Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[pnewton]

For the Church to deny the right of execution, is simply to deny the very reason why it exists in this world. If there had been no Capital Punishment in the days of Jesus, no Christian Church would exist today!

The Catholic Church does not deny the right the state has to use the death penalty. It is the exercise of that right in today’s society that is called into question.

For those who are really interested in the topic, and not just promotion of your own ideas, here is an article from* This Rock* I have been waiting to come on-line. It addresses the misconception that the Church’s teaching has changed.

Did the Church Change Its Teaching on the Death Penalty?

catholic.com/thisrock/2010/1007fea4.asp

 

[Ender]

For those who are really interested in the topic, and not just promotion of your own ideas, here is an article from* This Rock* I have been waiting to come on-line. It addresses the misconception that the Church’s teaching has changed.

That is a good article and will help clear up a number of misconceptions about the nature of punishment and while he made a number of points with which I agree (as well as disagree), I think this one at the very end of the article is the key to his position:

*"In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that ****both **defense of society *and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices."

In my opinion, this is not what JPII said nor is such a combination possible because the objectives are completely different and can therefore raise competing interests. While punishment has four legitimate objectives only one of them is primary and there is no dispute that that is retribution. If, therefore, it is necessary to satisfy the demand of justice that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime, that obligation cannot be diminished by the demands of any other objective. The problem is apparent in the case of (at least) particularly heinous murders if no punishment other than death is sufficiently severe to meet that criterion. If it is true that no other punishment is commensurate then execution is obligatory and the needs of defense are irrelevant.

This does not necessarily mean that execution is required in all cases of murder, but if there is ever any case where execution is required as the only commensurate punishment then the “both are necessary” argument falls. The claim that execution is required - at least some times - seems borne out by Gen 9:6, a passage the Church has always interpreted to mean exactly what it says and there is nothing she has ever written - including the current Catechism which quotes it directly - to indicate that her interpretation has changed.

The argument that Professor Kaczor presents, that “retribution is primary but defense is necessary” is not sustainable.

Ender

 

[woodland_poet]

I am a Catholic and I will say this about the death penalty and these are my views and opinions. I personally support the limited use of the death penalty. That is, you might say that I do not support the exclusion of the use of the death penalty. I live in a state which has the death penalty. I didn’t used to think this way. I think that my reasons for opposition in the past were idealistic in nature. I believe that Pope John Paul’s opposition to the death penalty were largely idealistic as well.

The death penalty should be used only in extreme cases when the guilt of the convicted is beyond any and all doubt. I think of Christ on the Cross when addressed by those with whom he was sentenced to die on Good Friday. The “good” thief admits his guilt in front of all and even implicates the “bad” thief stating that they are both guilty and that their crimes merit the punishment that they are been sentenced to. The only person identified as being innocent, by the “good” thief, is Christ and he himself says nothing about the sentence of the two with whom he is going to die, only that the man who has testified to Jesus’ innocence will reside with him in paradise that day.

It does seem contradictory that the Church does not rule out the use of the death penalty and yet is quoted by many Catholics as opposing the death penalty. Even John Paul II used qualifying words to describe the non-use of the death penalty. When has the Church stated that the death penalty must not be used in any circumstance? Such language does not in fact exist. In fact, the Church and John Paul II carefully avoid the use of such exclusive language regarding the death penalty. One might say that the Church “officially” does not like the death penalty and prefers that it not be used but offocially has not condemned the use of the death penalty or that it’s use constitutes a grave sin. The Catechism may be a wonderful work which explains the Church teachings beautifully, but we must not I think take it as inspired or perfect as that status is reserved for Sacred Scripture alone.

All this said, I do not trust that the state can assure that truly depraved murderers can be locked up without the possibility of parole. Some may always be deceived and deceieve and any sentence can be commuted by misplaced and unmerited clemency or pardon. And, in addition, any who live and breathe can can always hope for escape, exploit their notoriety, threaten, even with empty threats or otherwise mock and intimidate the surviving family members and friends of their victims.

Man, even while hopeful for the mercy of Christ, must accept that there are unrepentent sinners, murderers and predators, who either by choice or circumstance even beyond their own control are and will remain predators who will kill, again and again, if and when given the chance. Among the duties of a just society is the protect the innocent, just and law abiding from avoidable and unnecessary threats and dangers and crimes. The mild who fear God and respect innate dignity, who adhere to rule of law are entitled to a sense of peace and freedom of movement without fear of endangerment or predation while the state has the power and obligation to restrict and even terminate irrevocably the rights and very lives of those who would terrorise and kill the innocent, weak and vulnerable.

I believe these things not out of a sense of revenge or some kind of state vigilantism but that we as people and nation of laws under representative forms of government, who abide by and in peace and with respect for human life have as an obligation to respect proper authority whom without the blessings of a just and merciful God could not exist.

 

[Ender]

In an earlier paper on the Church and capital punishment, Professor Kaczor wrote:

*Admitting that punishment is for retribution, defense of society, rehabilitation of the criminal, and deterrence, he *[JPII] nevertheless concludes that there is no necessity in imposing the death penalty.
myweb.lmu.edu/ckaczor/capitalpunishment1.pdf

By “no necessity” I understand him to mean that lesser punishments (viz. imprisonment) can satisfy the obligation that the severity of the penalty must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. This seems like a significant and relevant challenge to anyone who supports capital punishment; in fact it seems like the only one.

It is a given that capital punishment satisfies the “commensurate severity” requirement and does not exceed it or the Church would not even today allow it. Since she has always supported a State’s right to execute criminals (in appropriate circumstances) it is clear that she accepts that execution is a commensurate punishment for (at least) murder. For a punishment to be just it must be neither too harsh nor too lenient, and clearly, since the Church accepts it, the death penalty is not too harsh.

The question then is: is imprisonment too lenient? I think the answer is yes based on Gen 9:6. There are other Scripture passages that support the death penalty but this one is unique in the significance the Church has given it because of its statement that "man is made in the image of God. What is forgotten, however, is that it is this very special character of man’s nature that is given specifically as the reason why the life of the murderer is forfeit "***because *man is made in the image of God."

The Church has never taught that the death penalty is necessary in every instance of murder because she has always recognized that there may be valid prudential reasons for not imposing it, but this in no way means that she has backed away from the plain meaning of Gen 9:6, which was clearly how it was interpreted in the Catechism of Trent. As Kaczor himself said: “*Approved manuals of moral theology, the consensus of theologians, and the writings of pontiffs well into the twentieth century do not differ substantially from the position articulated by Thomas.”

*It may be that JPII has changed all that but (a) I don’t believe this was his intent, (b) he gave no justification in defense of such a new position, and (c) the new Catechism cites Gen 9:6 and not only gives no indication that its interpretation of this passage has changed but goes so far as to add the comment that its teaching is *“necessary for all time.”

*The most reasonable understanding of JPII’s comments in Evangelium Vitae is the one expressed by Cardinal Dulles: it is the pope’s prudential opinion that *“in contemporary society … it does more harm than good.”

*Ender

 

[wheels10]

Had the Romans not had the “Death Penalty”, then there would be no Christianity at all.

If God himself, in the person of the Son, Jesus could accept the Death Penalty, then how can the Church decide that it is against God’s Law?

If the Death Penalty is immoral, then there was literally no willing acceptance of death by Jesus. Instead, this was just something forced upon him by an authority, and it had no theological meaning at all.

If in fact, the death of Jesus on the cross was in fact God himself accepting this horrible punishment for the sake of the forgiveness of sins by all mankind, then there can literally be no liturgical reasoning that could possibly calculate that the death penalty is either immoral or that it is never justified.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the State has the right to determine that death is an appropriate penalty for certain crimes, or the death of Jesus, who was executed by the State is utterly meaningless.

For the Church to deny the right of execution, is simply to deny the very reason why it exists in this world. If there had been no Capital Punishment in the days of Jesus, no Christian Church would exist today!

It was evil that put Jesus to death.

Please do not praise the evil that put Jesus on the cross.

Praise the unbelievable works of The Holy Trinity.

The Christian Church exists today because of the works of God The Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit.

Jesus submitted himself to this horrible death because of His Love and obedience to God The Father and because of His unbelievable Love for us.

In the face of evil, Jesus chose to Love us with the most perfect Love ever seen on the face of the earth, Jesus chose to show us Mercy, Jesus chose to Forgive us. As Christians we are asked to do the same.

 

[Betterave]

That is a good article and will help clear up a number of misconceptions about the nature of punishment and while he made a number of points with which I agree (as well as disagree), I think this one at the very end of the article is the key to his position:

*"In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that ****both ***defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices."

Good quote. A better one would have included the next sentence:

“In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices. This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty.”

And to this fact about Church teaching, the truth of which has been borne out in every single quotation of Church teaching you have attempted to marshal in favor of your position, you oppose what?:

In my opinion, this is not what JPII said nor is such a combination possible because the objectives are completely different and can therefore raise competing interests. While punishment has four legitimate objectives only one of them is primary and there is no dispute that that is retribution. If, therefore, it is necessary to satisfy the demand of justice that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime, that obligation cannot be diminished by the demands of any other objective. The problem is apparent in the case of (at least) particularly heinous murders if no punishment other than death is sufficiently severe to meet that criterion. If and only if (!) it is true that no other punishment is commensurate then execution is obligatory and the needs of defense are irrelevant.

This does not necessarily mean that execution is required in all cases of murder, but if there is ever any case where execution is required as the only commensurate punishment then the “both are necessary” argument falls. The claim that execution is required - at least some times - seems (on the basis of your private interpretation) borne out by Gen 9:6, a passage -]the Church/-] Ender -]has always interpreted/-] does not always interpret to mean exactly what it says (your claim is contradictory to your first sentence in this paragraph: interpreted to mean “exactly what it says” would mean that execution is required in all cases of murder) and there is nothing she has ever written - including the current Catechism which quotes it directly - to indicate that her interpretation has changed.

The argument that Professor Kaczor presents, that “retribution is primary but defense is necessary” is not sustainable.

Ender

…Your opinion, your interpretation.

 

[frantony]

That is very true. But the problems here is not the person, rather giving prisoners too much leeway.

Executing someone seems a bit excessive when you can give safety to society by removing the right of an individual in prision to phones, contact with the outside world, et al.

We should destroy wilfully, and purposefully, only things that we could generate, manufacture, or make later, if required, or if we found we had made a mistake.
Human life cannot be replaced, unlike chicken or pigs or vegetables, which could be grown or cultivated again. In that sense even animals or plants or bacteria belonging to endangered species should not be killed, because after the last one is gone, it will be impossible to re-generate them if required.
Only God , who can make a man again, should have the right to take a man’s life.

 

[frantony]

Had the Romans not had the “Death Penalty”, then there would be no Christianity at all.

If God himself, in the person of the Son, Jesus could accept the Death Penalty, then how can the Church decide that it is against God’s Law?

If the Death Penalty is immoral, then there was literally no willing acceptance of death by Jesus. Instead, this was just something forced upon him by an authority, and it had no theological meaning at all.

If in fact, the death of Jesus on the cross was in fact God himself accepting this horrible punishment for the sake of the forgiveness of sins by all mankind, then there can literally be no liturgical reasoning that could possibly calculate that the death penalty is either immoral or that it is never justified.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the State has the right to determine that death is an appropriate penalty for certain crimes, or the death of Jesus, who was executed by the State is utterly meaningless.

For the Church to deny the right of execution, is simply to deny the very reason why it exists in this world. If there had been no Capital Punishment in the days of Jesus, no Christian Church would exist today!

If Judas had not betrayed Jesus for 30 silver coins, mankind would not have been redeemed, and there would have been no Christianity. Does that mean that we could justify Judas’ actions?

 

[kelvinf]

We should destroy wilfully, and purposefully, only things that we could generate, manufacture, or make later, if required, or if we found we had made a mistake.
Human life cannot be replaced, unlike chicken or pigs or vegetables, which could be grown or cultivated again. In that sense even animals or plants or bacteria belonging to endangered species should not be killed, because after the last one is gone, it will be impossible to re-generate them if required.
Only God , who can make a man again, should have the right to take a man’s life.

 

[pnewton]

We should destroy wilfully, and purposefully, only things that we could generate, manufacture, or make later, if required, or if we found we had made a mistake.
Human life cannot be replaced, unlike chicken or pigs or vegetables, which could be grown or cultivated again. In that sense even animals or plants or bacteria belonging to endangered species should not be killed, because after the last one is gone, it will be impossible to re-generate them if required.
Only God , who can make a man again, should have the right to take a man’s life.

This sounds good and is in pretty type, but this it not taught in the Scripture, or the Catholic Church, which even today does not deny the right of society to exercise the death penalty, only the need of it. Even putting this in bold does not make it true.

 

[frantony]

This sounds good and is in pretty type, but this it not taught in the Scripture, or the Catholic Church, which even today does not deny the right of society to exercise the death penalty, only the need of it. Even putting this in bold does not make it true.

*In 1231, Pope Gregory IX published a decree which called for life imprisonment with salutary penance for heretics who had confessed and repented and capital punishment for those who persisted.
The judge, or inquisitor, could bring suit against anyone. The accused had to testify against himself/herself and not have the right to face and question his/her accuser.
It was acceptable to take testimony from criminals, persons of bad reputation, excommunicated people, and heretics. The accused did not have right to counsel, and blood relationship did not exempt one from the duty to testify against the accused.
Sentences could not be appealed Sometimes inquisitors interrogated entire populations in their jurisdiction. The inquisitor questioned the accused in the presence of at least two witnesses.The findings of the Inquisition were read before a large audience; the penitents abjured on their knees with one hand on a bible held by the inquisitor.
Penalties went from visits to churches, pilgrimages, and wearing the cross of infamy to imprisonment (usually for life but the sentences were often commuted) and (if the accused would not abjure) DEATH.

Death was by burning at the stake. In some serious cases when the accused had died before proceedings could be instituted, his or her remains could be exhumed and burned. Death or life imprisonment was always accompanied by the confiscation of all the accused’s property.

Realising the injustices carried out by the Catholic Church in the name of Inquisition, John Paul II’ in his letter of June 15, 2004 addressed to Cardinal Roger Etchegaray ( on the occasion of the release of the “Report of the International Symposium on the Inquisition.)” ’ he reiterated the apology he made in his Apostolic letter Tertio millennio adveniente. He also repeated the petition of forgiveness he offered on the year 2000 Day of Forgiveness (March 12). **This apology, he stated, would be “valid” for the injustices and killings committed in the name of Inquisition as well as for the wounds they have caused in the memory. **.”*.
But of what use is the apology today, after the people who were burnt at the stake are all dead and gone?. Most of them were scholars and scientists of the calibre of a Galelio or Copernicus. What they would have given to the world- had they lived- is lost for ever.

 

[Ender]

Betterave;:

…Your opinion, your interpretation.

No, my comments are either right or wrong but they aren’t opinions as they are statements about facts. JPII either did or did not make a certain statement. You claim he did, I claim he did not; you can win the point simply by showing where he said it … And I win it if you cannot.

Regarding the significance of Gen 9:6, that’s not opinion either. It is directly alluded to in The Catechism of Trent, quoted in full in the current catechism, and specifically mentioned by a current bishop (I don’t have my notes handy so I can’t be more precise) as being one source of the Church’s position on capital punishment. It is the Church who considers that passage significant.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

But of what use is the apology today, after the people who were burnt at the stake are all dead and gone?

This thread is not about the inquisition. Such threads already exist in the Apologetics section where that topic is put in proper perspective and myths are dispelled. However, the question you ask about what good an apology does is addressed by mercy. God does not despise a contrite heart. We must not either.

 

[athair_siochain]

This thread is not about the inquisition. Such threads already exist in the Apologetics section where that topic is put in proper perspective and myths are dispelled. However, the question you ask about what good an apology does is addressed by mercy. God does not despise a contrite heart. We must not either.

The final words of Christ on the Cross. "Forgive them father they know not what they do "
he was not just seeking forgiveness for those who chose Barabbas, but was seeking forgiveness for all those who dont know what they say/do in todays world, you cant blame someone if they dont know they have done wrong,

 

[athair_siochain]

Had the Romans not had the “Death Penalty”, then there would be no Christianity at all.

If God himself, in the person of the Son, Jesus could accept the Death Penalty, then how can the Church decide that it is against God’s Law?

If the Death Penalty is immoral, then there was literally no willing acceptance of death by Jesus. Instead, this was just something forced upon him by an authority, and it had no theological meaning at all.

If in fact, the death of Jesus on the cross was in fact God himself accepting this horrible punishment for the sake of the forgiveness of sins by all mankind, then there can literally be no liturgical reasoning that could possibly calculate that the death penalty is either immoral or that it is never justified.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the State has the right to determine that death is an appropriate penalty for certain crimes, or the death of Jesus, who was executed by the State is utterly meaningless.

For the Church to deny the right of execution, is simply to deny the very reason why it exists in this world. If there had been no Capital Punishment in the days of Jesus, no Christian Church would exist today!

How wrong you are, you are saying Christ would not exist,
Had Christ lived a full life this world would have been different,

 

[frantony]

This thread is not about the inquisition. Such threads already exist in the Apologetics section where that topic is put in proper perspective and myths are dispelled. However, the question you ask about what good an apology does is addressed by mercy. God does not despise a contrite heart. We must not either.

It is the outcome of man’s implementation of Death Penalty that is discussed.
Pope had to publicly apologise for those deeds even after centuries had passed.

Not even the best human Judge in the best human Court will be able to confidently say that a man is worthy of Death Penalty. God forbade everyone to avenge Cain, though he was a murderer, because they would never be able to assess the enormity of Cain’s sin and give him the necessary punishment.

And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.
Genesis 4:15 But the LORD said to him, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

Here is God’s confirmation of the sentence; for when he judges he will overcome, Observe, How Cain is protected in wrath by this declaration, notified, we may suppose, to all that little world which was then in being:
Whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold, because thereby the sentence he was under (that he should be a fugitive and a vagabond) would be defeated.
God is actually saying, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay”,
it would have been a daring usurpation for any man to take the sword out of God’s hand, a contempt put upon an express declaration of God’s mind, and therefore avenged seven-fold.
God has wise and holy ends in protecting and prolonging the lives even of very wicked men. God deals with some according to that prayer, Slay them not, lest my people forget; scatter them by thy power, Ps. 59:11.
Had Cain been slain immediately, he would have been forgotten (Eccl. 8:10);
but now he lives a more fearful and lasting monument of God’s justice,
How he is marked in wrath: The Lord set a mark upon Cain, to distinguish him from the rest of mankind and to notify that he was the man that murdered his brother, whom nobody must hurt, but every body must hoot at.

 

[Ender]

God forbade everyone to avenge Cain, though he was a murderer, because they would never be able to assess the enormity of Cain’s sin and give him the necessary punishment.

If this is in fact the Catholic interpretation of Cain’s story you should be able to cite some document confirming it. I’m pretty sure, however, that you won’t be able to quote any document whatever because the Church has never made the assertion you have made. I certainly accept that this is what you believe but it is surely not what the Church believes.

God is actually saying, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay”, it would have been a daring usurpation for any man to take the sword out of God’s hand, a contempt put upon an express declaration of God’s mind, and therefore avenged seven-fold.

Unless you can quote what the Church teaches or has taught, this position has to be seen as entirely your own. Since the Church has existed for over 2000 years and since she has never in that entire time said anything resembling the position you have taken you might want to consider the possibility that you and she are not on the same page on this subject.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Fratony and Ender:

I am involved in the death penalty debate, internationally, and often see the Cain reference as reflecting God’s anti death penalty declaration.

Some biblical review:

Yes, God not only protected some murderers, He also blessed some with His favor.

But He also wiped out nearly all of mankind with the flood.

It seems safe to say that God can do whatever God wishes.

We know that the story of Cain’s protection has nothing to do with God’s overall view of the death penalty, because of nearly countless references throughout the bible, as well as the interpretations and writings of scholars for many thousands of years.

Using Cain’s protection as reflecting God’s anti death penalty stance reflects wilfful ignorance, blatant dishonesty or a fool’s choice.

Even avoiding the many biblical references in favor of the death penalty, inclusive of the well known Genesis passage, which is for all peoples and all times, we are aware, biblically, all men die because of their sins. As all men die, it is safe to say that is a universal statement for all times, that “the wages of sin is death.” This is a standard established by God and, unfortunately, fulfilled by man.

Death is the proper outcome for any sin.

I think it clear that is the biblical message. Some wrongly say that is for natural death, only. No, it is for all earthly deaths - execution, cancer, car wrecks, “natural”, etc. Natural is in quotes because, for God, sin is not natural, but is the constant state of man.

The message is clear with the story of St. Dismas - it is not the manner of ones death that matters, but one’s state of grace at the time of their death.

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans6.htm

Although, a brief and broad description, I think is biblically and historically accurate. I await comments.

 

[Betterave]

No, my comments are either right or wrong but they aren’t opinions as they are statements about facts.

That’s a false (exclusive) dichotomy: opinions or statements about facts (but not both).

JPII either did or did not make a certain statement. You claim he did, I claim he did not; you can win the point simply by showing where he said it … And I win it if you cannot.

So you’re saying he didn’t say that, even though that seems to be the best way to read his view in harmony with the teaching of the Church, and if we read him that way your objection fails? Do you know what is meant by a “charitable interpretation”?

In your opinion, what did he say that would suggest that the following is not correct?:

“In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices. This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty.”

(BTW, please stop trying to ‘win’; just focus on trying to grasp the truth.)

Regarding the significance of Gen 9:6, that’s not opinion either. It is directly alluded to in The Catechism of Trent, quoted in full in the current catechism, and specifically mentioned by a current bishop (I don’t have my notes handy so I can’t be more precise) as being one source of the Church’s position on capital punishment. It is the Church who considers that passage significant.

Sure, that’s all true, and fully granted by the argument that you’re responding to. (Did you not notice that??) Therefore your noting this again just shows that you’re missing the point.

 

[Ender]

So you’re saying he didn’t say that, even though that seems to be the best way to read his view in harmony with the teaching of the Church, and if we read him that way your objection fails?

Either he said something or he didn’t and clearly he didn’t make the statement you claim or there would be no need to “read his view.”

Do you know what is meant by a “charitable interpretation”?

This reinforces my point: no interpretation would be necessary if he actually made the statement at issue.

In your opinion, what did he say that would suggest that the following is not correct?:“In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices. This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty.”

JPII made no statement whatever about retribution, a point I am not the only one to make, and since he said not a word about retribution (in regard to the death penalty) it is incorrect to claim that he taught about a point he didn’t even address.

*To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. *(Karl Keating)

Ender