Death Penalty not against CC?

[Debora123]

So I just saw someone mention on here a couple days ago that the Church doesn’t forbid the death penalty.

Is this true?? If so, that goes against everything I’ve ever understood about Christianity.

My understanding always was that the death penalty was 100% against Church teaching. Maybe I’ve never actually heard that, but I’ve always assumed, based on what the Church teaches regarding, life, forgiveness, and judgment.

Am I crazy or what??

 

[promethius]

So I just saw someone mention on here a couple days ago that the Church doesn’t forbid the death penalty.

Is this true?? If so, that goes against everything I’ve ever understood about Christianity.

My understanding always was that the death penalty was 100% against Church teaching. Maybe I’ve never actually heard that, but I’ve always assumed, based on what the Church teaches regarding, life, forgiveness, and judgment.

Am I crazy or what??

The death penalty is not EXPLICITLY against church teaching, however it is not always in keeping with it either. As a punitive act (aka, punishment) we should not put prisoners to death. However, with many pathological killers, their crime does not end simply because they go to jail. There is potential inside jail for many of these types to kill other inmates and (possibly) never face charges for it. As a result, in order to prevent additional loss of life (aka, defense of others) the person may be put to death instead.

In other words, the death penalty should be used as a tool to prevent additional murder, and not as a punitive measure.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The death penalty is not EXPLICITLY against church teaching, however it is not always in keeping with it either. As a punitive act (aka, punishment) we should not put prisoners to death. However, with many pathological killers, their crime does not end simply because they go to jail. There is potential inside jail for many of these types to kill other inmates and (possibly) never face charges for it. As a result, in order to prevent additional loss of life (aka, defense of others) the person may be put to death instead.

In other words, the death penalty should be used as a tool to prevent additional murder, and not as a punitive measure.

Actually, the Catholic Church’s position on the death penalty is much stronger than that. While not forbidding it outright in every situation, the Church does say that the death penalty can be used only as a last resort when no other measures will serve to protect people from further harm. Using it as a convenience when there are more secure methods of confinement that would accomplish the same end is not permitted.

 

[promethius]

Using it as a convenience when there are more secure methods of confinement that would accomplish the same end is not permitted.

Correct, thank you for clarifying. I’ll also add that “more secure methods of confinement” aren’t allowed to be immoral in themselves either…

 

[kbwall]

Here’s a good link:

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32320

 

[hxcCatholic413]

So I just saw someone mention on here a couple days ago that the Church doesn’t forbid the death penalty.

Is this true?? If so, that goes against everything I’ve ever understood about Christianity.

My understanding always was that the death penalty was 100% against Church teaching. Maybe I’ve never actually heard that, but I’ve always assumed, based on what the Church teaches regarding, life, forgiveness, and judgment.

Am I crazy or what??

Unfortunately it is true but in very rare cases

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here’s a good link:

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32320

That is the opinion of one man - Father John Hardon. I think it would be better to go straight to the Cathechism. This is from 2267:

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

And then there is this from Para. 56 of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical letter on various threats to human life which Pope John Paul II issued on March 25, 1995:

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. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence.” Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.

 

[CMatt25]

So I just saw someone mention on here a couple days ago that the Church doesn’t forbid the death penalty.

Is this true?? If so, that goes against everything I’ve ever understood about Christianity.

My understanding always was that the death penalty was 100% against Church teaching. Maybe I’ve never actually heard that, but I’ve always assumed, based on what the Church teaches regarding, life, forgiveness, and judgment.

Am I crazy or what??

Debora, you are not crazy. It is a logical assumption. And the Church clearly teaches in CCC 2267 death penalty cases are “very rare, if not practically non-existent.” But based solely on at least my experience and interaction with people, I have found there does seem to be a number of Catholics who support the state taking a life under the guise of non innocent life. And I have been told on other threads in the news forum CCC 2267 is in error or is an opinion. I don’t know about that. But I do find it a bit interesting the Church seems to spend less time correcting those who support a death penalty in far more cases than “very rare if not non existent”.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Debora, you are not crazy. It is a logical assumption. And the Church clearly teaches in CCC 2267 death penalty cases are “very rare, if not practically non-existent.” But based solely on at least my experience and interaction with people, I have found there does seem to be a number of Catholics who support the state taking a life under the guise of non innocent life. And I have been told on other threads in the news forum CCC 2267 is in error or is an opinion. I don’t know about that. But I do find it a bit interesting the Church seems to spend less time correcting those who support a death penalty in far more cases than “very rare if not non existent”.

I would have to agree with you on that. It seems that many Catholics believe in the death penalty far more than they should. It is a very good topic to debate

 

[WetCatechumen]

The modern world is different. In a frontier society, like the American old west, you couldn’t afford to have people going around shooting others and stealing horses. The death penalty was like putting down a rabid dog - there was no decent way to ensure that you could keep it from harming people, and by committing heinous acts it had lost its right to live.

But since we now can imprison people for things like this, the cost of not executing them is not very high at all, so we can easily afford not to have to kill them.

So no, as a Catholic you are not dogmatically required to believe that the death penalty is always evil.

 

[Ender]

And the Church clearly teaches in CCC 2267 death penalty cases are “very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

In another thread on this forum (Conscience vs Church) several people, in order to support their position, have focused on a single statement in the Catechism and believe they can ignore everything else. Their position in that thread is incorrect and it is just as incorrect to focus solely on 2267 (and EV 56 from which it was developed) to the exclusion of everything else the Church teaches on this and related subjects.

I have been told on other threads in the news forum CCC 2267 is in error or is an opinion.

It is in error *and *it is an opinion: the first sentence in 2267 is incorrect and the third one is obviously an opinion.

The teaching on capital punishment goes back to the very beginning of the Church herself and is based on two scripture references: Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4; her understanding of those passages has not changed. The problem with looking solely at 2267 is that it gives a false understanding of what the Church teaches (just like in the other thread, the focus on a single reference can be deceptive).

The major problem with 2267 is that it bases the use of capital punishment solely on whether it is needed to protect the public, but protection is only a secondary objective of punishment. The primary objective is retribution (justice) and 2267 simply ignores this requirement.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In another thread on this forum (Conscience vs Church) several people, in order to support their position, have focused on a single statement in the Catechism and believe they can ignore everything else. Their position in that thread is incorrect and it is just as incorrect to focus solely on 2267 (and EV 56 from which it was developed) to the exclusion of everything else the Church teaches on this and related subjects.
It is in error *and *it is an opinion: the first sentence in 2267 is incorrect and the third one is obviously an opinion.

The teaching on capital punishment goes back to the very beginning of the Church herself and is based on two scripture references: Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4; her understanding of those passages has not changed. The problem with looking solely at 2267 is that it gives a false understanding of what the Church teaches (just like in the other thread, the focus on a single reference can be deceptive).

The major problem with 2267 is that it bases the use of capital punishment solely on whether it is needed to protect the public, but protection is only a secondary objective of punishment. The primary objective is retribution (justice) and 2267 simply ignores this requirement.

Ender

It is very clear that you would rewrite the Catechism to remove or weaken 2267. Now look who is picking and choosing. Who are you to say that a passage from the Catechism that has been supported by the last two popes is in error?

You are right that to focus on just one part of the Catechism is a mistake. But it is just as much an error to discard a part you don’t like just because you have trouble reconciling it with your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Ender]

It is very clear that you would rewrite the Catechism to remove or weaken 2267.

Yes, I believe this section needs to be redone.

Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe (R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L [canon lawyer])

Now look who is picking and choosing.

I am willing to address 2267, but only in the context of everything else the Church teaches and the only way I can reconcile what it says with other teachings is to understand it as the prudential opinion of JPII that the use of capital punishment in current societies does more harm than good. That is, it is a prudential statement about the use of capital punishment today, not a change in the understanding of its moral nature.

Who are you to say that a passage from the Catechism that has been supported by the last two popes is in error?

I think the error is pretty obvious and I am by no means alone in pointing it out. The comment below goes to the first sentence in 2267, the one I claimed was in error.

*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J. - Professor, Pontifical Gregorian University - Rome)

You are right that to focus on just one part of the Catechism is a mistake. But it is just as much an error to discard a part you don’t like just because you have trouble reconciling it with your interpretation of Scripture.

I have not discarded it; I have pointed out the problems with it, nor have I ever presented a personal interpretation of Scripture. What I have done is quote the Church’s interpretation. I’m not giving you my opinions, I’m giving you the teaching of the Church and her great theologians. I have pointed this out before: there is nothing in the entire 2000 year history of the Church that supports 2267, despite the fact that she has commented on this subject at least as far back as Innocent I in 405.

Ender

 

[JackyB]

The modern world is different. In a frontier society, like the American old west, you couldn’t afford to have people going around shooting others and stealing horses. The death penalty was like putting down a rabid dog - there was no decent way to ensure that you could keep it from harming people, and by committing heinous acts it had lost its right to live.

But since we now can imprison people for things like this, the cost of not executing them is not very high at all, so we can easily afford not to have to kill them.

So no, as a Catholic you are not dogmatically required to believe that the death penalty is always evil.

I believe that keeping people in prison is anything but cheap, however that’s not the point. I believe that there are crimes out there that are committed by ‘people’ that give up that right to live, it is the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime and by that I mean against children.

 

[Ender]

I believe that there are crimes out there that are committed by ‘people’ that give up that right to live

You are not alone in thinking this.

*“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” *(Pius XII)

Ender

 

[Debora123]

Debora, you are not crazy. It is a logical assumption. And the Church clearly teaches in CCC 2267 death penalty cases are “very rare, if not practically non-existent.” But based solely on at least my experience and interaction with people, I have found there does seem to be a number of Catholics who support the state taking a life under the guise of non innocent life. And I have been told on other threads in the news forum CCC 2267 is in error or is an opinion. I don’t know about that. But I do find it a bit interesting the Church seems to spend less time correcting those who support a death penalty in far more cases than “very rare if not non existent”.

I think the death penalty is absolutely horrible and a direct insult to God. Nowadays we have the resources and technology to make maximum security prisons, where prisoners are in their cell 23 hours a day. We don’t need to kill a person who is already in prison to keep them from harming another. And if that’s not the case, I’m sure a civilized society as ours can come up with a solution that doesn’t involve killing that person.

It just seems ridiculous to me that any Christian, much less a Catholic, could ever think that the death penalty is ok in any circumstances (bc many do).

Taking away that prisoner’s life, not only means playing God, but it also means robbing that person of the chance to repent and make amends with God and save his soul before he dies.

It boggles my mind how the Church can be more laid back about the death penalty than about using a condom in extreme, life threatening cases of innocent people.

 

[Debora123]

I believe that there are crimes out there that are committed by ‘people’ that give up that right to live.

That’s up for God to decide, not us. Why did you put “people” in quotations? Do you not believe that they are people?

 

[Ender]

It just seems ridiculous to me that any Christian, much less a Catholic, could ever think that the death penalty is ok in any circumstances (bc many do).

Do you not recognize that the Church does now and always has supported the right of States to apply the death penalty? The Church has never denied its use and the Vatican itself had the death penalty on its books until 1969. Among those who think the death penalty is OK in certain circumstances is the Church herself.

Taking away that prisoner’s life, not only means playing God…

Inasmuch as the State acts as God’s ministers this claim is not quite the bad thing you make it out to be.

… but it also means robbing that person of the chance to repent and make amends with God and save his soul before he dies.

Not at all, in fact the condemned have years in which to repent of their sins.

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” *(Aquinas)

It boggles my mind how the Church can be more laid back about the death penalty than about using a condom in extreme, life threatening cases of innocent people.

Your confusion is in large measure due to the new teaching in 2267 that ignores the retributive aspect of punishment and focuses solely on protection and by doing so we are losing an appreciation of the seriousness of sin.

The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences. (Paul VI)

Ender

 

[Debora123]

Do you not recognize that the Church does now and always has supported the right of States to apply the death penalty? The Church has never denied its use and the Vatican itself had the death penalty on its books until 1969. Among those who think the death penalty is OK in certain circumstances is the Church herself.
Inasmuch as the State acts as God’s ministers this claim is not quite the bad thing you make it out to be.
Not at all, in fact the condemned have years in which to repent of their sins.

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” *(Aquinas)
Your confusion is in large measure due to the new teaching in 2267 that ignores the retributive aspect of punishment and focuses solely on protection and by doing so we are losing an appreciation of the seriousness of sin.

*The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the *foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences. (Paul VI)

Ender

As long as there’s life, there’s hope… at least that’s what I’ve always thought the Church taught. Taking away a life, you’re taking away that person’s chance to repent. I understand how the Church feels about this, and I completely disagree. I think the death penalty is always wrong.

 

[Ender]

As long as there’s life, there’s hope… at least that’s what I’ve always thought the Church taught.

I’ll repeat what Aquinas wrote, which is the position the Church has taken:

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. *

I understand how the Church feels about this, and I completely disagree. I think the death penalty is always wrong.

You are certainly free to form your own opinions but you aren’t free to determine right and wrong; that task is reserved for the magisterium, and they have taken the opposite position.

Ender