Death penalty “difficult to justify” in modern age, Church reaffirms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just my two cents: I’m against the death penalty simply for purely intuitive, gut reasons. It just SEEMS wrong!

And then you can add up the technical and practical findings that support and end to this practice.

I don’t often have an intuitive sense of justice on things, but here I do.
 
Just my two cents: I’m against the death penalty simply for purely intuitive, gut reasons. It just SEEMS wrong!

And then you can add up the technical and practical findings that support and end to this practice.

I don’t often have an intuitive sense of justice on things, but here I do.
Hmm, but others might have an purely intuitive, gut reason, to support the death penalty.
 
I support the use of the death penalty as not only appropriate but necessary to satisfy the demands of justice which require a punishment proportionate to the crime.

This aspect of punishment and the nature of justice have been skimpily addressed, and are in fact ignored in the section of the Catechism relating to the death penalty. I am sure we are all aware that morality does not change over time so whatever punishment justice demanded in the past is equally true today; there is no such thing as a “modern age” exception.

Ender
 
‘Cafeteria’ Catholism occurs when the Catholic disagrees with ANY of these points.
Why is that? Does the Church require us to believe his theory that retribution is a purpose of the criminal justice system?
 
Why is that? Does the Church require us to believe his theory that retribution is a purpose of the criminal justice system?
No, what is required is the fact that in certain circumstances the death penalty is justified which the CCC states.

To deny that and attempt to raise the death penalty to the same level as abortion is to be a cafetria Catholic.

I believe that is what Brendan is saying.
 
‘Cafeteria’ Catholism occurs when the Catholic disagrees with ANY of these points.
I usually assume that one side has run out of arguments when the name calling starts. You may consider me a cafeteria Catholic (and frankly, Scarlett …) but it appears that the pope doesn’t.

Deal with the issues, if you can. Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB have all said that the teaching on capital punishment is prudential. This means that we are not bound to accept it, only that we are required to give it serious consideration.

I believe linking executions solely to the issue of protecting society is an error and ignores the Church’s traditional teaching on punishment. The following quotes are from a document called “Crime and Punishment, A Catholic Perspective.” This paper is not about capital punishment but about the nature of punishment in general. We have lost the concept of punishment as retribution and I think 2267 of the Catechism will eventually be re-worked.

stjohns.edu/media/3/a994f063bc1b4543bde765a8209e006b.pdf
  • According to Catholic tradition, retribution is the principal and justifying aim of punishment.
  • Regarding criminal punishment, retribution is a demand of justice whereby the criminal is compelled to render his proper due in satisfaction of the order violated by his actions.
  • The primary end of punishment is to redress the disorder the offense introduced in the moral order as a whole. The secondary end of punishment is the restoration of the public and civil order. The tertiary end of punishment, which is closely related to the second, is the defense of public safety. Finally, punishment offers the rehabilitation of the offender himself, which is the restoration of the order within the criminal’s soul.
  • all punishments, even in this life, must be retributive, not simply medicinal, for by its very nature punishment ceases to exist if it is not given according to what the criminal deserves.
  • C.S. Lewis wrote: There is no sense in talking about a ‘just deterrent’ or a ‘just cure.’ We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether.
    Ender
 
I usually assume that one side has run out of arguments when the name calling starts. You may consider me a cafeteria Catholic (and frankly, Scarlett …) but it appears that the pope doesn’t.

Deal with the issues, if you can. Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB have all said that the teaching on capital punishment is prudential. This means that we are not bound to accept it, only that we are required to give it serious consideration.
Which is exactly what Brendan and myself are saying.

Some here though are attempting to raise being against capital punishment to the same level as being against abortion.

One may never be for abortion, the teaching against abortion is more than just prudential. It is absolute. Captital punishment does not fall at the same level.

Hence the comments on cafeteria catholicism.

You are not one if you admit, which you appear to be doing, that a faithful Catholic can, in certain cases, support capitial punishment.
 
You are not {a cafeteria Catholic} if you admit, which you appear to be doing, that a faithful Catholic can, in certain cases, support capitial punishment.
There are two issues here I want to very clearly separate. 2267 states that execution can still be justified in theory - if not in practice. From that an argument can be made that disagreement over the application of capital punishment in a particular case can be justified. That is, Catholics may validly disagree over whether the execution of (e.g.) Hussein met the criteria laid out in 2267. I certainly accept that explanation.

Beyond this, however, I am claiming much more. I disagree with the criteria defined in 2267; I think they fail to take into account the historical tradition of the Church on the nature of punishment and justice. I also claim, based on comments from Ratzinger, Dulles, and the USCCB, that 2267 is a prudential teaching and that I may validly hold this position as well.

Ender
 
One may never be for abortion, the teaching against abortion is more than just prudential. It is absolute. Captital punishment does not fall at the same level.
I think this is very clear. It is entirely permissible to hold the view that capital punishment should be allowed in one’s nation. This does not mean that it is prudent public policy to have the death penalty. Rather it is a matter for moral and political discussion, which could justly lead to the abolition of capital punishment.
 
4000 abortions take place daily typically in the United States.

What is the equivalent daily execution number?

How many column inches of ink are devoted to capital punishment versus abortions?
 
It’s pretty clear to me that if you support the DP that makes you a cafeteria Catholic. Since we know the Church’s position on this, and it’s an issue of life, wouldn’t supporting the DP be mortal sin?
Not at all. Catholics are free to make up their own minds on capital pubishment.
  1. 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, withguidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows:* June, 2004 *“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.” catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
    Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004
2)* Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000, "At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate’s power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (Jn 19:1 l).Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Lk 23:41). "
*
“Paul repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to the Romans with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate who holds authority does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4). No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.”
*
“Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners.”
*
"The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment. "
*
“Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death.”
*
"The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime. Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the Consistent Ethic of Life here at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the classical position that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.
*
"Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. "

(“The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?” at pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3
NOTE: although Dulles makes palpable errors of fact and logic within the sections “The Purposes of Punishment” and “Harm Attributed to the Death Penalty”, it is, otherwise, a solid historical treatment of the Church and the death penalty)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top