing their way out of the church’s moral teachings. Last night I was reading Commonweal, where there was an article justifying birth control and gay unions. Today, I turn to First Things to find catholics saying that the church’s teaching on the death penalty is not the church’s teaching. What’s a girl to do?

Anyway, I would like you to consider this article on Scalia, whose reasonings I find to be generally sound, but I am wary of his claim that the passage from the catechism about the death penalty is not indeed the church’s teaching.

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html

It will come as no surprise from what I have said that I do not agree with the encyclical Evangelium Vitae and the new Catholic catechism (or the very latest version of the new Catholic catechism), according to which the death penalty can only be imposed to protect rather than avenge, and that since it is (in most modern societies) not necessary for the former purpose, it is wrong. That, by the way, is how I read those documents—and not, as Avery Cardinal Dulles would read them, simply as an affirmation of two millennia of Christian teaching that retribution is a proper purpose (indeed, the principal purpose) of criminal punishment, but merely adding the “prudential judgment” that in modern circumstances condign retribution “rarely if ever” justifies death. (See “Catholicism & Capital Punishment,” FT, April 2001.) I cannot square that interpretation with the following passage from the encyclical:

So I take the encyclical and the latest, hot–off–the–presses version of the catechism (a supposed encapsulation of the “deposit” of faith and the Church’s teaching regarding a moral order that does not change) to mean that retribution is not a valid purpose of capital punishment. Unlike such other hard Catholic doctrines as the prohibition of birth control and of abortion, this is not a moral position that the Church has always—or indeed ever before—maintained. There have been Christian opponents of the death penalty, just as there have been Christian pacifists, but neither of those positions has ever been that of the Church. The current predominance of opposition to the death penalty is the legacy of Napoleon, Hegel, and Freud rather than St. Paul and St. Augustine. I mentioned earlier Thomas More, who has long been regarded in this country as the patron saint of lawyers, and who has recently been declared by the Vatican the patron saint of politicians (I am not sure that is a promotion). One of the charges leveled by that canonized saint’s detractors was that, as Lord Chancellor, he was too quick to impose the death penalty.

I am therefore happy to learn from the canonical experts I have consulted that the position set forth in Evangelium Vitae and in the latest version of the Catholic catechism does not purport to be binding teaching—that is, it need not be accepted by practicing Catholics, though they must give it thoughtful and respectful consideration. It would be remarkable to think otherwise—that a couple of paragraphs in an encyclical almost entirely devoted not to crime and punishment but to abortion and euthanasia was intended authoritatively to sweep aside (if one could) two thousand years of Christian teaching.

 

[fix]

I am little confused and frustrated by catholics on the left and the right arguing their way out of the church’s moral teachings. Last night I was reading Commonweal, where there was an article justifying birth control and gay unions. Today, I turn to First Things to find catholics saying that the church’s teaching on the death penalty is not the church’s teaching. What’s a girl to do?

Well, the Church has stated specifically that contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil. There is no question about that. The Church has said homosexual civil unions should not be supported or encouraged or justified in law.

The death penalty debate is more nuanced. The CCC says:

***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.

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 are more in conformity to 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 definitely 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.”
*
The first paragraph is constant Church teaching. The penalty is not intrinsically wrong. The other 2 paragraphs seem to be the debated points. They may be a prudential matter, the question is does it bind everyone’s conscience to reject the penalty in every single case these days.

 

[Kendy]

Well, the Church has stated specifically that contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil. There is no question about that. The Church has said homosexual civil unions should not be supported or encouraged or justified in law.

The death penalty debate is more nuanced. The CCC says:

***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.

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 are more in conformity to 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 definitely 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.”

The first paragraph is constant Church teaching. The penalty is not intrinsically wrong. The other 2 paragraphs seem to be the debated points. They may be a prudential matter, the question is does it bind everyone’s conscience to reject the penalty in every single case these days.

I am not sure what is “nuanced”, which I interpret as unclear about the last last two paragraphs. It is saying quite clearly, don’t employ the death penalty if you have any other means.

Kendy

 

[fix]

I am not sure what is “nuanced”, which I interpret as unclear about the last last two paragraphs. It is saying quite clearly, don’t employ the death penalty if you have any other means.

Kendy

It has been suggested that part of the CCC is a prudential judgement that should not have been included. Who gets to decide if the other means are sufficient?

Dulles believes that section 2267 and “Evangelium Vitae” are not Church teaching, in the proper meaning of the term, but reflect the “prudential judgment” of John Paul II.

Whether a society’s penal system is capable of protecting its citizens adequately without recourse to the death penalty is not really a matter of doctrine. It is a matter of the evaluation of the existing social situation. One can make a case that our current penal system succeeds in this–or that it fails in this.

Fr. George Rutler, also writing in the “Register,” agrees with Dulles’s view but is even more critical of what he terms the “problematic” decision to put a prudential judgment into a catechetical text. He and Dulles emphasize that there is a clear distinction between Church teachings and the prudential judgments of a pope.

All Catholics must subscribe to the former, but Catholics are free to disagree with the latter, since prudential judgments are not under the charism of infallibility and are not themselves authoritative pronouncements of the magisterium. While they may relate to doctrines of faith and morals, they are neither one nor the other.
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

 

[fix]

You may want to see this recent piece as well:

Catholics are required, in defined circumstances, to believe with theological faith certain assertions by the Roman pontiff and the College of Bishops, and they are required to give a religious submission of will and intellect to other such assertions, but in each case the propositions must concern faith or morals. (See the commentary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Professio Fidei available here). This is not to say that Catholics may ignore the Roman pontiff or the bishops on other issues. Quite the contrary: Catholics must consider what they say with great respect, but they must do so in the process of forming their own judgments on such matters…

…many Catholics, even highly educated ones, are so poorly catechized that they don’t distinguish between statements they are required to believe with theological faith, statements to which they ought give a religious submission of will and intellect, and other statements that they need only respect and consider in forming their own judgments…

…the Church does not teach that the death penalty is wrong per se. On the contrary, the Church teaches that sometimes, depending on the circumstances, the death penalty is permissible, and sometimes, depending on the circumstances, the death penalty is not permissible. So far we’re in the realm of morals; hence, depending on whether this teaching is definitive or not, Catholics must accept it either in theological faith or with a religious submission of will and intellect. When the bishops go further, however, and make claims about whether actual circumstances in the world are such as to make some particular application of the death penalty right or wrong, we are in the realm of empirical judgments about circumstances, and these judgments are not matters of faith and morals…

firstthings.com/

 

[Kendy]

It has been suggested that part of the CCC is a prudential judgement that should not have been included. Who gets to decide if the other means are sufficient?

But it was included so we have to deal with it. I don’t think it is unreasonable to decide that other means are sufficient. Often people make it seem fuzzy so that they don’t deal with it, but I would say that the United States is capable of protecting society from criminals through very secure incarceration.

Kendy

 

[fix]

But it was included so we have to deal with it. I don’t think it is unreasonable to decide that other means are sufficient. Often people make it seem fuzzy so that they don’t deal with it, but I would say that the United States is capable of protecting society from criminals through very secure incarceration.

Kendy

My point was that the decision is made by secular authorities. The inclusion of those two paragraphs does not mean each Catholic is bound to reject every single instance of captial punishment. Again, who decides if the means are sufficient?

 

[Kendy]

You may want to see this recent piece as well:

I read this this morning. That’s how I stumbled on the Scalia piece.

 

[fix]

I read this this morning. That’s how I stumbled on the Scalia piece.

Sorry, yes I saw that. BTW, I am generally against the use of C.P. I just wonder why so many come to the conclusion it is always wrong when the Church has not said that it is always wrong, so far.

 

[Kendy]

My point was that the decision is made by secular authorities. The inclusion of those two paragraphs does not mean each Catholic is bound to reject every single instance of captial punishment.

But it would seem to me that each catholic is bound to determine honestly if other means are available and if other means have been exhausted then they may seek the death penalty. It would be difficult to argue that in the United States others means are not plentiful.

It seems to me that catholics who for whatever reason, like the death penalty just rationalize their way out of this clause.

Kendy

 

[fix]

But it would seem to me that each catholic is bound to determine honestly if other means are available and if other means have been exhausted then they may seek the death penalty. It would be difficult to argue that in the United States others means are not plentiful.

Kendy

I am sympathetic to the argument other means are sufficient. I suggest that those in civil authority have the obligation to make this determination. They may err, but they are the authority.

 

[Kendy]

Sorry, yes I saw that. BTW, I am generally against the use of C.P. I just wonder why so many come to the conclusion it is always wrong when the Church has not said that it is always wrong, so far.

Well, I think partly because they grew up under JPII who could never find an instance where it was right, and many cardinals seem to be against it, and I think some of the things Scalia said about democracy are also valid.

I also find that that for catholics who like CP, they can never find an instance where it is wrong.

 

[Della]

But it would seem to me that each catholic is bound to determine honestly if other means are available and if other means have been exhausted then they may seek the death penalty. It would be difficult to argue that in the United States others means are not plentiful.

It seems to me that catholics who for whatever reason, like the death penalty just rationalize their way out of this clause.

Kendy

I have no problem with any of the statements in the Catechism, nor do I see a need to nuance my way around any of it. I do think, though, that many people have hardened themselves into their pro or con positions in a way not suggested by the teaching in the Catechism, which is unnecessary to do.

Also, the authority to decide if an offender will receive the death penalty is left to local governments. What the Church is saying is that governments ought to take in account whether or not the goals they have in applying the death penalty cannot be met by secure incarceration. So, it is up to the civil authorities to decide the matter.

I can’t figure out why Catholics think they have to “take a stand” on either side of the issue when the Church clearly leaves it up to the civil authorities to decide and does not forbid the use of the death penalty outright (which it cannot do since it is not intrinsically evil).

And finally, when a civil authority decides the death penalty does apply and ought to be used, it is seeking JUSTICE and PROTECTION, not revenge, or avenging anything. No one can return the life/lives of those killed by the aggressor, nor can civil authority make him pay in a spiritual sense. All it can do is render proper punishment upon his mortal body, be that the death penalty or incarceration. It is not the duty of civil authority to judge a man’s soul, but to bring justice and protection to its citizens. And that is the real issue here not whether or not the death penalty is intrinsically evil (which is isn’t), as are direct abortion and deliberate euthanasia of the disabled and elderly.

 

[fix]

I have no problem with any of the statements in the Catechism, nor do I see a need to nuance my way around any of it. I do think, though, that many people have hardened themselves into their pro or con positions in a way not suggested by the teaching in the Catechism, which is unnecessary to do.

Also, the authority to decide if an offender will receive the death penalty is left to local governments. What the Church is saying is that governments ought to take in account whether or not the goals they have in applying the death penalty cannot be met by secure incarceration. So, it is up to the civil authorities to decide the matter.

I can’t figure out why Catholics think they have to “take a stand” on either side of the issue when the Church clearly leaves it up to the civil authorities to decide and does not forbid the use of the death penalty outright (which it cannot do since it is not intrinsically evil).

And finally, when a civil authority decides the death penalty does apply and ought to be used, it is seeking JUSTICE and PROTECTION, not revenge, or avenging anything. No one can return the life/lives of those killed by the aggressor, nor can civil authority make him pay in a spiritual sense. All it can do is render proper punishment upon his mortal body, be that the death penalty or incarceration. It is not the duty of civil authority to judge a man’s soul, but to bring justice and protection to its citizens. And that is the real issue here not whether or not the death penalty is intrinsically evil (which is isn’t), as are direct abortion and deliberate euthanasia of the disabled and elderly.

I agree with most of this, but I think the state does have an obligation to achieve just retribution. That is not being vindictive, but restoring proper order is important.

 

[Kendy]

I can’t figure out why Catholics think they have to “take a stand” on either side of the issue when the Church clearly leaves it up to the civil authorities to decide and does not forbid the use of the death penalty outright (which it cannot do since it is not intrinsically evil).

This statement baffles. We live in a democracy, and thus have a responsibility to “take a stand” on issues so that civil authorities can implement our will. In a democracy, the citizen never leaves anything solely to civil authorities since, for better or worse, the citizen is the civil authorities. Officials only act on our behalf.

And finally, when a civil authority decides the death penalty does apply and ought to be used, it is seeking JUSTICE and PROTECTION, not revenge, or avenging anything. No one can return the life/lives of those killed by the aggressor, nor can civil authority make him pay in a spiritual sense. All it can do is render proper punishment upon his mortal body, be that the death penalty or incarceration. It is not the duty of civil authority to judge a man’s soul, but to bring justice and protection to its citizens. And that is the real issue here not whether or not the death penalty is intrinsically evil (which is isn’t), as are direct abortion and deliberate euthanasia of the disabled and elderly.

I heard a very good talk on catholic radio in which a priest said that the death penalty does not restore justice because it cannot return life to the victim. In the case of murder, we must await God’s justice. In the mean time, the state can punish the culprit and protect its citizen, but it need not resort to CP to achieve that goal necessarily.

It would seem to me that the catechism calls to use CP as a last resort, as an act of desperation rather than as a matter of standard practice.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

I agree with most of this, but I think the state does have an obligation to achieve just retribution. That is not being vindictive, but restoring proper order is important.

Well, I think we may have to define “just retribution” because to be perfectly honest, I don’t know what that is.

 

[fix]

Well, I think we may have to define “just retribution” because to be perfectly honest, I don’t know what that is.

I was thinking of this:

The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. 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…

Retribution. In principle, guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions. Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins. Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed…

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html

 

[Della]

This statement baffles. We live in a democracy, and thus have a responsibility to “take a stand” on issues so that civil authorities can implement our will. In a democracy, the citizen never leaves anything solely to civil authorities since, for better or worse, the citizen is the civil authorities. Officials only act on our behalf.

I did not mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying is that any civil authority must make these decisions. Sometimes the death penalty ought to be applied and sometimes not. We as citizens have to elect those who will have the wisdom to discern these things. That is our responsibility.

I heard a very good talk on catholic radio in which a priest said that the death penalty does not restore justice because it cannot return life to the victim. In the case of murder, we must await God’s justice. In the mean time, the state can punish the culprit and protect its citizen, but it need not resort to CP to achieve that goal necessarily.

It would seem to me that the catechism calls to use CP as a last resort, as an act of desperation rather than as a matter of standard practice.

Kendy

The justice and protection a civil authority can give can only go so far. But, there must be penalties for harming its citizens/subjects that will bring whatever justice or protection it can.

To me it is those who will not allow the death penalty in any case who are trying to get around the teaching of the Church. They cannot deny the fact that the death penalty is not forbidden nor is it intrinsically evil. Perserving the true teaching of the Church is more important than anyone’s “opinions” on the matter.

 

[Kendy]

I did not mean to imply otherwise. All I was saying is that any civil authority must make these decisions. Sometimes the death penalty ought to be applied and sometimes not. We as citizens have to elect those who will have the wisdom to discern these things. That is our responsibility.

The justice and protection a civil authority can give can only go so far. But, there must be penalties for harming its citizens/subjects that will bring whatever justice or protection it can.

To me it is those who will not allow the death penalty in any case who are trying to get around the teaching of the Church. They cannot deny the fact that the death penalty is not forbidden nor is it intrinsically evil. Perserving the true teaching of the Church is more important than anyone’s “opinions” on the matter.

But the TRUE teaching of the church is that the death penalty should not be used when other means are available. Given the fact that other means are plentiful, it does not seem to me that a catholic who opposes the death penalty in the United States is at odds with church teaching.

 

[Leeta]

Are there other means available? Many times people break out of prison and many times they are paroled or given a light sentence and then return to society to stalk and kill women and children.

We can’t even protect prisoners from being killed by other prisoners. The priest who molested so many children in Boston was murdered by another prisoner within a week of his incarceration. We can’t keep gangs or drugs out of prisons. Do we really have such secure places to keep serial rapists and child molesters away from society?

I find it confusing that the Vatican press office has seemed to determine that the death penalty is always illicit. Are they reading the same Catechism that I am? Yes, JPII believed that we have secure enough prisons or other means, but he still said that the state may execute criminals.
Pedophilia for example is pretty incurable and those people need to be kept away from society, if the death penalty is deemed to be too much.