Death penalty question

[john330]

With what dogmatic degree of certainty does the church teach that the death penalty is wrong?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Della]

It doesn’t teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil–because it isn’t. The Church recommends that the death penalty not be used for reasons of mercy, but since it is not against God’s law for civil governments to employ it, for good cause, the Church DOES NOT teach that it is intrinsically evil, which would prohibit it ever being used.

 

[mikekle]

In my opinion, the bible is pretty clear…THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Not much wiggle room in that law. Note that this commandment does not have an asterisk, that the state or Govt is in anyway exempt.

 

[Della]

In my opinion, the bible is pretty clear…THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Not much wiggle room in that law. Note that this commandment does not have an asterisk, saying that it is OK for a state or Govt to do this.

A better translation is “Thou shalt not commit murder.” If humans could never kill other humans God would not have sent the Israelites into war with other nations nor could the Church support a just war nor self-defense. So, it’s not so simple as that.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

A better translation is “Thou shalt not commit murder.” If humans could never kill other humans God would not have sent the Israelites into war with other nations nor could the Church support a just war nor self-defense. So, it’s not so simple as that.

This is basically exactly what I was going to say.

Murder is very different from a just killing. The death penalty is only licit when public welfare depends on it. Nowadays, I think many people would argue that that is rarely the case, at least in America, so from that perspective you could argue (as Pope Benedict did, I believe) that it should rarely, if ever, be employed. That said, it is a matter of prudential judgment on which we are allowed to disagree.

 

[thistle]

In my opinion, the bible is pretty clear…THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Not much wiggle room in that law. Note that this commandment does not have an asterisk, that the state or Govt is in anyway exempt.

You are wrong. As the other posters have said this Commandments applies to murder. If we followed your thought process we would not even be allowed to defend ourselves or our families and if a country attacked us we would not be allowed to fight back.

 

[Brendan]

In my opinion, the bible is pretty clear…THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Not much wiggle room in that law. Note that this commandment does not have an asterisk, that the state or Govt is in anyway exempt.

Romans 13:4 is pretty clear too

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.

And Ecclesiastes 3:1,3

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,

 

[Vasallus]

A better translation is “Thou shalt not commit murder.” If humans could never kill other humans God would not have sent the Israelites into war with other nations nor could the Church support a just war nor self-defense. So, it’s not so simple as that.

“Murder”…correct.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A better translation is “Thou shalt not commit murder.” If humans could never kill other humans God would not have sent the Israelites into war with other nations nor could the Church support a just war nor self-defense. So, it’s not so simple as that.

This may not be true. (or if it is true then killing is wrong as well). After all Jesus himself quoted the Commandment as “thou shall not kill.” (as does CCC 1858). And the CCC also seems to translate the Commandment as “thou shall not kill”. (2051,2262)

The Church has always had a strong tradition that even “killing” (if understood correctly) is wrong. For the first 300 years or so soldiers were apparently banned from Communion for this reason.

Take a look at the CCC which painfully dances angels on a pinhead in this regard:
“2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not.” [65]”

Murder is clearly wrong…but its not so much because it is a killing of the innocent…but because such is intrinsically an example of “intentional/direct killing.”

So that seems to mean we are to understand the 5th Commandment as prohibiting all direct killing.

The problem is, what is “intentional killing” - which is not quite the same as “intended killing.”

Self defence is obviously acceptable - if it is done without “directly/intentionally killing”. That is, we may realise that an aggressive opponent my only be opposed with lethal force - but even when intending lethal force we must not wish their death intentionally in our hearts/minds. We may only wish to protect our own life or anothers.

A very fine distinction indeed but it does preserve the principle that “thou shall not kill (directly).”

It also seems to be assumed that self defence (which is also the CCC’s theoretical justification for Captial Punishment, ie State self defence) is the ONLY matter (ie the third font of a moral act) that makes killing NOT direct… and even then it must be proportionate.

Any other sort of killing can never be done “indirectly” - it is only a theoretical possibility with Self Defence.

State self-defence (Capital Punishment) appears, on prudential/practical grounds, to be unjustified in modern times according to the latest Popes.

The argument seems to be that in the past, due to less materially prosperous times, secure life imprisonment was never really possible. As it is possible nowadays CP would be considered a non proportionate response to removing such criminals from society for the just protection (self defence) of the common good (the State).

 

[Lion_IRC]

In my opinion, the bible is pretty clear…THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Not much wiggle room in that law. Note that this commandment does not have an asterisk, that the state or Govt is in anyway exempt.

Agreed. There isn’t much wiggle room.
But there is some.

I would argue that whenever one human takes or wants to take the life of another it is contrary to the ultimate will of God.

That humans wage war (state sanctioned killing) is not Gods plan. It’s an OBSTACLE to His plan for us. Humans start wars - not God.

Consider this - if people OBEYED God’s commandment…“Thou Shalt Not Kill”, we wouldn’t need “wiggle room” and we wouldn’t be having semantic arguments about why we sometimes need to kill people.

Kill, slay, smite, execute, murder, abort, euthanise…
How about we just obey God and consider the underlying reason He made that commandment?

 

[Ender]

This may not be true. (or if it is true then killing is wrong as well). After all Jesus himself quoted the Commandment as “thou shall not kill.” (as does CCC 1858). And the CCC also seems to translate the Commandment as “thou shall not kill”. (2051,2262)

Define it how you like, but the church has been clear about how she understands that passage.*“The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.” *(Augustine, City of God)

The Church has always had a strong tradition that even “killing” (if understood correctly) is wrong. For the first 300 years or so soldiers were apparently banned from Communion for this reason.

Do you have a citation to support this claim? I don’t believe it is correct.

Take a look at the CCC which painfully dances angels on a pinhead in this regard: “2263 …”

Killing in self defense is given as an example of an act with a double effect, which is not exactly pinhead dancing. The key point is that such an act can be justifiable but only if the bad result is not intended.

Murder is clearly wrong…but its not so much because it is a killing of the innocent…but because such is intrinsically an example of “intentional/direct killing.”

Murder is wrong precisely because it involves the intentional killing…of the innocent. It is not just that it is intentional.It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty (Pius XI Casti Connubi)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Cont…

So that seems to mean we are to understand the 5th Commandment as prohibiting all direct killing.

This is not how the church understands it (see Augustine above).

The problem is, what is “intentional killing” - which is not quite the same as “intended killing.”

Is this like deliberately killing someone but not really wanting to? This is not a hair the church has split.

It also seems to be assumed that self defence (which is also the CCC’s theoretical justification for Captial Punishment, ie State self defence)…

I disagree: the right to capital punishment is not determined by the rules of self defense.

… is the ONLY matter (ie the third font of a moral act) that makes killing NOT direct… and even then it must be proportionate.

The third font of a moral act - the circumstances - do not change the moral nature of an act.Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves (CCC 1754)
To claim that planning, preparing, and executing a death sentence is anything other than direct killing is to empty the words of any meaning at all. It is of course the death of the criminal that is desired; that is the entire objective and intent of the punishment…and it is this fact that keeps capital punishment from being an example of self defense. As you observed, one may kill in self defense *only *if the killing is not intended.

State self-defence (Capital Punishment) appears, on prudential/practical grounds, to be unjustified in modern times according to the latest Popes.

If the primary objective of punishment was security this objection might be conclusive, but in fact the primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice, and that does not change with time and place.

The argument seems to be that in the past, due to less materially prosperous times, secure life imprisonment was never really possible.

It has always been possible.*…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. *(Fifth Lateran Council, 1515)

As it is possible nowadays CP would be considered a non proportionate response to removing such criminals from society for the just protection (self defence) of the common good (the State).

This is certainly debatable, but as protection is a secondary objective of punishment, it is not the deciding criterion.

Ender

 

[mikekle]

“The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.” (Augustine, City of God)

IDK, seems like a strange coincidence that states/ Govts benefit and get the power and control they want. just my opinion though.

 

[Mousey]

This may not be true. (or if it is true then killing is wrong as well). After all Jesus himself quoted the Commandment as “thou shall not kill.” (as does CCC 1858). And the CCC also seems to translate the Commandment as “thou shall not kill”. (2051,2262)

Since you did not quote a particular scripture I have to guess at what you mean. What you say Jesus said is a translation other translations quote Him as saying “thou shalt not murder” The Greek word used is phoneuo which is to 1) to kill, slay, murder 2) to commit murder.
The commandment as quoted by Jesus was not to murder.

 

[porthos11]

With what dogmatic degree of certainty does the church teach that the death penalty is wrong?

Thanks in advance.

Why not let the Church answer your own question: since it doesn’t exclude recourse to the death penalty, then she teaches that the death penalty is NOT wrong.

Perhaps today, she recommends against its use, restricting it to a certain set of restrictions, but that does not speak against the morality of capital punishment as a principle.

The premise is flawed because the Church does not teach that the death penalty is wrong. The answer therefore (i.e. dogmatic certainty), is none, because this is not Church teaching.

 

[Rau]

In my opinion, the bible is pretty clear…THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Not much wiggle room in that law. Note that this commandment does not have an asterisk, that the state or Govt is in anyway exempt.

And yet we may morally engage in war and defend ourselves and others. How did that “wiggle room” arise?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Define it how you like, but the church has been clear about how she understands that passage.

“The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.” (Augustine, City of God)
​

Ender I am not going to re-debate the discussion myself and others had with you last month.
Suffice it to say you were unable to vindicate your view against other sources and interpretations presented to you there.

Interested readers may like to review the debate here.

Its a bit sad that you attempt to trump the latest CCC with Augustine as if there has been no deeper Magisterial reflection on “killing” in the intervening 1500 years.​

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Cont…
This is not how the church understands it (see Augustine above).
Is this like deliberately killing someone but not really wanting to? This is not a hair the church has split.
I disagree: the right to capital punishment is not determined by the rules of self defense.
The third font of a moral act - the circumstances - do not change the moral nature of an act.Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves (CCC 1754)
To claim that planning, preparing, and executing a death sentence is anything other than direct killing is to empty the words of any meaning at all. It is of course the death of the criminal that is desired; that is the entire objective and intent of the punishment…and it is this fact that keeps capital punishment from being an example of self defense. As you observed, one may kill in self defense only if the killing is not intended.
If the primary objective of punishment was security this objection might be conclusive, but in fact the primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice, and that does not change with time and place.
It has always been possible.…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. (Fifth Lateran Council, 1515)
This is certainly debatable, but as protection is a secondary objective of punishment, it is not the deciding criterion.

Ender

As advised to you many times prev Ender - the latest Popes (and the CCC) disagree with your personal over-emphasees above sorry.

The tradition of Augustine wrt retrib justice/punishment justifying State killings has been on the backfoot for centuries and has now been overtaken by an evolution of personal Self-Defence principles applied to the State.
As has been made very clear by the CCC and repeatedly by the Popes of these later times.

“2266 …Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense…
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude…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.]”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Since you did not quote a particular scripture I have to guess at what you mean. What you say Jesus said is a translation other translations quote Him as saying “thou shalt not murder” The Greek word used is phoneuo which is to 1) to kill, slay, murder 2) to commit murder.
The commandment as quoted by Jesus was not to murder.

No need to guess…just go to the CCC references I provided. Its all there.
You will also see the English CCC translates it as “kill”, as did the scholarly Catholic English translation of the NT (RSV).
Unless you are Hebrew/Greek expert I would dig deeper before coming to easy premature conclusions on this topic. I have done two years Biblical Greek but even so I would not be so confident as I know enough to recognise the subtle issues involved here.

Regardless of Scripture…the Catholic Church has always taught the Fifth Commandment as “You shall not kill.”

BTW I hope you aren’t stalking me of late Mousey, there are Forum rules against that sort of jejeune behaviour .

 

[Brendan]

Regardless of Scripture…the Catholic Church has always taught the Fifth Commandment as “You shall not kill.”

The Church always had a recognition that, at times, God DEMANDED that the faithful kill.

Here is the Catechism of Trent on the 5th Commandment, specifically in regards to the Death Penalty. Note the bolded.

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.

The Church’s teaching in that the just use of Captial Punishment is actually a FULFILLMENT of the 5th Commandment.

And the same time the Council of Trent referred to an instance in which David was called to kill, specifically in Divinely Inspired Scripture ( Psalm 101)