Death Penalty not against CC?

[Brendan]

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::

FYI, Fr. Hardon was one of the editors of the current Catechism and authored the 1975 edition.

So his opinion can be used to develop an understanding of what the CCC means.

 

[BigE]

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 Ender

Not true. And their (our) position was proven. By Cardinal Ratzinger no less.

 

[Debora123]

I see you have mentioned Dead Man Walking written by Sister Helen Prejean who has a dubious record where abortion is concerned.

Whether she believes in abortion or not, the movie (which had nothing to do with abortion) made a good point I think. It’s an ugly thing to kill another person, and it shouldn’t be done unless it’s an absolute necessity and a last resort means to defend the innocent.

You gotta admit though, in this country at least, people are NOT sentenced to death because they are seen as a danger to the other inmates… or even because they are seen as a danger to society while still locked up (considering how impossible it is to break free from maximum security prisons of the 21st century). They are sentenced to death as a way to be punished. So I don’t think we can justify the death penalty by saying “oh well they were still a threat to others…”

 

[CMatt25]

Whether she believes in abortion or not, the movie (which had nothing to do with abortion) made a good point I think. It’s an ugly thing to kill another person, and it shouldn’t be done unless it’s an absolute necessity and a last resort means to defend the innocent.

You gotta admit though, in this country at least, people are NOT sentenced to death because they are seen as a danger to the other inmates… or even because they are seen as a danger to society while still locked up (considering how impossible it is to break free from maximum security prisons of the 21st century). They are sentenced to death as a way to be punished. So I don’t think we can justify the death penalty by saying “oh well they were still a threat to others…”

Debora as far as I’m concerned you are preaching to the choir with your posts as I believe you are right on. And besides punishment I’m uncertain revenge might not also be a reason in some instances. But of course I suspect Jesus didn’t say what He said in Matt 5:38-39 for nothing. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

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

Ender if CCC has error as you attest to or statements which may appear alone on the surface to be ambiguous, why isn’t CCC corrected or those parts removed?

 

[Debora123]

But of course I suspect Jesus didn’t say what He said in Matt 5:38-39 for nothing.

Yes, exactly what does this mean??

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." - Matt 5:38-39

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, exactly what does this mean??

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." - Matt 5:38-39

Debora, you’re asking me or the general population? Well to me He was speaking about revenge and eye for eye. If the state kills someone for killing another that’s pretty much eye for eye. Same punishment as the crime.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This question automatically has bias because nobody likes Nazis.

What if that same scenario happened, but in America. And an American soldier leaked American secrets to terrorists, and they were able to attack and kill innocent Americans. What do we do with this treasonous American?

Of course the question has bias. I picked that scenario to see if anyone would dare to support the notion that every state has the right to execute treasonous citizens, or only the “good” states. Depending on how that question was answered, I would then be interested in the question you raised too. But let me first see if Ender or anyone else can support the principle that the Nazis had the right to execute treasonous Germans who cooperated with the Allies.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, exactly what does this mean??

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." - Matt 5:38-39

And this is what the Holy Spirit said throught Paul.

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Rom 13:3-4

We personally are to turn the other cheek, but the State, when is ‘bears the sword’ against evil doers, acts as the agent and servant of God.

The Council of Trent also confirmed this in the section on the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life.

Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. (Plsm 101:8)

This is not saying that all use of Capital Punishment is just, but it’s use can be just in certain circumstances. This must be so, since God Himself has commanded it to happen in certain circumstances, and God is always Just.

 

[Ender]

Of course the question has bias. I picked that scenario to see if anyone would dare to support the notion that every state has the right to execute treasonous citizens, or only the “good” states. Depending on how that question was answered, I would then be interested in the question you raised too. But let me first see if Ender or anyone else can support the principle that the Nazis had the right to execute treasonous Germans who cooperated with the Allies.

Every State has the right to employ the death penalty but just because they have the right to use it doesn’t mean that however they use it is right. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao all, by the simple fact that they were rulers of nations, had the right to employ capital punishment. That all of them grossly abused that right doesn’t mean they didn’t have it.

Christ recognized Pilate’s right to execute him but I’m pretty sure he didn’t consider it a just use of that power, but if Pilate had that right (“You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” Jn 19:11) then surely Hitler did too.

Whether the death penalty should be applied to crimes other than murder is not all that relevant a question. If it doesn’t apply to murder then it doesn’t apply at all - let’s debate whether it should apply to murder.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If it were truly possible to protect by imprisoning, as you suggest, there would be no need to execute.

I disagree with this. As I’ve been pointing out, protection is not the primary objective of punishment and therefore the question of whether prison does or does not provide protection doesn’t address whether the primary objective of punishment has been met. If capital punishment is required to satisfy the primary objective of punishment then it is necessary to employ it whether or not it is needed to meet the requirements of a secondary objective (like protection.)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Not true. And their (our) position was proven. By Cardinal Ratzinger no less.

Your position is that if you believe something to be right then you are obligated by your conscience to do it. Regarding the question LeafbyNiggle raised, how would you condemn the actions of the Nazi’s when they did what they thought was right? By your own standard their actions were justified. As I said, focusing on a single statement to the exclusion of everything else can lead one astray.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes, exactly what does this mean??

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." - Matt 5:38-39

I think Brendan’s response to this was right on; I just want to expand on it a bit.

As individuals, we are obligated to turn the other cheek to personal insults and affronts but the rights and duties of the individual are very different from those of the State, for while we are forbidden to punish those who harm us the State is positively obligated to do so.

"Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime." (CCC 2266)

Beyond that, while we may endure our own affronts, it is wrong of us to passively allow others to be harmed without stepping in. We may not turn someone else’s cheek.

The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. For Crysostom [Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm”]St. Crysostom ] says: “It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God’s wrongs is most wicked.” (Aquinas)

I think we have lost sight of the fact that criminals *deserve *punishment.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Every State has the right to employ the death penalty but just because they have the right to use it doesn’t mean that however they use it is right. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao all, by the simple fact that they were rulers of nations, had the right to employ capital punishment. That all of them grossly abused that right doesn’t mean they didn’t have it.

Christ recognized Pilate’s right to execute him but I’m pretty sure he didn’t consider it a just use of that power, but if Pilate had that right (“You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” Jn 19:11) then surely Hitler did too.

Whether the death penalty should be applied to crimes other than murder is not all that relevant a question. If it doesn’t apply to murder then it doesn’t apply at all - let’s debate whether it should apply to murder.

Ender

The original question was about the death penalty in general. Murder is just the first thing people think of when they think of the death penalty. But it is encouraging to hear you say that the state’s use of the death penalty can be unjust, even if they do have the “right” to do it. So that means the state’s use of the death penalty in murder cases might be unjust in some cases too - for example in cases of wrongful conviction.

So should we as faithful Catholics give our assent to the unrestricted use of the right to capital punishment by supporting our government in their use of this right? Or should we use our conscience and oppose certain applications of this right that appear to us to be unjust? Or, to use your example, was the Roman centurion in charge of Jesus’ crucifixion acting in a morally upright manner by obeying his government’s orders?

 

[BigE]

1. Your position is that if you believe something to be right then you are obligated by your conscience to do it. Regarding the question LeafbyNiggle raised, how would you condemn the actions of the Nazi’s when they did what they thought was right?
2. By your own standard their actions were justified. As I said, focusing on a single statement to the exclusion of everything else can lead one astray.

Ender

1. I would condemn them by saying their conscience was in error. Just as I would condemn the Church and the Bishops that supported the Nazi’s (Germany was after all 50% Catholic).
2. Not by my standards, by the Church’s standards. She even acknowledges in CCC1790 this may lead to error. “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erronous judgements about acts to be performed or already committed”.
3. A justified action does not necessarily = the right action.

 

[Brendan]

So should we as faithful Catholics give our assent to the unrestricted use of the right to capital punishment by supporting our government in their use of this right?

I’m not too sure of any western government that uses capital punishment without restrictions.

Did you have a particular government in mind, or it this a hypothetical situtation for discussion.

 

[Ender]

But it is encouraging to hear you say that the state’s use of the death penalty can be unjust, even if they do have the “right” to do it. So that means the state’s use of the death penalty in murder cases might be unjust in some cases too - for example in cases of wrongful conviction.

Of course. Just as the individual who has a right to self defense may abuse that right, the State, which has a right to apply capital punishment, can abuse that right as well.

So should we as faithful Catholics give our assent to the unrestricted use of the right to capital punishment by supporting our government in their use of this right? Or should we use our conscience and oppose certain applications of this right that appear to us to be unjust?

We may - and should - oppose whatever we think is unjust. Nor was there ever a question of approving an “unrestricted” use of capital punishment. A punishment is just if it’s severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime. Just because one supports life without parole sentences for murderers doesn’t mean that one necessarily supports the same sentence for petty theft.

Or, to use your example, was the Roman centurion in charge of Jesus’ crucifixion acting in a morally upright manner by obeying his government’s orders?

Let’s no go there. It’s not relevant to the question of whether the death penalty can properly be applied whether or not it is necessary for protection.

Ender

 

[kbwall]

One thing I thought of; What about when Jesus was with the adulterous woman, and he saved her life by asking all the would be stoners/executioners “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Wouldn’t that be against the death penalty?

 

[Ender]

One thing I thought of; What about when Jesus was with the adulterous woman, and he saved her life by asking all the would be stoners/executioners “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Wouldn’t that be against the death penalty?

Not really, at least the Church has never given that interpretation to that incident. You could as easily ask, given that Jesus changed Mosaic law by disallowing divorce, why, if he thought capital punishment was wrong, didn’t he take this opportunity to change the law here and outlaw it once and for all? The question of capital punishment is not what that incident was about; when the Church considers this question she refers to Gen 9:5-6 and Rm 13:1-4, not John 8:3-11.

Ender

 

[Debora123]

We personally are to turn the other cheek, but the State, when is ‘bears the sword’ against evil doers, acts as the agent and servant of God.

The bible obviously contradicts herself on this issue many times. But Jesus’ teachings and the examples he set while he was here on Earth gives me every reason to believe the death penalty is a horrible thing.

Also, Brandan’s argument here doesn’t make any sense to me. The state is, after all, made up of people. People who should follow the law of Christ like the rest of us.