Death penalty question.

[Ender]

So let’s read some of the things she has said:

Thank you … this is the right way to address the issue.

“Abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus, who both taught and practiced the forgiveness of injustice.”

-excerpt from Statement on Capital Punishment, US Bishops, November, 1980

The first thing to note is that this statement did not receive enough votes from the bishops themselves to even be considered an official statement, and even if it had it would still have required affirmation from the Vatican, so there is no way it can be considered doctrinal.

Secondly, it seems theologically weak. Jesus surely taught forgiveness and as individuals we are required to forgive those who hurt us, but this is very different from what the state is called to do. The individual is forbidden to avenge wrongs; the state is obligated to.

“(punishment) ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.
-excerpt from Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) - an encyclical of Pope John Paul II, March 25, 1995

This is most commonly understood to mean that the physical protection of society is the only justification for using capital punishment. The problem with this is that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment; the primary objective is retribution and the question is: how can the use of capital punishment be determined by the lack its need to satisfy a secondary objective rather than the presence of its need to satisfy the primary goal?

Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (Ibid)

This is an opinion about the state of modern penal systems and one with which we are free to disagree.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Continued…

"In its traditional teaching as summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Church affirms the right and duty of legitimate public authority ‘to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense’ (no. 2266 ). Recourse to the death penalty is not absolutely excluded (see no. 2267 ): the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, as is the intentional taking of innocent life through abortion or euthanasia (see nos. 2271 , 2277).** Nevertheless, the Church teaches that in contemporary society where the state has other nonlethal means to protect its citizens, the state should not use the death penalty** (see no. 2267 ).

-excerpt from *A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death *- a statement of the Unites States Conference of Catholic Bishops Calling for an End to the Use of the Death Penalty - November, 2005

Again, citing the USCCB is not at all that compelling; what they say does not necessarily represent church teaching, but up to the “Nevertheless…” above I agree that what they have said is valid. But what does it mean when they say “the state should not use…”? Is that the same as “must not” or “may not” use? That is surely a weak way of obliging us not to do something; it seems more like a request than a command.

But, again, this has the same problem as the other document: the primary objective of punishment is not protection so what is the argument that a secondary objective controls the extent of the punishment rather than the primary objective?

I’ll also point out that all of your citations are recent; there is nothing you have cited that is more than a few decades old. Surely you recognize that the church has addressed this issue for centuries. It has been discussed by earlier popes and by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and there is a great deal of earlier documentation to choose from. The problem with this new position (and opposition to capital punishment is in fact quite new in the church) is that there is nothing in the traditional teaching of the church to support it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Those who argue in favor of the death penalty often horrify me with their callousness towards the lives of the wicked.

It should be recalled that the church has unambiguously opposed those who argue that states do not have the moral right to employ capital punishment. Before he allowed the Waldensians to return to the church, Innocent III required them to sign a document admitting their doctrinal errors, including this one:“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly”

I would say that it is a moral matter - we cannot enforce the death penalty because of a desire for revenge or “justice”.

It is a moral matter, and it is assuredly a matter of justice. It must be understood that this penalty is decreed by God himself (Gn 9:6).

"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. (Catechism of Trent)

Notice they say the state “is the legitimate avenger”. This is the retributive aspect of all punishment and the state has a positive obligation to avenge crimes (even as the individual is forbidden to).

Note also that this passage calls capital punishment “an act of paramount obedience” to the 5th commandment. On what basis do we object to committing an act of paramount obedience to a commandment?

Regarding the statement “The end of the commandment is the preservation and security of human life” I will point out that while this may be the end of the commandment it is not the sole - or even the primary - end of punishment. These are two different things.

to be cont…

Ender

 

[Ender]

Cont…

The Catechism of Trent then goes on to say:*Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.*1 (1 - Gn 9:5-6)
That is, “the most efficacious” means of combating murder is to understand just how wicked the act is. But *“Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution?” *(J. Budziszewski) Even arguing that capital punishment should only be used to protect society still, according to Trent, argues for its use.

The State has the right to enforce a death penalty in order to preserve the lives of those with whom it has been entrusted to keep safe.

This is not at all what was said. Trent states that governments have an obligation to “**punish the guilty and protect the innocent”, not merely that they protect the innocent. This again confuses two separate objectives of punishment and raises a secondary end (protection) above the primary end (retributive justice).

Prudentially, meaning with our best assessment of modern affairs, as to make the best decision we can make to be in line with the teachings of our Faith, the Church teaches that in modern western society, the State is able to secure the lives of its citizens without resorting to the execution of criminals.

We are agreed that this is a prudential teaching.

In such a situation, where the citizens of a state are equally safe with the criminals in prison or executed, I believe the Church infallibly teaches, and all Christians must agree, that the State is morally prohibited from taking the lives of its criminals.

I think you have this backwards.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)

However, seeing the bishops of the Church and the Holy Father overwhelmingly teach that we should eliminate the death penalty in modern society, that prudential view is probably wrong, and anyone who holds it should pause and reassess.

I accept the validity (although not necessarily the correctness) of an argument that opposes the use of capital punishment on prudential grounds. I reject the validity of any argument that raises moral objections to its use.

Ender

 

[felsguy]

the church has spoken on this issue for nearly 2000 years.

Surely we can read ([what she has said]
So here then we can be in complete agreement

and understand what she has said.
but here we are so far apart in our individual interpretations of what she has said that that further debate between you and me seems fruitless

I’ll summarize my position by quoting this statement made by a recent poster and yield the podium to you.

However, seeing the bishops of the Church and the Holy Father overwhelmingly teach that we should eliminate the death penalty in modern society, that prudential view is probably wrong, and anyone who holds it should pause and reassess.

 

[Ender]

I’ll summarize my position by quoting this statement made by a recent poster and yield the podium to you.

• However, seeing the bishops of the Church and the Holy Father overwhelmingly teach that we should eliminate the death penalty in modern society, that prudential view is probably wrong, and anyone who holds it should pause and reassess.*

You acknowledge that the current teaching is prudential, about which, aside from Cardinal Dulles, Cardinal Ratzinger also stated "There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion …". So where’s the problem? Did you miss my response to this comment in my previous post?I accept the validity (although not necessarily the correctness) of an argument that opposes the use of capital punishment on prudential grounds. I reject the validity of any argument that raises moral objections to its use.
Ender

 

[johnnyt3000]

If a murderer is behind bars, unable to harm anyone else, then how would the death penalty be lawful at all? How can we be so against euthenaisa but at the same time willingly execute someone who can’t possibly do the slightest bit of harm while in prison? How can you desire a human being unable to harm anyone to be put to death? How can you call yourself a loving follower of Christ and want to murder someone? Have you forgotten what Christ taught about forgiveness? We (the United States) do NOT need the death penalty to protect society!!!

 

[SoulSolace]

If a murderer is behind bars, unable to harm anyone else, then how would the death penalty be lawful at all? How can we be so against euthenaisa but at the same time willingly execute someone who can’t possibly do the slightest bit of harm while in prison? How can you desire a human being unable to harm anyone to be put to death? How can you call yourself a loving follower of Christ and want to murder someone? Have you forgotten what Christ taught about forgiveness? We (the United States) do NOT need the death penalty to protect society!!!

I don’t agree with the death penalty except as last resort to protect society, but I have a question that keeps butting into my brain over this, perhaps you can answer?
What if a person is such a charismatic, polarizing figure, that his/her followers are willing to kill to break the person out of prison, or if the followers are willing to kill so long as said person is alive? (Perhaps the imprisoned “leader” has ordered his followers to do so as long as he is locked up, or perhaps he is able to cue them somehow through mail, phone, guards, etc,…)

Sorry I succumbed to putting the offender down to being male.

God bless.

 

[johnnyt3000]

I don’t agree with the death penalty except as last resort to protect society, but I have a question that keeps butting into my brain over this, perhaps you can answer?
What if a person is such a charismatic, polarizing figure, that his/her followers are willing to kill to break the person out of prison, or if the followers are willing to kill so long as said person is alive? (Perhaps the imprisoned “leader” has ordered his followers to do so as long as he is locked up, or perhaps he is able to cue them somehow through mail, phone, guards, etc,…)

Sorry I succumbed to putting the offender down to being male.

God bless.

That is a very difficult situation, maybe then it would be justified if it really was the last resort option in order to protect society.

 

[Ender]

If a murderer is behind bars, unable to harm anyone else, then how would the death penalty be lawful at all?

What is the primary objective of punishment? (Hint: it isn’t protection)

How can you call yourself a loving follower of Christ and want to murder someone?

Let’s at least be clear on this: capital punishment is not murder. It is killing, but the church has not condemned all killing and has in fact identified three cases where it is justified, capital punishment being one of them. It is also worth noting that it was God himself who called for this punishment just as Christ recognized the justness of its use.

Have you forgotten what Christ taught about forgiveness?

It is the individual’s responsibility to forgive but it is the state’s responsibility to punish.

We (the United States) do NOT need the death penalty to protect society!!!

That may or may not be true, but the protection of society is not the primary objective of punishment and does not determine what punishment is just.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t agree with the death penalty except as last resort to protect society, but I have a question that keeps butting into my brain over this, perhaps you can answer?
What if a person is such a charismatic, polarizing figure, that his/her followers are willing to kill to break the person out of prison, or if the followers are willing to kill so long as said person is alive? (Perhaps the imprisoned “leader” has ordered his followers to do so as long as he is locked up, or perhaps he is able to cue them somehow through mail, phone, guards, etc,…)

Sorry I succumbed to putting the offender down to being male.

God bless.

I think the killing of Osama Bin Laden would make a perfect example of what you are talking about. There is no way that he could have been incarcerated either on US soil or in any other country without putting those countries at very high risk of the deathly fundamental extremists of the world. When St Augustine wrote on taking recourse to a death penalty he identified it as either a ‘general law’ or ‘an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time’. You can imagine in the 5th Century that this scenario was even more highly possible than today where we have high tech defenses. I don’t think anyone truly believed there was any possible punishment for Bin Laden then death and burial at sea.

 

[Charles12]

The death penalty is entirely legitimate in principle. Whether to be applied frequently is another matter. The Church has never condemned it and has often handed offenders over to the secular arm to be executed. Whether a recent pope likes it or not is beside the point.