Death Penalty, Am I wrong?

[Ray_Scheel]

From what I have read most theologians agree that the reference can be considered prudential judgment. My issue is that whether it’s prudential judgment or not, it’s part of the teachings of the Church, given not only by the Pastor of the Church but carefully chosen to be included in the Catechism; The Teachings of the Church. As such it should be shown due respect, submission and deference. As such, to my way of thinking, it should be shown more respect, more submission and deference than an article in First Things by a Theologian.

A prudential judgment cannot be a “teaching” of the Church. For that matter, anyone actually grasping what was meant by a “prudential judgment” would certainly not try to cast it with a capital letter as one of the “Teachings of the Church” to try to build up its moral weight, as prudential judgements have no moral weight by definition.

When a prudential judgment declares a scientific or technical “fact” that is not accurate according to the experts in that field, that judgment does not deserve (nor does the Church require) “respect, submission, and deference” to the “fact”. The Church has been quite clear that it values truth over blind obedience…

 

[RachelsAlumni]

A prudential judgment cannot be a “teaching” of the Church. For that matter, anyone actually grasping what was meant by a “prudential judgment” would certainly not try to cast it with a capital letter as one of the “Teachings of the Church” to try to build up its moral weight, as prudential judgements have no moral weight by definition. .

So first it’s my use of the word “older” and now it’s my use of capital letters.

According to the article I quoted earlier:

…the distinction between teachings and prudential judgments is relevant primarily to the practical question of whether or not the circumstances justifying the death penalty are virtually nonexistent. It is less clear that this distinction resolves the doctrinal issue of whether or not retribution remains a legitimate purpose of capital punishment.

The starting point for analysis of this issue must be the text of the Catechism itself. On the purpose or purposes of capital punishment, the official version says,

[T]
he 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 [CCC off. vers., 2267].

The thrust of this passage is that the defense of human lives is the only purpose that justifies the death penalty. By implication, retribution is excluded as a legitimate end or purpose of capital punishment.

The theological innovation in the recent Magisterial pronouncements is the analysis of the death penalty not in view of the Church’s traditional teaching on punishment, but rather in view of Church teaching on legitimate defense [EV,56]. That is, Evangelium vitae and the Catechism treat the death penalty merely as one species of the genus of legitimate defense, whereas traditionally the Magisterium had treated capital punishment and legitimate defense as two separate genera or categories of circumstances in which the killing of a person did not violate the Fifth Commandment [G. Bradley, “The Teaching of the Gospel of Life,” Catholic Dossier 4, no. 5 (1998), 43].

…analyzing capital punishment in terms of legitimate defense is a proper development of doctrine, but that the Magisterium’s recent pronouncements also contain some deficiencies that require correction or clarification. The recent Magisterium teaches that imposition of the death penalty is legitimate only when non-lethal means are insufficient to protect society’s legitimate interests. The previous Magisterium did not make this requirement explicit in the way that the recent Magisterium has. The chief restriction that the previous Magisterium placed on capital punishment was that it could be imposed only by legitimate civil authority and not by private persons. However, there is no inconsistency between the teaching of the previous Magisterium and this new requirement that the death penalty be applied only when necessary. As a result, this new requirement appears to qualify as a legitimate development of doctrine [cf. J.H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1878), II.V]. st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4

 

[Ender]

A prudential judgment cannot be a “teaching” of the Church. For that matter, anyone actually grasping what was meant by a “prudential judgment” would certainly not try to cast it with a capital letter as one of the “Teachings of the Church” to try to build up its moral weight, as prudential judgements have no moral weight by definition.

I was pretty much in this boat until I encountered this quote from Cardinal Dulles on the subject of the death penalty:

“I insist on the moral and theological relevance of prudential considerations. …they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord”

I remain unpersuaded that we have an obligation to accept prudential statements (and flatly reject that we have any obligation to accept prudential judgments of fact - as you point out) but I am sensitive to the strength of Dulles’ position.

Your position seems stronger than mine since yours is based on the accuracy of JPII’s statement on the capability of prison systems, which is a question of fact, not faith. I think your point was pretty well settled back in the 1600’s when Cardinal Bellarmine, writing about Galileo, acknowledged that if an interpretation of the bible conflicted with observable fact then the interpretation would have to change.

Ender

 

[Ender]

“The thrust of this passage is that the defense of human lives is the only purpose that justifies the death penalty. By implication, retribution is excluded as a legitimate end or purpose of capital punishment.”

It is the implication that I struggle with. The Church still teaches that retribution is the primary goal of punishment and that to be just and to effect the goal of expiation the punishment must be commensurate with the sin.

This teaching has not changed from what it has been since the beginning and many executions were carried out not based on any concern about protecting the public but solely as justifiable retribution. If executions are not justifiable now as retribution then they never were in the past either. This is also implied by the new guidelines.

The theological innovation in the recent Magisterial pronouncements is the analysis of the death penalty not in view of the Church’s traditional teaching on punishment, but rather in view of Church teaching on legitimate defense [EV,56].

This may also be true but this doesn’t resolve the problem either. We have one set of teachings about punishment, retribution, and justice and nothing about them changes just because a special case is being made regarding one particular type of punishment. The death penalty - which is clearly a form of punishment - has to be addressed as such. Ignoring this aspect of it and recategorizing it under defense is inadequate. Aside from which the reason for the change is certainly inadequate inasmuch as none was given. The Church had always taught that capital punishment and legitimate defense were in fact two separate categories. What changed? What new insight demonstrates that the Church has been wrong about this for two millennia?

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

The Church had always taught that capital punishment and legitimate defense were in fact two separate categories. What changed? What new insight demonstrates that the Church has been wrong about this for two millennia?

Ender

quoting again from The Purposes of Punishment by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L.

These recent pronouncements of the Magisterium—Evangelium vitae and the Catechism—affirm the Church’s traditional teaching that, in appropriate circumstances, the State may have recourse to capital punishment. However, the same statements circumscribe very narrowly the ambit in which this recourse is legitimate. In the words of the director of the commission that prepared the Catechism, the official version “leaves the door to the death penalty theoretically open . . ., while closing it practically” [C. Schönborn, “Brief Note on the Revision,” Catholic Dossier 4, no. 5 (1998), 10].

…there is no inconsistency between the teaching of the previous Magisterium and this new requirement that the death penalty be applied only when necessary. As a result, this new requirement appears to qualify as a legitimate development of doctrine [cf. J.H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1878), II.V].

It has been my position all along that mercy or clemency should be sought foremost by persons of good will.

According to R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L. this also is where the solution lies:

Towards a Clarification

The precursor to the Catechism, which predated even the 1992 preliminary version, was the “Revised Project” of 1989. Like both the preliminary and official versions of the Catechism, the Revised Project expressed a predominantly negative judgment on capital punishment. However, unlike the Catechism, the Revised Project made clear that the nature of this judgment was prudential rather than doctrinal.

It would be fitting to set aside the death penalty exacted by society on those found guilty of crimes of extreme gravity. Although the punishment is legitimate, the Church hopes for a habitual recourse to clemency . . . [Revised Project (1989), 3541, quoted in Schönborn, 10].

The pastors of the Church would do well to return to this type of formulation. The Revised Project was consistent with the Church’s constant teaching on the purposes of punishment, and it also would have been consistent with a doctrinal development to the effect that capital punishment should be imposed only when necessary. A revival of this formulation would allow the pastors to continue their advocacy against the death penalty, but it also would make clear that this advocacy springs primarily from a prudential judgment and an appeal to clemency rather than from a doctrine that all Catholics are required to believe or hold.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

So first it’s my use of the word “older” and now it’s my use of capital letters.

According to the article I quoted earlier:

To quote the problematic part of the repeated theme in the argument you have aligned yourself with:

By implication, retribution is excluded as a legitimate end or purpose of capital punishment.

Can you name any other teaching where a consistent teaching of the Church (dating back to the Old Testament) that would be legitimately considered revoked by implication (and only implication) that had been explicitly restated within 50 years prior to the “implied” revocation? I certainly can’t think of a case where faithful Catholics would be chided for not accepting that an explicit teaching had been revoked without an explicit declaration of that change. All the position you advocate seems to have is based on implication and trying to hang moral authority on demanding acceptance of a papal analysis of the capabilities of modern penal institutions that is known to have significant technical shortcomings.

 

[KathleenElsie]

My personal interpretation of the Catechism is that the death penalty is appropriate for prisoners who murder while in prison - i.e. being in prison did not keep them from murdering.

It may also be appropriate for an unrepentant serial killer, in a state where there’s no real “life without parole.”

I repeat, that is my *personal *interpretation.

Ruthie

This is how I feel also. The main problem I see is that in many cases Life does not mean Whole Life.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

I certainly can’t think of a case where faithful Catholics would be chided for not accepting that an explicit teaching had been revoked without an explicit declaration of that change. All the position you advocate seems to have is based on implication and trying to hang moral authority on demanding acceptance of a papal analysis of the capabilities of modern penal institutions that is known to have significant technical shortcomings.

Lighten up! I’m not sure at this point whether you’re not just arguing for the sake of argument. I haven’t " chided faithful Catholics for not accepting that an explicit teaching had been revoked " or “demanded” acceptance of a papal analysis.

My issue was whether Ender’s statement gave due consideration and respect to a teaching from the Holy Father (an encyclical Evangelium Vitae) and due consideration to The Teachings of the Church, (the Catechism) since this wording from EV was chosen to be included in the Catechism. I do think that whether it’s a prudential opinion or not, any encyclical and especially the Catechism is due a certain amount of respectful consideration. I agree that prudential opinions do not require submission of faith, but the writings of a Pastor of the Church are always to be shown the greatest respect. This is how I have been taught and the idea of questioning or criticizing a Priest or Bishop let alone the Holy Father is completely foreign to the way I was raised.

I admit that I am mistaken to use the term “submission of intellect”. I was not clear what that exactly meant. I was thinking it meant a humble attitude and willingness to understand. I also was mistaken about what “assent” actually means. Again, I thought assent meant a positive & humble attitude of aligning myself to think with the Church and the Holy Father’s intentions.

I certainly will be more careful in the future with the words I use, my punctuation, and the questions I ask.

Having said that I am also now convinced that the person I was discussing this with, Ender, has indeed given EV and the Catechism his respectful, due consideration. So also have a number of faithful including some theologians who have given the matter their utmost respect, thought and consideration.

As it now stands, from my best understanding of the issues, Catholics are not bound in conscience to accept one position or the other.

Can you say the same?

 

[Ender]

[C. Schönborn, “Brief Note on the Revision,” Catholic Dossier 4, no. 5 (1998), 10].

…there is no inconsistency between the teaching of the previous Magisterium and this new requirement that the death penalty be applied only when necessary. As a result, this new requirement appears to qualify as a legitimate development of doctrine [cf. J.H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1878), II.V].

I really have problems with this claim. The new “development” ties the death penalty to the question of defense, the primary object of which is to prevent future crimes, but the existing understanding of punishment is that its primary objective is the expiation of past crimes. I don’t see any way to bridge the gap between these two objectives and I have not read an explanation that even attempts to build one; Newman’s claim is an assertion, not an explanation.

It has been my position all along that mercy or clemency should be sought foremost by persons of good will.

I’ve been trying to push the discussion along those lines but haven’t found anyone interested in following up on this idea.

According to R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L. this also is where the solution lies:

*“The Revised Project was consistent with the Church’s constant teaching on the purposes of punishment, and it also would have been consistent with a doctrinal development to the effect that capital punishment should be imposed only when necessary. A revival of this formulation would allow the pastors to continue their advocacy against the death penalty, but it also would make clear that this advocacy springs primarily from a prudential judgment and an appeal to clemency rather than from a doctrine that all Catholics are required to believe or hold.” *

I wholeheartedly agree with this suggestion.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Having said that I am also now convinced that the person I was discussing this with, Ender, has indeed given EV and the Catechism his respectful, due consideration.

Graciously stated and gratefully received.

Ender