Death Penalty and where it gets weird

[esieffe]

A cornerstone of the Church is mercy and upholding the sanctity of life. If a the laws of a nation are such that the criminal can be safely removed from free society then it is wrong to kill them in what can only be characterized as state sanctioned revenge.

:knight1::knight1:

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. 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. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

The victims:
For many left behind, a death sentence offers the illusion of closure and vindication. No act, even an execution, can bring back a loved one or heal terrible wounds. The pain and loss of one death cannot be wiped away by another death.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

In his encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II told us that we have an inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.18 This Catholic campaign brings us together for common action to end the use of the death penalty, to reject a culture of death, and to build a culture of life. It poses an old and fundamental choice: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live. (Dt 30:19)
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

 

[Ender]

You mistake us (who reject your position) as people that believe that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. That was never my position.

Nor was that ever my understanding of your position. You make far too many unwarranted assumptions. I’m willing to defend my comments but I’m not responsible for your interpretations of what I’ve said. If you think you disagree with me on something start by quoting exactly what I’ve said.

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

I was recommending the thoughts of Pius XII. The document I cited contained numerous examples of his statements on capital punishment. Whatever else the document contained is not relevant to that point … although I do wonder how you can dismiss it on the one hand as out of date for our time and cite it on the other hand in defense of your position.

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.

I suspect this assertion is pure invention; I doubt you have any idea why capital punishment was dropped, but I’ll point out again that if you are right then this is an indictment of all the popes who preceded Paul VI who apparently didn’t recognize the “superior worth of a human being”.

“…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 or the common good.”

Yes, and I think we’ve established that justice is a major part of what constitutes the common good.

"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.

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…

This is pretty much my position: there is no moral objection to its use but there may be practical reasons not to apply it.

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.

I’m comfortable with the position that while the death penalty is a just punishment for certain crimes it can be used unjustly in specific circumstances.

Ender

 

[Ender]

A cornerstone of the Church is mercy and upholding the sanctity of life. If a the laws of a nation are such that the criminal can be safely removed from free society then it is wrong to kill them in what can only be characterized as state sanctioned revenge.

It is important to understand the difference between the rights and duties of the individual as distinct from those of the state. The individual, for example, is forbidden to avenge crimes while the state is obligated to do so. Nor can mercy be said to trump justice. The two virtues are different but they are not contrary to one another.

For many left behind, a death sentence offers the illusion of closure and vindication. No act, even an execution, can bring back a loved one or heal terrible wounds. The pain and loss of one death cannot be wiped away by another death.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

This is unfortunately the quality of thought that is all too common from the USCCB in that it is not merely an indictment of capital punishment but of all punishment, since (as even they recognize) no act can resurrect the dead or heal the pain of loss.

Ender

 

[djmason]

So regarding that the clergy could not participate in a execution and was authorizing others to execute on the churches behalf. Does not this say something regarding spiritual sanctity? Especially when scriptures communicate that the gate is narrow? Killing someone regardless is an area where even the church had apprehension… They really did not think laity had a chance of getting through the narrow gate which is why they delegated their ruthless agenda, especially those engaging in execution…

Historically the survival of the church was paramount. The church did not care weather laity was killing on it’s behalf, they were not going to heaven anyway. Burning people at the stake? Is this coming from a place of love? The church of the inquisition was not a compassionate organization. It was a ruthless oppressive force and would kill any threat to protect it’s own interest. This is the Truth.

Moses could not enter the promise land why? Because he killed a man. And it was justifiable, regardless that he was considered Gods personal friend.

There is a line drawn here and it’s a big one .

 

[Peter_Plato]

So regarding that the clergy could not participate in a execution and was authorizing others to execute on the churches behalf. Does not this say something regarding spiritual sanctity?

Moses could not enter the promise land why? Because he killed a man. And it was justifiable, regardless that he was considered Gods personal friend.

There is a line drawn here and it’s a big one .

There is some difficulty with your interpretation here because after the golden calf incident, Moses ordered the deaths of 3000 of those Israelites who had participated in the celebration of creating the golden calf. If killing another human was an issue, it would have been a much larger issue here.

25 And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to their shame among their enemies), 26 then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. 27 And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.’” 28 And the sons of **Levi **did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. 29 And Moses said, “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day.” (Ex 32:25-29)

In addition, it was the men (sons of Levi) who would become priests (Levites) who actually did the slaying (as a sacrificial act of purification) and earned their office precisely by this act of faithfulness.

The specific reason that Moses and Aaron (who never killed an Egyptian) did not lead the people into the Promised Land had nothing to do with killing another man. It had to do with Moses’ lack of faith and disobedience when he was commanded to strike the rock at Mer′ibah ONE TIME. For Aaron it was because he was culpable for letting the people “…break loose, to their shame among their enemies.”

10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?” 11 And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle. 12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.” 13 These are the waters of Mer′ibah, where the people of Israel contended with the Lord, and he showed himself holy among them. (Numb 20:10-13)

Your line, therefore, is an imaginary one… as big as it might be.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
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.

Crime would not have to specifically be ‘a uniquely grave form of sin’. For example, it is a crime to walk down the street naked, but being naked is not a sin. It’s a crime to smack a naughty child in the supermarket but smacking a child is not a sin with the appropriate authority to do so. (Parent) It’s a crime to burn the flag or paper money, but without the context of the community that they pertain to… it is not a sin.

Crime relates specifically to what diminishes the common good within the context of the community relationship. The States primary objective is public order and community safety. It is through the States administration of justice in the context of the community’s wellbeing that the State finds its authority. For God to torch the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is clearly an act of justice. For the State to torch the city of San Francisco is the complete opposite; a terrible injustice. The State has a mandate to guard, promote and serve the common good of the community, not to emulate the just actions of God as if it were God.

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.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is too subtle for me to grasp but it seems to be that death is established as a just punishment for sin regardless of how such a measure relates to the common good. That it has a divinely inspired efficacy that protects it from ever being an unjust penalty. That it should remain in the law and simply be covered over when the godless community objects to it? This is Enders position as far as I can ascertain.

The Church on the other hand by her words seems to be saying something more along the lines that in the abstract while punishment is always the just response to crime and can still be positively effective when influenced by mercy and charity in sentencing… a death sentence that does not serve the common good is unworthy, cruel and unnecessary. It is just a sentence by nature. A tool in serving justice. Just like any other sentence, it is not above the law, it serves the law. It is like saying that although heat is always necessary for cooking food, fire is just one way of making the heat required. There are contexts in the modern world where fire, which was once the only way of creating heat, would now be completely dangerous and unnecessary in cooking a meal.

To my understanding, the Genesis verses referred to speak of *exile *as the just punishment for sin and the necessity of rehabilitation in order to gain the freedom of eternal life. It does not speak of annihilation itself as a just punishment (except for Satan whose offense against God was damnable).

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.

Again, I’m not sure I’m grasping your angle. You seem to be conflating the abstract and the concrete in an unhelpful way. It is a given that sin has created injustice and we naturally seek to redress that problem because we long for the state of perfection as God made it. But as flawed humans without a capacity to know what perfect justice looks like, we can only weigh the many aspects that bring about the common good. Hence, justice being represented to us by the scales unlike the way we understand divine justice.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Crime would not have to specifically be ‘a uniquely grave form of sin’. For example, it is a crime to walk down the street naked, but being naked is not a sin. It’s a crime to smack a naughty child in the supermarket but smacking a child is not a sin with the appropriate authority to do so. (Parent) It’s a crime to burn the flag or paper money, but without the context of the community that they pertain to… it is not a sin.

Definition #2 (from Merriam-Webster)

crime noun \ˈkrīm
1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
3 : criminal activity
4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it’s a crime to waste good food>

 

[LongingSoul]

Definition #2 (from Merriam-Webster)

crime noun \ˈkrīm
1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
2 : a grave offense especially against morality
3 : criminal activity
4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it’s a crime to waste good food>

Crime relates to offenses against the public good. That is culturally relevant. In 15th century Rome it was a crime to speak heresy against the Catholic Church. Today most of the ten commandments are not even considered crime.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
You mistake us (who reject your position) as people that believe that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. That was never my position.

If you read the first paragraph of your linked article you’ll note that it addresses Catholics (and non-Catholics) who believe that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. It is perfectly reasonable for me to remind you that that is not my position. You could have quoted Pius XII independently to make your points.

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.

I suspect this assertion is pure invention; I doubt you have any idea why capital punishment was dropped, but I’ll point out again that if you are right then this is an indictment of all the popes who preceded Paul VI who apparently didn’t recognize the “superior worth of a human being”.

“The right to life is an inalienable right of every human person. Hence the present draft-resolution under discussion should be understood as a strong affirmation of the dignity of the human person and the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The international instruments on which this draft-resolution is based are, in fact, binding expressions of - and not substitutes for - this fundamental principle of the inviolability and sacredness of human life.

The position of the Holy See, therefore, is that authorities, even for the most serious crimes, should limit themselves to non-lethal means of punishment, as these means “are more in keeping with the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person” (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2267). States have at their disposal today new possibilities for "effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.» (Cf. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 56).”
vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_02111999_death-penalty_en.html

This is one of the numerous official Vatican documents that explain the Catholic Church’s position in regards to the death penalty. I have not made up the Church’s position on the abolition of the death penalty. It is part of the public record. If you insist that this is in effect saying that all the pre Vat II Popes were wrong and stupid regarding the worth of the human person… that comes down to your own inability to value the whole discipline of anthropology and human development in general.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Crime relates to offenses against the public good. That is culturally relevant. In 15th century Rome it was a crime to speak heresy against the Catholic Church. Today most of the ten commandments are not even considered crime.

Yes and offenses against the public good are only offenses when real, not imagined or feigned, harm is the possible result. Laws that protect the public good must be based on ethically sound moral principles a reasonable view of what constitutes genuine harm.

Laws that define as ‘crimes’ trivial or harmless behaviours are laws that are nonsensical. Therefore, I would argue that ‘crime’ is less a matter of what the law ‘on paper’ defends its citizens against and more a matter of what constitutes grave, or at least determinable, harm.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps what you are trying to say is too subtle for me to grasp but it seems to be that death is established as a just punishment for sin regardless of how such a measure relates to the common good. That it has a divinely inspired efficacy that protects it from ever being an unjust penalty. That it should remain in the law and simply be covered over when the godless community objects to it? This is Enders position as far as I can ascertain.

I just reiterated my position yesterday so I’m struggling to understand how you fail to acknowledge the plain text of my comment, but I’ll try again:* while the death penalty is a just punishment for certain crimes it can be used unjustly in specific circumstances.*

a death sentence that does not serve the common good is unworthy, cruel and unnecessary.

In this, capital punishment is no different than any other punishment and this observation is without a practical distinction.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You could have quoted Pius XII independently to make your points.

I’m traveling and don’t have access to my notes so I had to make do with what I could find.

This is one of the numerous official Vatican documents that explain the Catholic Church’s position in regards to the death penalty. I have not made up the Church’s position on the abolition of the death penalty. It is part of the public record.

Surely you don’t mean to suggest that the reason Paul VI eliminated capital punishment in 1969 was because of what JPII said in 1995?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I just reiterated my position yesterday so I’m struggling to understand how you fail to acknowledge the plain text of my comment, but I’ll try again:

• while the death penalty is a just punishment for certain crimes it can be used unjustly in specific circumstances.*

a death sentence that does not serve the common good is unworthy, cruel and unnecessary.

Whether it is just or not is determined by human reason exercised with the view to serving the communities wellbeing. So while punishment is a just response to crime, the method of punishment is justified by the needs of the community that the law is serving. So I would say that the death penalty can be used justly in specific circumstances and used unjustly in specific circumstances. If it is abolished from the law, it is gone entirely. The law doesn’t save a seat for it as if there is merely a set of extraordinary circumstances preventing its use. As your linked article described it… “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.” Society determines the just use of penalties and a sentence of death, beyond other methods of punishment, must serve the ‘security and adequate protection of society.’

 

[LongingSoul]

Surely you don’t mean to suggest that the reason Paul VI eliminated capital punishment in 1969 was because of what JPII said in 1995?

Ender

Pope John Paul II has explicitly articulated what was implicit to the abolitionist movement of all those years ago. Pope Paul vi in the early 70’s was appealing to Spain and the Soviet Union to show clemency to their condemned prisoners. Even your linked article of 1963 makes the point “A Catholic … may give his support to any movement for its abolition which is inspired by humanitarian motives.”

The growing emphasis on human dignity has moved the abolition mentality around the world over the last century. And don’t say well that must mean all the other Popes were blind to the dignity of humans, because that is rubbish. Even Bishop Augustine in the 5th century was making appeals for clemency to the Magistrates of his time despite the necessity of capital punishment for the safety of the community then.

The historical and cultural and political circumstances are what makes the death penalty just or unjust.

 

[Ender]

Pope John Paul II has explicitly articulated what was implicit to the abolitionist movement of all those years ago.

If you understand what JPII said to be a prudential “Let’s not use capital punishment” request and not a statement that capital punishment violates man’s dignity, I might concede the point. You appear to be unwilling to leave it at that, however, and continue to push the idea that there has been a doctrinal development that now finds capital punishment acceptable except in only the narrowest circumstances. If the change is doctrinal then it was no part of Paul VI’s reason for eliminating capital punishment inasmuch as the doctrine was clearly unchanged even as late as 1992.

Even your linked article of 1963 makes the point “A Catholic … may give his support to any movement for its abolition which is inspired by humanitarian motives.”

Humanitarian motives … as in “Let’s not use capital punishment.”

The growing emphasis on human dignity has moved the abolition mentality around the world over the last century. And don’t say well that must mean all the other Popes were blind to the dignity of humans, because that is rubbish.

How can you say that we have increased our emphasis on human dignity without at the same time acknowledging that those who preceded us had a diminished appreciation of it? How can it be adequate today without having been inadequate before and if it wasn’t inadequate before then how can you hype what it is now?

Even Bishop Augustine in the 5th century was making appeals for clemency to the Magistrates of his time despite the necessity of capital punishment for the safety of the community then.

Interesting argument given that Augustine opposed the use of capital punishment even to protect his community. That is, he rejected the argument used today to justify it. I’ll also point out that he did not oppose its use in all cases, he simply didn’t want it used to avenge crimes against Christians.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

If you understand what JPII said to be a prudential “Let’s not use capital punishment” request and not a statement that capital punishment violates man’s dignity, I might concede the point. You appear to be unwilling to leave it at that, however, and continue to push the idea that there has been a doctrinal development that now finds capital punishment acceptable except in only the narrowest circumstances. If the change is doctrinal then it was no part of Paul VI’s reason for eliminating capital punishment inasmuch as the doctrine was clearly unchanged even as late as 1992.

We know by the strength of Pope John Paul IIs words, the consensus of subsequent Popes and the conferences of Bishops and the wording of CCC2267, that capital punishment is to be regarded as a violation of human dignity except when used to safeguard the general community. It continues to be a legitimate defense measure and therefore not intrinsically evil, but due to the advancements in the penal system, it isn’t necessary in the business of penal justice. None of the official teachings that address ending capital punishment in our times, indicates that this is a ‘suspension of duty’. It is a call to ‘abolish’ the practice within the penal system.

My guess is that there is such a strong emphasis put on the notion of abolition, specifically to discourage any false devotion to capital punishment in the way that you are experiencing it. That emphasis is the very invitation to go deeper into the doctrine and embrace the principle it represents to us in the first place. Being Catholic, you must surely do the first step in contemplating an issue you have a difficulty with, that being, assume the Church is right, especially within the context of a prominent encyclical and inclusion of instruction in the Catechism? Then we go about reconciling ourselves to Catholic thought. We don’t go in trying to prove the Church wrong by somehow separating the Popes into opposing groups. The real Church and the false Church.

Then look at the universal reality of human and worldly development. Look at science that was based on a geocentric understanding of the earth and look at science based on the heliocentric understanding of the earth. Was geocentrism the sum total of the doctrine… or was the doctrine all that which remained true about the relationship of the earth and the sun when new evidence came to light? Who knows if one day it is discovered that both the earth and sun are actually revolving in togetherness around something more massive? Will that change everything or will it throw new light again, on the important things which remain true of the earth’s relationship to the sun. That’s why being faithful and trusting in doctrine is very important to humankind. It protects what is *eternally true *within a relationship through the means of the evidence available at the time.

We can’t know the ultimate truths through Gods eyes. Do we scrap the whole discipline of science for that reason? Do we discard our faith in the truths it presents as foundational at any given time? No we don’t. Because we realise that our faith in the scientific ‘doctrines’ is the natural response that created man has to the created world and we know that truth is always there… if not fully disclosed in the evidence we can visualise and articulate, but hidden within the amazing mysterious workings of each tiny building block of life. If it seems like everything is blown to pieces when a foundational truth is proved to be false, we can have faith that that is not how science works …. and doctrine is a science.

The growing emphasis on human dignity has moved the abolition mentality around the world over the last century. And don’t say well that must mean all the other Popes were blind to the dignity of humans, because that is rubbish.

How can you say that we have increased our emphasis on human dignity without at the same time acknowledging that those who preceded us had a diminished appreciation of it? How can it be adequate today without having been inadequate before and if it wasn’t inadequate before then how can you hype what it is now?

This perspective is what confuses me the most. Isn’t this simply the nature of human development? Existence is a swings and roundabouts deal. As human beings, we aren’t capable of knowing the whole truth of everything. The Church is a brilliant source of wisdom about what is intrinsically evil and what is intrinsically holy or good… but the rest we can only know through our relationships and by this I mean all the disciplines that connect us with the universe like the humanities –theology, history, philosophy, anthropology, sociology and the natural sciences –physics, astronomy etc. etc. and of course the super disciplines of prayer and contemplation.

Capital punishment served justice in the way that fire served cooking. Now that neither are necessary to achieve those ends… it doesn’t mean that they were always wrong or evil… it means that in the light of more humane techniques for achieving our ends… we are able to abandon the more primitive methods that helped us. In the times to come, the methods we use today to achieve the good ends we strive for may well be defunct and replaced also. That’s life. That’s how it has always worked.

Interesting argument given that Augustine opposed the use of capital punishment even to protect his community. That is, he rejected the argument used today to justify it. I’ll also point out that he did not oppose its use in all cases, he simply didn’t want it used to avenge crimes against Christians.

The fact that Augustine rejected its use at all, negates the argument that it is a necessary part of retributive justice.

 

[adrift]

We know by the strength of Pope John Paul IIs words, the consensus of subsequent Popes and the conferences of Bishops and the wording of CCC2267, that capital punishment is to be regarded as a violation of human dignity except when used to safeguard the general community. .

2267 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.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

I don’t see anything here that says it is a violation of human dignity. If this were the case, than it shouldn’t be allowed at all which is not the case.
The thing that strikes me is that big if. It doesn’t seem to be in the realm of how the judicial system works. If bloodless means are sufficient but the fact is they are not always sufficient. That big “if” is the crux of my concern. If we didn’t have people who tried to get murders released, if no one escaped from prison, if no one was murdered in prison than the statement of

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

would have more bite but as things stand the statement does not take into account factors that make it false. Why today? I think they had the capability all the while why say today? In my opinion, it would have been easier before groups like the ACLU to hold murders for life.
I

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t see anything here that says it is a violation of human dignity. If this were the case, than it shouldn’t be allowed at all which is not the case.

From Evangelium Vitae 56. " This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of **a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity **and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society.

… In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

The thing that strikes me is that big if. It doesn’t seem to be in the realm of how the judicial system works. If bloodless means are sufficient but the fact is they are not always sufficient. That big “if” is the crux of my concern. If we didn’t have people who tried to get murders released, if no one escaped from prison, if no one was murdered in prison than the statement of would have more bite but as things stand the statement does not take into account factors that make it false. Why today? I think they had the capability all the while why say today? In my opinion, it would have been easier before groups like the ACLU to hold murders for life.
I

The Church allows for arguments that cite the inability of the system to constrain dangerous aggressive offenders, so your argument is quite valid. There is a fairly widespread global feeling though, based on the experience of abolishing the death penalty, that the death penalty could be contributing to an overall culture of death that is doing more harm than good to the safety of the community.

 

[adrift]

From Evangelium Vitae 56. " This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of **a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity **and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society.

…

I appreciate your postings they have made me think.
This particular post of yours set me back on my heels. It crystalized my objections to these types of post.

“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.”

I understand you were quoting an article from the early 60’s. It made me realizes what was grading on me. If it is true that Catholic’s may not deny that the state has a right to execute than it would seem to me that statements to the effect that capitol punishment is cruel or it violates human dignity is a denial of that right. You can flim flam around it but that is what is implied. What bothers me is that most who condemn the death penalty seem to be denying the states right to execute.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

You have blended the two document to assert something that is not in either document. To view the penal system of justice in line with human dignity is not the same as saying that the death penalty violates human dignity.

I have asked before since Pope John Paul II was so against the death penalty why do you believe he just didn’t come
right out and condemn its use instead of saying it should be rarely used?

The Church allows for arguments that cite the inability of the system to constrain dangerous aggressive offenders, so your argument is quite valid. There is a fairly widespread global feeling though, based on the experience of abolishing the death penalty, that the death penalty could be contributing to an overall culture of death that is doing more harm than good to the safety of the community.

There is a widespread global feeling to abort and to recognize homosexual marriages appealing to the majority is not a strong argument. However your point that it may do more harm than good might be true but would need to be substantiated. It is sad that we continue to execute the innocent while protesting the not so innocents death. I believe that you are against both but it does seem to me that many of those who promote abortion also promote doing away with the death penalty.

 

[LongingSoul]

“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.”

In this discussion we are not really addressing the pacifist and peacenik errors that were beginning to emerge in the sixties, we are addressing the specific teaching of the Church, especially with regards to Pope John Pauls strong words regarding the death penalty.

Example: *“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 clear that we are not to deny that the State has the right and duty to have recourse to a death penalty if this is the only possible way of safeguarding the community. What is also clear is that without that very specific justification for using the death penalty… it is a measure that has no support by the Catholic Church. The belief that its primary purpose is retribution is wrong. That would be like saying that the primary purpose of limb amputation is to restore health when really the primary purpose of amputation is as a last resort to halt disease. Of course in halting disease you are restoring health but it is a measure of last resort. You would never amputate a limb that could be treated and restored to health because that would be a violation of medical ethics. It would not do to mistake the measure of amputation as having something to recommend it other than as being the only possible way to save the body. It would probably make medical care a lot cheaper and quicker to amputate parts that present with problems, but wholeness of the body is more important.

So then amputation was addressed in an entirely different way in the era before modern medicines and the alternatives. By virtue of its necessity it held a more general place in medical treatment since the idea of less drastic alternatives was not conceived of yet. In that environment it might be entirely valid to say that the primary purpose of amputation was to restore health since it was the only way.

I have asked before since Pope John Paul II was so against the death penalty why do you believe he just didn’t come right out and condemn its use instead of saying it should be rarely used?

He acknowledges that it is legitimate when the public safety warrants such a measure. So is warfare and the defense of your life in general. That is why it is not condemned as intrinsically evil in the way of abortion and euthanasia. The CCC entrusts capital punishment to the principle of double effect.

The Church allows for arguments that cite the inability of the system to constrain dangerous aggressive offenders, so your argument is quite valid. There is a fairly widespread global feeling though, based on the experience of abolishing the death penalty, that the death penalty could be contributing to an overall culture of death that is doing more harm than good to the safety of the community.

There is a widespread global feeling to abort and to recognize homosexual marriages appealing to the majority is not a strong argument. However your point that it may do more harm than good might be true but would need to be substantiated. It is sad that we continue to execute the innocent while protesting the not so innocents death. I believe that you are against both but it does seem to me that many of those who promote abortion also promote doing away with the death penalty.

It’s not appealing to the majority to make an argument. It’s recognising the movement of the Holy Spirit among people to have greater sensitivity to human dignity. Evangelium Vitae strongly emphasises this aspect of ‘sensus fidelium’ (sense of the people) as being significant.

Pro abortion and other intrinsically evil acts are definitely not a movement of the Holy Spirit. We have to believe that everyone has truth written on their hearts and that by spreading the word or Word, that truth can grow into the love of really godly things inside a person. So when the Church talks about the growing moral sensitivity for human dignity around the globe, she is acknowledging that capacity in people to hear and nurture Gods will and bring about better ways of being.