Death penalty: am I allowed to support it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sibo1952
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sibo1952 said:
I see so many Catholics who are against the death penalty. But am I allowed to support it in the Catholic Church, or is being pro-death penalty a heresy?
Click to expand...
Given that it was a heresy to believe States did not have a moral right to apply capital punishment, it is astonishing to be asked to believe now that the heretics were right.

One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. (St Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 2)
 
Anrakyr said:
We killed prisoners for two reasons; because they were so evil they couldn’t be redeemed. No amount of reform would work.

Second; because the crime was so severe the damage the individual could do if they got out again had to be prevented.
Click to expand...
This is not accurate. The only thing that justifies any punishment is that it is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The state has a duty to apply such punishments, and the severity of the punishment is in no way affected by whether the criminal can be redeemed or whether he presents a future danger.
In the average case, we are talking about your run of the mill murderer (not to downplay murder).
Click to expand...
Actually that is exactly what this position does; it downplays the seriousness of murder. Even in those states which apply it it is usually reserved for murders “with special circumstances.” Clearly this is because “run of the mill” murders are not seen to be that serious. This is in contrast to what the Catechism of Trent taught which was

Of these remedies [for the disease of murder] the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder.

We have in fact pretty much lost all appreciation of the wickedness of murder.
 
Anrakyr said:
We killed prisoners for two reasons…
Click to expand...
Not so much. We execute people for certain crimes because God said that was the appropriate punishment. We then work to try to figure out what might be the reasons it is appropriate in order to try to better understand the mind of God.
 
lil_user said:
Something may not be intrinsically evil but today may be called inadmissible. The Church has this authority.
Click to expand...
If it is not intrinsically evil then inadmissible here means no more than inadvisable. It is a prudential judgment that it ought not be used, not a doctrine that its use is now immoral. Regarding such judgments, while we are obliged to respect them we are not obliged to accept them, and disagreeing with them is not disagreeing with the church.
lil_user said:
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.
Click to expand...
I guess the one good thing to come from the newest change to the catechism is that this statement is no longer there. It doesn’t appear to have been accurate. The need to defend society was never part of the traditional teaching.

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 Flannery SJ, Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)
TK421 said:
Capital punishment isn’t a dogmatic part of the faith the way something like the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union or the Eucharist or Holy Orders or Apostolic Succession are
Click to expand...
I suspect it is a lot more dogmatic than you realize.

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 Hardon, SJ)
Kima said:
I believe it can´t be right that death penalty is intristically evil, like Pope Francis describes it.
Click to expand...
“Inadmissible” implies intrinsic evil but does not state it because such a statement is not possible.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)
 
Ender said:
Actually that is exactly what this position does; it downplays the seriousness of murder. Even in those states which apply it it is usually reserved for murders “with special circumstances.” Clearly this is because “ run of the mill ” murders are not seen to be that serious. This is in contrast to what the Catechism of Trent taught which was

Of these remedies [for the disease of murder] the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder.

We have in fact pretty much lost all appreciation of the wickedness of murder.
Click to expand...
Mens rea exists for a reason, my friend.
Sorry, you are incorrect.
MiserereMeiDei said:
Not so much. We execute people for certain crimes because God said that was the appropriate punishment.
Click to expand...
Back then.
MiserereMeiDei said:
Times change, mortality doesn’t.
Click to expand...
You eat pork yes?
 
Last edited:
Anrakyr said:
Back then
Click to expand...
The nature of the crime hasn’t changed any more than the nature of the death penalty as punishment for it. Time is not relevant.
Anrakyr said:
You eat pork yes?
Click to expand...
Yes. Hilchos kashrus were ceremonial, not moral. I’m also willing to wear shatnez and graft fruit trees and I don’t say brachos after I use the toilet.
 
Intellectually, logically, and morally, I support the death penalty. As a Catholic I am obedient to the Church and her teachings even if I think they have changed or can change. I’m responsible for my obedience here and now. So while I support the death penalty I would never serve on a jury of a case or vote directly for the death penalty. Other than that I really fail to see why this is a big issue.
 
Last edited:
IdaCatholic said:
As a Catholic I am obedient to the Church and her teachings even if I think they have changed or can change.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic I am obedient to the Church and her teachings as well, and I am quite comfortable in my belief that they have not changed because they - in this case - cannot change.
I’m responsible for my obedience here and now.
Click to expand...
As are we all. However the church herself teaches that prudential judgments do not require obedience, so the real question is: which is this change, new doctrine or prudential judgment?
Anrakyr said:
Men’s Rea; the mentality of the murderer.
Click to expand...
Because everyone recognizes that people who kill don’t really understand the gravity of their actions and should therefore not be punished according to its actual severity, but only according to some perceived level of diminished capacity.

That, by the way, is precisely what constitutes an affront to man’s dignity.

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested – even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin (JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia)
 
neophyte said:
I recognise no such thing. In some cases this is true, but only in some.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. It was in response to Anrakyr’s comment: “Men’s Rea; the mentality of the murderer” which suggests a murderer is not fully culpable for his crime because he is not fully capable of understanding its seriousness.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
Fake news. It’s not murder to take the life of an aggressor in defense of another.
Click to expand...
It’s not murder if you attempt to take the life of someone who is attempting to murder YOU. The guards were not attempting to “murder” Jesus, just arrest him. That’s what the text says. That is why Jesus rebuked Peter, and cited Genesis 9:6, which upholds Capital Punishment, long before the Mosaic Law did.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
It’s not murder if you attempt to take the life of someone who is attempting to murder YOU. The guards were not attempting to “murder” Jesus, just arrest him. That’s what the text says. That is why Jesus rebuked Peter, and cited Genesis 9:6, which upholds Capital Punishment, long before the Mosaic Law did.
Click to expand...
There’s so much wrong in what you say that it’s hard to know where to begin.
  1. Everyone knew that the authorities wanted to kill Jesus.
  2. The use of lethal force in defense of another is not murder.
  3. When using lethal force, proper intent is to stop the aggression; proper intent is not to kill the aggressor.
  4. No sound reasoning can support the idea that Scripture teaches that it is wrong to use lethal force to defend onself or others against unjust aggression.
 
neophyte said:
There’s so much wrong in what you say that it’s hard to know where to begin.
  1. Everyone knew that the authorities wanted to kill Jesus.
Click to expand...
That’s not the point. The text says they came to ARREST Him, not murder Him in the spot. The fact Rome was going execute Him the next day, does not condone Peter attempting to murder the Temple guard. Plus, it was ROME, not the Jewish authorities, who were planning on executing Him. Had Peter murdered him, he would have been arrested and executed too. That is why Jesus rebuked him by saying, “he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.” Jesus was advocating Capital Punishment, which was state law in the Roman Empire (Romans Ch. 13). The rest of your points are irrelevant, since they are based on your first false premise.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
The text says they came to ARREST Him, not murder Him in the spot.
Click to expand...
The right to defend against a plot to murder someone begins as soon as the plot is implemented. If a mob comes to drag someone off somewhere to murder them or have them murdered, you can and are morally obligated to start shooting as soon as they make a move to grab him.
RaisedCatholic said:
Plus, it was ROME, not the Jewish authorities, who were planning on executing Him.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Matthew 26, Mark 14, John 11

Peter’s use of the sword was a legitimate use of force in defense of the life of another.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top