Death Penalty and where it gets weird

[djames99]

For me I find it strange that most of evangelical America supports the Death Penalty which is based on Old Testament law. But if anyone really dug into the subject, they would come to another conclusion. From what I read, it is the Law which defined the Old Testament tribes of Israel. If one lived by the Law they were considered a sacred member of the community. If they committed the act of murder, the criminal would be judged by the law, and if condemned, would also be separated from the sacred community and executed. The Law was the binding connection to the convenient.
The problem with executing felons in the New Testament is in regards to The Lords infinite mercy and Baptismal promise. Anyone on Death Row that converts to Christianity has become a new creation. Meaning Jesus Christ is living inside this condemned person. Born Again with full sacramental grace:
The Christian justified by Baptism is a different creation than the Israelite who is justified by the Law.
So when you’re strapping the newly converted felon on to the gurney you’re also strapping in the new creation justified by baptismal promise… And I really feel this is creating a lot of judgement for the country. Execution and wrongful death has a huge part of the Gospels. The Lord is not saying someone is not deserving of punishment. He is saying that no human being has the right to take another man or woman’s life. Meaning someone has to commit murder in order to carry out the sentence. And in the judicial process, it is considered that it’s the People who are passing sentence. It is interesting to note that as Pilot washed his hands, also it will be the Governor who is washing his hands, declaring that it is the people who are handing out the death sentence. I believe that any one declaring themselves to be Christian and supports the Death Penalty needs a course in theology. He, who is without sin among you, can throw the first stone.

God Bless us all

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
The death penalty can be applied unjustly because the death penalty is just a penal tool to serve justice by defending the common good.

That is what I’m saying. I agree and it seems like a no brainer. The death penalty is a morally neutral thing. It is like any tool of a trade. How it is used is morally quantifiable but itself, it has no divine powers to affect a result like a sacrament has. The government has the right to arm people in times of war. It has the right to use mass vaccination in times of disease. It can enforce seatbelt wearing and tax paying and vote casting and dog licensing and noise restrictions and littering and road speeds and smoking zones and so on and so on. Those things are applied with regards to how they serve the common good. They have no divine purpose other than that. Penalties are applied with regards to how they serve justice and that is determined by the state that is charged with bringing about the common good. The death penalty is permitted as a last resort. It is the killing of a human being and has its own restrictions and limitations because of that. The Church has always addressed it in regards to the fifth commandment and qualified this extreme measure by how it serves the common good.

“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

It is through the unified force of the last 3 Popes compelling us to reject this measure, that we can understand the nature of the death penalty.

I know of a prison guard who’s life was spared because the inmates did not want to face the death penalty. I also know of a prisoner that kills in prison because he has a life sentence. The Pope saw it as unnecessary. He doesn’t explain how it is cruel. He was against the death penalty but he could not tell the Church that it was wrong and to outright abolish it. Haven’t you wondered why?

Whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not is a valid question and I think that fits with the Church’s concession that it can be debated within a community for its merits in regard to the common good. That is where the Church draws the line in the sand. She has said that the death penalty in not intrinsically evil like abortion and euthanasia and that it is a last resort in protecting the society in question if all else fails to restrain an unjust aggressor.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is not an explanation of what is universally unjust but of what is unwise in particular circumstances. Nor could the church, having recognized the justness of capital punishment for nearly two millennia, ever deem the death penalty unjust. Morality - and that which is just - does not change with time.

Ender

Who’s saying it is universally unjust? The Church says that the death penalty isn’t of the same nature of intrinsic evil like abortion and euthanasia, That doesn’t mean that it is intrinsically holy or good because you could never say that something that was intrinsically holy or good was ‘cruel’ or unnecessary’ or ‘unworthy’. The death penalty is a last resort of justice in service of the common good. If a criminal can’t be restrained and prevented from harming others, it serves the good of all, to take away his violent capacity.

The death penalty is just when it is just and unjust when it is unjust. Its all in the application of it in service to the common good of all.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
When we are talking about the states right to inflict punishment, this applies to non lethal punishment in general.

Honestly Ender, you should get that alzheimers seen to. Go to the Catechism. Go to the section applying to the fifth commandment “Thou shall not kill”. Check out the sub heading ‘legitimate defense’… If the penal system is unable to protect the community with non lethal punishments, the Church has traditionally allowed for the death penalty if this is the only possible way of protecting the community against an unjust aggressor.

If you don’t consider the Catechism part of the Catholic teaching… there’s not a lot more to be said.

 

[Ender]

The death penalty is a last resort of justice in service of the common good. If a criminal can’t be restrained and prevented from harming others, it serves the good of all, to take away his violent capacity.

Just to be clear: justice and protection are two separate and unrelated objectives, and securing our own safety does nothing to satisfy the obligations of justice for crimes committed against others. This is the major disconnect here: the prevention of future crimes does not in any way secure justice for past crimes.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Honestly Ender, you should get that alzheimers seen to.

Perhaps you should review the doctrines on charity … as well as the rules of this forum.

Go to the Catechism. Go to the section applying to the fifth commandment “Thou shall not kill”. Check out the sub heading ‘legitimate defense’… If the penal system is unable to protect the community with non lethal punishments, the Church has traditionally allowed for the death penalty if this is the only possible way of protecting the community against an unjust aggressor.

Yes, we all know what the catechism says, but there is nothing in that section that is relevant to the point I challenged you on. Nowhere there or anywhere else does the church suggest a two-tiered understanding of punishment, one basis for non-lethal forms and a different one for lethal forms. In fact her discussions of punishment are relevant and consistent across all degrees and extents, from mildest to most severe.

If you don’t consider the Catechism part of the Catholic teaching… there’s not a lot more to be said.

The catechism is of course Catholic teaching; your understanding of it … not so much.

Ender

 

[Peter_Plato]

Honestly Ender, you should get that alzheimers seen to. Go to the Catechism. Go to the section applying to the fifth commandment “Thou shall not kill”. Check out the sub heading ‘legitimate defense’… If the penal system is unable to protect the community with non lethal punishments, the Church has traditionally allowed for the death penalty if this is the only possible way of protecting the community against an unjust aggressor.

If you don’t consider the Catechism part of the Catholic teaching… there’s not a lot more to be said.

The mortality of humans (the death penalty imposed by God for sin) was not merely a protection measure undertaken by God. Obviously, death was imposed as a matter of justice, not protection, although the distinction is not clear cut even here, since there was a feature of “limiting harm” that seemed to be behind the imposition of mortality on Adam and Eve.

 

[LongingSoul]

The mortality of humans (the death penalty imposed by God for sin) was not merely a protection measure undertaken by God. Obviously, death was imposed as a matter of justice, not protection, although the distinction is not clear cut even here, since there was a feature of “limiting harm” that seemed to be behind the imposition of mortality on Adam and Eve.

I’m thinking by your perspective you are from somewhere in America. There is a deeply ingrained sense of the death penalty being a divine right that has efficacy quite apart from its value in promoting and protecting the common good that renders it just.

There is another perspective around the world in all the Christian states that have abolished the death penalty. In the state I live in it was abolished in 1922. In the Vatican state itself it was abolished in 1969. This seems to quite clearly demonstrate that the death penalty is a just penal measure when it is serving the cause of the common good but it is an unjust penalty when it is not serving the common good and in fact diminishing mans sense of his inalienable dignity. Would you not say that in the light of those facts, there may be a cultural rather than Catholic objection to abolishing the death penalty, going on here?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m thinking by your perspective you are from somewhere in America.

You would be mistaken. The perspective is purely metaphysical and theological.

See Romans 5:12; Genesis 3:19,22

There is a deeply ingrained sense of the death penalty being a divine right that has efficacy quite apart from its value in promoting and protecting the common good that renders it just.

The problem with your analysis is that holding something to be a ‘divine right’ does not ipso facto translate into it being a human right.

There may be - I realize this may seem highly implausible - ‘rights’ that derive from the nature of God as God that do not automatically accrue to human authority. It may seem fashionable to view God as merely a projection of human whims and aspirations, and, therefore, God could legitimately execute only those judgements that human beings can logically be accorded, but I don’t see it that way.

God is an entirely and qualitatively different order of ‘Being’ not constrained or beholden to human limitations.

If death came into the world because of sin, then that consequence (the capital punishment we all suffer) was the result of the nature of justice grounded in God. That all humans die is due entirely to the fact that human nature has been profoundly broken and cannot continue forever. Justice will not allow it. Therefore, death is the just consequence of sin.

The whole point of the Gospel is the Good News that human nature will be redeemed and recreated. The old nature will die and a new nature created to take its place. In fact, all of creation will be “made new.”

This is the Gospel message, the teaching of the Catholic Church and not a cultural artifact.

There is another perspective around the world in all the Christian states that have abolished the death penalty. In the state I live in it was abolished in 1922. In the Vatican state itself it was abolished in 1969. This seems to quite clearly demonstrate that the death penalty is a just penal measure when it is serving the cause of the common good but it is an unjust penalty when it is not serving the common good and in fact diminishing mans sense of his inalienable dignity. Would you not say that in the light of those facts, there may be a cultural rather than Catholic objection to abolishing the death penalty, going on here?

Given that your premise of my American heritage is incorrect to begin with, your ‘facts’ clearly do NOT show a cultural objection. One which, in any case, would simply fail as a clear commission of the genetic fallacy if you were attempting to make an argument.

I would suggest you view this video by David Bentley Hart on Death, Sacrifice and Resurrection for a deeper view of mortality and its implications on justice, sacrifice and the human psyche.
youtu.be/HWaiJmjbGEQ

 

[djmason]

I like to comment on this issue one more time. It’s my belief that our Lord came to undo the works of the devil. From a scriptural perspective, Jesus considers Satan his enemy and cause of all murder. One aspect of murder is complicity. The devil has blood lust, and as you tell in mainstream entertainment this lust is ubiquitous. Most of our movies and television dramas are based in getting revenge, and in reality, horrific to watch. It occurred to me, that having these types of dramas broadcasting in my home was actually bringing the spirit of murder into my home. Devils are very clever in polluting the home environment.

Mainstream entertainment is making many ill with a darkened perception of the world they live in. Murder and sex are the core thematic themes in many productions. Children are growing up in these environments in unhealthy toxic families. Poverty, sexual abuse, discrimination, addiction are the works of the devil and his intention to make bad people. And it’s in these social environments which are cultivating the killers who were once innocent children. They should give Satan the Oscar, he has certainly earned it.

It’s my ardent belief that the devil is the force behind capital punishment because he desires to manipulate innocent people into becoming killers, no matter what route he can socially engineer. Jesus was executed; this should say something regarding this subject.

The mainstream entertainment is demonstrating everything about the spiritual world we live in. We are supposed to be Pro Life, not just on the issues that would advantage politicians.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I like to comment on this issue one more time. It’s my belief that our Lord came to undo the works of the devil. From a scriptural perspective, Jesus considers Satan his enemy and cause of all murder. One aspect of murder is complicity. The devil has blood lust, and as you tell in mainstream entertainment this lust is ubiquitous. Most of our movies and television dramas are based in getting revenge, and in reality, horrific to watch. It occurred to me, that having these types of dramas broadcasting in my home was actually bringing the spirit of murder into my home. Devils are very clever in polluting the home environment.

Mainstream entertainment is making many ill with a darkened perception of the world they live in. Murder and sex are the core thematic themes in many productions. Children are growing up in these environments in unhealthy toxic families. Poverty, sexual abuse, discrimination, addiction are the works of the devil and his intention to make bad people. And it’s in these social environments which are cultivating the killers who were once innocent children. They should give Satan the Oscar, he has certainly earned it.

It’s my ardent belief that the devil is the force behind capital punishment because he desires to manipulate innocent people into becoming killers, no matter what route he can socially engineer. Jesus was executed; this should say something regarding this subject.

The mainstream entertainment is demonstrating everything about the spiritual world we live in. We are supposed to be Pro Life, not just on the issues that would advantage politicians.

There is a difference between unjust or unwarranted killing (murder) and death as a consequence of evil choices. Certainly the devil may have, as an objective of sorts, the death of or negation of good and good beings. That would be quite in line with a Catholic and Scriptural perspective of evil as a negation or privation of good.

However, there is also a matter of what Paul calls the “wages of sin” when we, as moral agents, willfully choose to commit, aid or abet evil. Then we have, by that choice, cut ourselves off from Being, from Goodness and from God. It is the action of what Jesus calls the branch separating or cutting itself off from the vine. The act is death-dealing to ourselves and a kind of natural consequence of committing evil. We have no power to connect ourselves back onto the vine. This is the mortality aspect of the fall, of original sin. It is the condition within which all humanity finds itself and the condition from which Jesus came to redeem us.

 

[djmason]

The difficult thing about applying religious anecdotes to present tense society is that our world is completely different. Imagine the Old Testament tribes having problems with crack, heroin, and child abuse, Alcoholism, and every tent in the community had a HD TV pumping Murder and Sex to top it off. … Then Moses saying: Hey! you better stop the crack, and quit playing all those terrible video games or else. When we banter scriptural applications assuming that the human condition is the same that is a terrible mistake.
The bible is assuming from a communicative aspect that the reader is a well adjusted person who is struggling with sin and conversion. I am sure St Paul would have a more valid opinion regarding accountability if he witnessed someone’s struggle as a crack addict, discrimination, knowing that the felon was molested as a child. Including St Paul Knowing that a good percentage of social dysfunction could be attributed to exploitive mean spirited industries, who despite all the statistical evidence are allowed to target the week in our society.

Yes, we the righteous still want the death penalty because murder is murder. Well than if that’s true, according to US Health Statistics, you can actually go to a certain industry which own 72 brands of cigarettes products, with a copy of a published death rate statistics of close to 400.000 in 2013 and charge the executive branch with murder. Because it’s premeditated, and there’s evidence. The truth does have an opinion and it’s not politically correct as some politicians assume.

At one point regarding the argument of capital punishment, the Truth is going to want to make an opinion. From what I gather from the types of people who become killers in our society, is that 99 percent of these people struggle with addiction, violent family backgrounds, Child molestation, Poverty and a multitude of disabilities, and more then often their first shot at being clean and sober, are in the prisons there sent to.

I’m not a party line person, I don’t embrace that being prolife is to only support the political issues that can get someone elected. I am not a fan of American Fundamentalism because true Justice has been eradicated from the religious platform. One good example of this is when we contemporize issues like were still in a tribe stumbling around a desert with Charles Heston leading the way. We should be smarter than that.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
I’m thinking by your perspective you are from somewhere in America.

The Church has never drawn on Gods curse of death as per those references, for the human authority to inflict the death penalty. We are not God and do not have that power over life and death. The Church has always addressed the death penalty within the context of the fifth commandment and always within the context of the states duty to the common good.

Through fulfilling its duty to the common good, some satisfaction of justice is derived. It is like Matthews parable of the sheep and goats. (Matthew 25:31-46) It is through loving our neighbour that we love the Lord, thereby establishing a new relationship with God. We no longer need to be burning animal sacrifices on the altar to meet the God of the ether… we have a new Lamb who became man and dwelt among us. It is through this living sacrifice that we know and love God. No one can come to the Father except through the Son and it is a rejection of Christ to hark back to the Old Law to meet our obligations to love God and pursue justice.

The problem with your analysis is that holding something to be a ‘divine right’ does not ipso facto translate into it being a human right.

There may be - I realize this may seem highly implausible - ‘rights’ that derive from the nature of God as God that do not automatically accrue to human authority. It may seem fashionable to view God as merely a projection of human whims and aspirations, and, therefore, God could legitimately execute only those judgements that human beings can logically be accorded, but I don’t see it that way.

God is an entirely and qualitatively different order of ‘Being’ not constrained or beholden to human limitations.

If death came into the world because of sin, then that consequence (the capital punishment we all suffer) was the result of the nature of justice grounded in God. That all humans die is due entirely to the fact that human nature has been profoundly broken and cannot continue forever. Justice will not allow it. Therefore, death is the just consequence of sin.

The whole point of the Gospel is the Good News that human nature will be redeemed and recreated. The old nature will die and a new nature created to take its place. In fact, all of creation will be “made new.”

This is the Gospel message, the teaching of the Catholic Church and not a cultural artifact.

What you aren’t factoring in again, is that since the coming of Christ, man has his relationship with God through Christ and Christianity. Since justice technically means ‘equality’ and we are in no position to act with the omnipitence God in the business of eternal justice, we are authorised to bring about justice in the capacity we know and that is through the common good of men.

Aquinas says of justice… “Tully says (De Officiis i, 7) that “the object of justice is to keep men together in society and mutual intercourse.” Now this implies relationship of one man to another. Therefore justice is concerned only about our dealings with others.

… As stated above (Question 57, Article 1) since justice by its name implies equality, it denotes essentially relation to another, for a thing is equal, not to itself, but to another. And forasmuch as it belongs to justice to rectify human acts, as stated above (57, 1; I-II, 113, 1) this otherness which justice demands must needs be between beings capable of action. Now actions belong to supposits [Cf. I, 29, 2] and wholes and, properly speaking, not to parts and forms or powers, for we do not say properly that the hand strikes, but a man with his hand, nor that heat makes a thing hot, but fire by heat, although such expressions may be employed metaphorically. Hence, justice properly speaking demands a distinction of supposits, and consequently is only in one man towards another.”

We satisfy the demands of justice by what we know of and pursue as just, between us men in our human state.

Given that your premise of my American heritage is incorrect to begin with, your ‘facts’ clearly do NOT show a cultural objection. One which, in any case, would simply fail as a clear commission of the genetic fallacy if you were attempting to make an argument.

Given that no Western country apart from the US retains the death penalty… how do you reconcile your position with that of your country and that of the Church?

 

[LongingSoul]

There is a difference between unjust or unwarranted killing (murder) and death as a consequence of evil choices. Certainly the devil may have, as an objective of sorts, the death of or negation of good and good beings. That would be quite in line with a Catholic and Scriptural perspective of evil as a negation or privation of good.

However, there is also a matter of what Paul calls the “wages of sin” when we, as moral agents, willfully choose to commit, aid or abet evil. Then we have, by that choice, cut ourselves off from Being, from Goodness and from God. It is the action of what Jesus calls the branch separating or cutting itself off from the vine. The act is death-dealing to ourselves and a kind of natural consequence of committing evil. We have no power to connect ourselves back onto the vine. This is the mortality aspect of the fall, of original sin. It is the condition within which all humanity finds itself and the condition from which Jesus came to redeem us.

The States mandate is to address crime, not sin. It’s so plain to understand why. We are not God. We are human beings. We are about *crime and punishment *and how that relates to the common good of man. We are not about *sin and punishment *and how that relates to eternal justice.

 

[djmason]

Your right it’s not about sin, it’s about punishment. My whole argument against capital punishment is about preventing law abiding citizens and protecting them from engaging in the process of an execution. We are not supposed to have blood on our hands regardless if it’s been sanctioned by the state. Even during the inquisition Catholics were not allowed to participate in the killing even though the judgment was given by the Church…

I don’t know why this whole argument is based on weather or not someone is worthy of being put to death. As Catholics we cannot support Catholics being part of an execution.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The States mandate is to address crime, not sin. It’s so plain to understand why. We are not God. We are human beings. We are about *crime and punishment *and how that relates to the common good of man. We are not about *sin and punishment *and how that relates to eternal justice.

This is a false dichotomy since crime is a subspecies of sin. Crime would be a uniquely grave form of sin that has particular objective consequences.

In any case, this is all beside the point. The question concerned whether punishment was an integral aspect of justice or merely done for retribution or prevention. My point was that God did not initially mete out death merely to take vengeance or prevent future harm. There is an element of justice that is simply intolerant of evil in all its forms (whether sin or crime.)

There are consequences that derive from evil that pertain because evil is simply an affront to justice itself, otherwise sin would not have entailed the mortality of humans (death as a consequence of sin.)

The point of Genesis 3:22-4 is not that God was seeking to prevent future harm in the garden, nor that he was merely being punitive towards human behaviour, but rather that there is something unseemly and internally deficient about evil. It doesn’t merit existence and is not tolerated by goodness. Evil, in a sense, is self-extinguishing by its very nature.

Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.

Obviously, neither of you are seeing the point I am making, which was that Ender (if I read him as he intended) is essentially correct that justice brings with it a kind of “natural” (aesthetical and ontological) response to evil that is distinct from the merely punitive, retributive or preventative consequences that we normally attribute to it.

Although, I don’t disagree with djmason’s point concerning capital punishment being wielded by unjust or corrupt officials, since I made the same point a number of posts ago. Evil is destructive and perniciously so. It is, therefore, important to separate out when the death of any particular individual is the result of evil and when it is the proper consequence of justice.

 

[Ender]

Even during the inquisition Catholics were not allowed to participate in the killing even though the judgment was given by the Church.

Catholics were allowed to serve as judges and executioners; it was the clergy that was prohibited from serving in those roles.

I don’t know why this whole argument is based on weather or not someone is worthy of being put to death.

It was God himself who set the conditions: the life of a murderer is forfeit because the life of his victim was sacred.

As Catholics we cannot support Catholics being part of an execution.

The church has never prohibited this and in fact the Vatican States had its own executioner, one of whom delivered over 500 executions.

Ender

 

[Ender]

justice brings with it a kind of “natural” (aesthetical and ontological) response to evil that is distinct from the merely punitive, retributive or preventative consequences that we normally attribute to it.

If you read the comments of Pius XII on capital punishment you get a better understanding of the basis for the church’s doctrines and why she has always recognized the right of states to employ it. This article includes a number of his statements.

catholicpamphlets.net/pamphlets/CAPITAL%20PUNISHMENT.pdf

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

If you read the comments of Pius XII on capital punishment you get a better understanding of the basis for the church’s doctrines and why she has always recognized the right of states to employ it. This article includes a number of his statements.

catholicpamphlets.net/pamphlets/CAPITAL%20PUNISHMENT.pdf

Ender

You mistake us (who reject your position) as people that believe that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. That was never my position. It makes sense that the protection of the wider community will always trump the freedom of the unjust aggressor.

Your linked article was formulated in England in 1963 in response to the peaceniks. Specific times.

The Vatican itself removed the death penalty from its law in 1969 as not in keeping with the superior worth of a human being which is more than enough evidence that the death penalty was no longer serving justice.

The article itself stresses some important conditions for resorting to executing a criminal.

“The first point to note is that the Catholic Church has always defended the view that the right, and therefore the power, of inflicting capital punishment on those who have been found guilty of more atrocious crimes, has been conceded by God to the lawful supreme civil authority for the common good.”

“The State not only derives its authority and purpose from God, it has also a right to make use of those means without which it cannot carry out its primary duty to preserve public order and security, and in so far as capital punishment is necessary for this end, the State has the right to use it.”

“Whilst it is Catholic teaching that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment, certain conditions must be fulfilled, if this right is to be lawfully used. **It is necessary **for the accused to have been proved guilty of having committed the grave crime which is punishable by death, and that this punishment be considered necessary for the common good of society.”

" **A Catholic may not deny **that the State has the right and therefore he may not give his support to any movement for the abolition of the death penalty **if such a movement is an expression of the denial that the State has the right to inflict it. **Nor may a Catholic give his support to such a campaign if it is the expression of a general denial of the personal responsibility of the criminal for his crime and for its adequate expiation.

A Catholic is entitled to argue, however, that in the present state of our civilization the use of the death penalty is not a practical necessity, and to that extent he may give his support to any movement for its abolition which is inspired by humanitarian motives. It must always be understood, however, that even if the use of the death penalty were to be abolished, the State would still have the right, and in a particular case even the duty, to reintroduce the death penalty, if it were to be considered necessary in the circumstances for the security and adequate protection of society."

Your linked article gives even greater weight to the fact that the death penalty is just when it is just and unjust when it is unjust.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you read the comments of Pius XII on capital punishment you get a better understanding of the basis for the church’s doctrines and why she has always recognized the right of states to employ it. This article includes a number of his statements.

catholicpamphlets.net/pamphlets/CAPITAL%20PUNISHMENT.pdf

Ender

A good article. The last paragraph is a good summary of the viable perspectives that could be taken by “a Catholic.”

Finally, in answer to the question, ‘May a Catholic support a campaign for the abolition of the death penalty?’ one must first of all point out that, in any discussion about the abolition of the death penalty, a distinction must be made between the right of the State to inflict capital punishment and the use of this right. A Catholic may not deny that the State has the right and therefore he may not give his support to any movement for the abolition of the death penalty if such a movement is an expression of the denial that the State has the right to inflict it. Nor may a Catholic give his support to such a campaign if it is the expression of a general denial of the personal responsibility of the criminal for his crime and for its adequate expiation. A Catholic is entitled to argue, however, that in the present state of our civilization the use of the death penalty is not a practical necessity, and to that extent he may give his support to any movement for its abolition which is inspired by humanitarian motives. It must always be understood, however, that even if the use of the death penalty were to be abolished, the State would still have the right, and in a particular case even the duty, to re- introduce the death penalty, if it were to be considered necessary in the circumstances for the security and adequate protection of society.