E
expectthebest
Guest
Is the teaching of the Church on this subject Doctrine or something we can dissagree with?
- Status
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Doctrine.
But be sure you properly understand exactly what the Church teaches in this regard. Some people think the Church absolutely forbids the death penalty. This is not correct.
See vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
The Church is clear on her Teachings in regards to the Death Penalty as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2267:
**“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” **- my italics
People can certainly dissagree with whether or not a specific case warrants the Death Penalty or not, but the Church’s traditional teaching is that recourse to the death penalty is valid if it is the only possible way to defend human lives as long as it has been fully determined 1. who the guilty party is 2. the responsibility of the guilty party.
For example: A serial killer is caught and it is fully determined based on hard DNA evidence they have the right man. He is in his 20’s and has killed a person a month for the last 5 years. If he were given “Life in prison without the possibility of parole” this means he would be out in 20 years when he is still young enough to continue killing the public - death penalty would be a valid recourse to prevent further harm to the human lives.
However, if the situation were the same except he wasn’t caught in his 20’s, he was finally caught at age 70 even though he’d continued his habit of killing one person a month and received “Life in prison without the possibility of parole” in 20 years when he is 90 yrs old, he will likely be either dead or feeble enough to not be able to cause any more additional harm to human lives, so the death penalty may be avoided legitamently because the assumption would be he would not be able to hurt anymore human lives.
The way the current practice of the United State Penal System works most offenders only due 1/4 to 1/2 of their time and are released and the majority of them reoffend violently, even if their initial crime wasn’t violent. If our Penal System were corrected so that all offenders fullfill their full sentencing time and those sentencing times were increased to truly protect the public (Life in Prison actually meaning Life in Prison), then the death penalty would not be needed in our country.
Even still, as it stands, there are thousands on death row and very few die from the death penalty, the vast majority of them die from old age while awaiting their sentence to be carried out.
Because they are kept in their own individual cells with access to clergy, those on Death Row actually have a much better chance at conversion of heart and true repentence then those in general population in prison.
You can volunteer to write to those on Death Row to speak to them about the Faith. There are many various religious organizations how have such programs.
I hope this helps.
E
Ender
Guest
We may disagree.
*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004
Ah, one question, two conflicting answers. The debate is on.
Ender
G
gcnuss
Guest
I think the Catholic Church really has it right. There are few, if any, occasions when the death penalty is needed. Too often, the cries for the execution of a person are grounded in terms of vengeance, not a particularly Christian motive.
And, too often, as we have seen through the Innocence Project, people are sentenced to death when they are not guilty of the crime for which they were tried. Who knows how many innocent people have been executed through the failure of our justice system to ensure that only the guilty are convicted? Even one would be too many.
Just my two cents worth.
E
expectthebest
Guest
Has this always been doctrine?
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
The Doctrine has always been the same as indicated in paragraph 2267 that the tradition of the Church is that the Church provides the option of recourse to the death penalty.
E
expectthebest
Guest
How could this Doctrine have always been the same as written. Did the Church not activally support the death penalty for heritics in the middle ages?
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
I read about one guy who was brought before the judge, who said “I find no guilt in him,” yet the crowd yelled for execution and the judge gave in and had him killed.
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
The Church still supports the Death Penalty. You should read what I quoted you from the Catechism.
The practical application of the Death Penalty has varied over the centuries, but the doctrine has not changed.
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
Thanks be to God for the Death Penalty of the Roman Empire because if it weren’t for it, then our God Christ Jesus would not have died for our sins on the cross and we’d, as a human race, be hopeless!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
J
JBassist17
Guest
I must be out of the loop in regards to something legal, but how does “Life in prison without the possibility of parole” mean 20 years? That sounds more like “20 years in prison without the possibility of parole”?
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
What state do you live in? Perhaps Life means something different where you live. Here it means 20 years. I’ve heard that it could mean a few less or a few more years in other states?
J
JBassist17
Guest
I’m in DC but I’ve just never looked into it, so when I see “life” on the news I assume life. I know most prison sentences aren’t fully served, for good behavior or whatever reason, but when “without parole” is tacked on the end I guess I took “Life without parole” to be exactly that. Interesting.
E
expectthebest
Guest
How can something not be Doctrine throughout most of of the life of the Church and then all of a sudden be Doctrine?
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
What are you talking about???
Have you not read my response (and several others) which clearly state (and cite) that the Catholic Church does NOT - and NEVER HAS - precluded the death penalty?
You seem to want to ignite an argument about this, but you have no comers, because the Church has NEVER taught what you seem to think She teaches. The Church has *never *(at any time, including in this present age) doctrinally prohibited the death penalty.
T
thistle
Guest
Actually the Church does not “support” the death penalty. It is against the death penalty but accepts that it may be necessary in instances so rare to be almost non-existent. That is different from supporting it.
Any time a country abolishes capital punishment the Church rejoices.
S
Shin
Guest
Hmm… I wonder how many people here have visited the Vatican guillotine?
It’s rather dusty these days tho of course. Just makes the point.
When the Vatican was a power that had more than a small parcel of land to govern, ah… things were different then in the time of the Papal States.
The heads they rolled.
Ever see the movie ‘Brave Heart’? Remember how it ended? They did that too.
But then this is perfectly appropriate as Holy Scripture records God’s use of the death penalty, and His use of it through His servants.
The only doctrine here is that it can be applied legitimately, in other words support.
The pastoral advice is to how often, and varies. The most recent Popes, compared to past history are rather… unusual in their reserve about the matter.
Extremely unusual actually.
Traditionally one argues for clemency and mercy as much as reasonably possible, but it is the soul that is most important compared to the body. Far, far, far more important is saving souls and from those who can cause the death of a soul.
Ave Maria. . .
Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.
Pope Pius XII
The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thou shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.
In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8).
Catechism of the Council of Trent
It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
Pope St. Innocent I, 405 A.D.
It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). ….
Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
It’s rather dusty these days tho of course. Just makes the point.
When the Vatican was a power that had more than a small parcel of land to govern, ah… things were different then in the time of the Papal States.
The heads they rolled.
Ever see the movie ‘Brave Heart’? Remember how it ended? They did that too.
But then this is perfectly appropriate as Holy Scripture records God’s use of the death penalty, and His use of it through His servants.
The only doctrine here is that it can be applied legitimately, in other words support.
The pastoral advice is to how often, and varies. The most recent Popes, compared to past history are rather… unusual in their reserve about the matter.
Extremely unusual actually.
Traditionally one argues for clemency and mercy as much as reasonably possible, but it is the soul that is most important compared to the body. Far, far, far more important is saving souls and from those who can cause the death of a soul.
Ave Maria. . .
Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.
Pope Pius XII
The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thou shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.
In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8).
Catechism of the Council of Trent
It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
Pope St. Innocent I, 405 A.D.
It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). ….
Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
E
expectthebest
Guest
Not trying to argue. I’m trying to understand. I understand the Church does not preclude the death penalty. But, if it is Doctrine that the death penalty is ok in only the most extreme cercumstances and is almost never justified, it doesn’t seem to go along with what the Church has taught in the past.
- Status