Death Penalty

[expectthebest]

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

Thanks for this explanation. So, it seems that the only Doctrine is that the death penalty can be used. It is not Doctrine to say it can be used in this case but not that case. It is not Doctrine to say that it’s almost never ok to use. Are these correct statements?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

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.

I’d have to disagree with you, since I’ve read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject and also have read quite a bit of Catholic Church History and their use through out the centuries of the death penalty.

Do you have any specific documentation for your claim that “the Church rejoices” when a country abolishes capital punishment?

You can be personally against capital punishment/the death penalty by being on a jury and voting against it in a particular case, but you ought to be *very careful *not to claim that the Church teaches what she clearly does not.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Thanks for this explanation. So, it seems that the only Doctrine is that the death penalty can be used. It is not Doctrine to say it can be used in this case but not that case. It is not Doctrine to say that it’s almost never ok to use. Are these correct statements?

Correct.

Doctrine can never change, but the circumstances when capital punishment is justifiable do change (as the Catechism points out). Because these circumstances are mutable, they cannot (by definition) be doctrine.

 

[mchale]

Thanks for this explanation. So, it seems that the only Doctrine is that the death penalty can be used. It is not Doctrine to say it can be used in this case but not that case. It is not Doctrine to say that it’s almost never ok to use. Are these correct statements?

Yep, that is correct. It is however a very viable interpretation of the doctrine to state that – in modern first world countries – there are few occasions that justify its use.

To use the serial killer example that another poster brought up. Even assuming “life” meant 20 years, serial killers who convicted of multiple murders can be given sentences for each separate crime. Such killers, who are not sentenced to death, are often given multiple life sentences without parole such that they would have to live for well over 100 years before there was any possibility of release.

–
Bill

 

[expectthebest]

Yep, that is correct. It is however a very viable interpretation of the doctrine to state that – in modern first world countries – there are few occasions that justify its use.

To use the serial killer example that another poster brought up. Even assuming “life” meant 20 years, serial killers who convicted of multiple murders can be given sentences for each separate crime. Such killers, who are not sentenced to death, are often given multiple life sentences without parole such that they would have to live for well over 100 years before there was any possibility of release.

–
Bill

As Catholics, are we bound to the current interpretation “few occasions that justify its use” or are we free to support the death penalty in any way we choose; say in a similar way to the Church of the middle ages?

 

[thistle]

I’d have to disagree with you, since I’ve read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject and also have read quite a bit of Catholic Church History and their use through out the centuries of the death penalty.

Do you have any specific documentation for your claim that “the Church rejoices” when a country abolishes capital punishment?

You can be personally against capital punishment/the death penalty by being on a jury and voting against it in a particular case, but you ought to be *very careful *not to claim that the Church teaches what she clearly does not.

You are misquoting and consequently misunderstanding me. I said the Church TEACHES that it accepts the death penalty may be necessary in cases so rare as to be almost non-existent. Excepting something may be necessary is not the same as supporting it.

Secondly, I did not say the Church teaches rejoicing in abolition of the death penalty. Its not a doctrine. I said the Church rejoices when a country gets rid of the death penalty. I live in the Philippines and when the capital punishment was abolished here the Church openly and publicly praised the government for this act and rejoiced to see an end of the death penalty.

Please read carefully what I say and next time maybe you won’t misquote me.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

You are misquoting and consequently misunderstanding me. I said the Church TEACHES that it accepts the death penalty may be necessary in cases so rare as to be almost non-existent. Excepting something may be necessary is not the same as supporting it.

Secondly, I did not say the Church teaches rejoicing in abolition of the death penalty. Its not a doctrine. I said the Church rejoices when a country gets rid of the death penalty. I live in the Philippines and when the capital punishment was abolished here the Church openly and publicly praised the government for this act and rejoiced to see an end of the death penalty.

Please read carefully what I say and next time maybe you won’t misquote me.

I didn’t say that you said that the Church teaches rejoicing, I quoted that you said that the Church rejoices.

Now you are specifically saying that “the Church rejoiced” when the death penalty ended in the Philippines.

To clarify, are you taking about Catholic laity rejoicing or are you actually meaning what you are saying that the Church rejoiced which would mean the Church officially via the Pope or the Vatican making an official declaration of joy over the ending of the Death Penalty there?

If it is true that the Church actually rejoiced, I would like you to provide references. As that would prove to be interesting reading especially since it goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church via the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 2267.
For some reason you seem to be under the impression that the state (perhaps in the Philippians this is true, but it is certainly NOT true in the United States) has effectively prevented crime by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm so that execution of an offender practically non-necessary. Meanwhile, if a state ends capital punishment, then the state has NO recourse to it when it is absolutely necessary which goes against Church teaching of having the death penalty as an option.

Plus, in today’s day and age when DNA evidence can so clearly prove who is responsible for the crime, the death penalty now, more than ever, ought to be used. The problem in the U.S. is that it is used so infrequently and that the vast majority of those on death row die of natural causes rather than actual capital punishment. If it were used as it should be, then it would be a deterent for those who would otherwise do horrific crimes and then there would be more room in prisons for other violent offenders to actually remain in prison for their entire sentence and would allow for room for the non-violent offenders to remain behind bars keeping society safe. As it is, crime is far to rampant in the United States. I have seen the most horrible crimes here. I certainly hope that the same isn’t true with the Philippians.

 

[DD2007]

I think the death penalty should be abolished.

 

[Shin]

Thanks for this explanation. So, it seems that the only Doctrine is that the death penalty can be used. It is not Doctrine to say it can be used in this case but not that case. It is not Doctrine to say that it’s almost never ok to use. Are these correct statements?

As others have said this is correct.

As Catholics, are we bound to the current interpretation “few occasions that justify its use” or are we free to support the death penalty in any way we choose; say in a similar way to the Church of the middle ages?

No you are not bound to it. This is pastoral guidance, which one is free to (prudently and with care and prayer) accept or reject.

As you can see from some of what the CCC has said it is differing from more than one authoritative statement on its reasoning behind the death penalty being only for the self defense of society. That’s definitely something that would give one pause and make one think.

The CCC is not everything you need to know about Catholicism – far from it. This isn’t knocking it, it’s just how it is, its limitations.

[edit]

And so too there are trends in leadership in what they support or reject that make it seem as if the Universal Church supports or rejects one thing or another. This is not in fact quite the case but often simply the influences of the times good and evil.

 

[JBassist17]

I don’t feel this should even be a conversation, honestly. A Catholic supportive of the death penalty is simply illogical. We are told to trust in God’s divine judgment in regards to when He calls us home, yet we are going to decide that because someone has committed a heinous act suddenly it’s up to us? No human life should ever be taken by another human. We did not breathe life into one another (not even as parents, for as parents we create the vessel, not the spark), and we therefore have no right whatsoever to presume we can snuff life out from another.

 

[mchale]

As Catholics, are we bound to the current interpretation “few occasions that justify its use” or are we free to support the death penalty in any way we choose; say in a similar way to the Church of the middle ages?

Since the Catechism of the Church actually states,

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.

I think we are pretty much bound to that interpretation. I think we need to also remember that in the Middle Ages, the means to safely incarcerate criminals did not exist.

–
Bill

 

[JBassist17]

Since the Catechism of the Church actually states,

I think we are pretty much bound to that interpretation. I think we need to also remember that in the Middle Ages, the means to safely incarcerate criminals did not exist.

–
Bill

Let’s also remember that for the bulk of the Middle Ages, despite the fact that we recognize the Popes as legitimate now, they were often products of family dynasties, Roman aristocratic politics, or installations of kings/emperors that found them convenient. While I do not believe we should discount what they taught us on faith and morals and true Catholic dogma/doctrine, I don’t think we can go about looking at their use of the figurative guillotine as the standard. And the argument that it wasn’t just the Popes executing heretics, but their bishops as well, let’s remember that what applied for the Popes in these times usually applied in a greater degree to their bishops. There will always arise bad messengers in the Church from time to time, the Middle Ages just happened to see quite a few use the Church as a source of power, given that the Pope was not only Pope, but also Prince of Rome and often very, very closely tied to the Emperor.

 

[Shin]

Those sorts of ad hominem attacks against the popes are wrong especially considering that you will see support of saints and Ecumenical Councils and Holy Scripture behind the death penalty and it being used not only for the defense of life but as legitimate punishment.

You can find reasons to prudentially believe it is not to be done in these times, you cannot condemn it and thus those who performed it as evil simply by that fact.

The debate for a faithful Catholic is on whether it is appropriate and prudential for these times, not on its intrinsic good or evil. There is also room for the study of the punishment issue.

The question for the learning Catholic would be: If the weight of Tradition is -for- punishment, as it seems to be, the CCC in fact would then be considered to have a problem for not noting that. And in fact this issue was a controversy when it was in fact being written, there are articles about it. It is not an infallible or ‘perfect’ document.

What the next Pope says in a catechism does not override what all previous popes have said, or the weight of Tradition.

As Catholics we look for universal or timeless testimony as to the truth.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I don’t feel this should even be a conversation, honestly. A Catholic supportive of the death penalty is simply illogical. We are told to trust in God’s divine judgment in regards to when He calls us home, yet we are going to decide that because someone has committed a heinous act suddenly it’s up to us? No human life should ever be taken by another human. We did not breathe life into one another (not even as parents, for as parents we create the vessel, not the spark), and we therefore have no right whatsoever to presume we can snuff life out from another.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church supports it. As a Catholic, I would think it is best not to be a “cafeteria” Catholic by taking only what you like about the Church and leaving the rest behind. Jesus was more of an “all or nothing” kinda guy. He even said, “I will spit out the lukewarm from My Mouth”.

We as Catholics can disagree with the each other about specific cases as to whether or not the death penalty is warranted for that particular situation, but we as Catholics don’t have a leg to stand on to say it should “always” or “never” be used, since the Church teaches it can be used in some instances - where it is clear who the guilty party is and that using the death penalty will protect the public from him/her.

As a Catholic I chose to believe the Churches teachings even those I don’t like or don’t understand. The Church has spoken on the Death Penalty, so I will shut up and obey her should I ever be placed on a Jury where the Death Penalty comes into play.

 

[JBassist17]

I should have reread what I posted to avoid these misunderstandings. I was not making ad hominem attacks on the Popes of the Middle Ages, I was making the case that their use of the death penalty shouldn’t be taken as the standard of Catholic moral action, seeing as they did not have a wonderful track record in that.

As far as being a “cafeteria” Catholic, I do not believe you have the right to make such accusations, but will also rephrase my stance, in that case. While the Church holds that the death penalty is acceptable in cases where the guilty party has been found and the perpetrator is still a danger to the public, I would respond that there is no situation in our times where a person on trial can anymore be a legitimate threat to the public. I cannot imagine an instance in which this would be the case, and therefore see no reason why the death penalty should ever be undertaken.

All of God’s children should always be allowed the chance to repent before death, and setting that deadline is never our right.

 

[mchale]

We as Catholics can disagree with the each other about specific cases as to whether or not the death penalty is warranted for that particular situation, but we as Catholics don’t have a leg to stand on to say it should “always” or “never” be used, since the Church teaches it can be used in some instances - where it is clear who the guilty party is and that using the death penalty will protect the public from him/her.

Actually, I think we should be clear, that it is not simply a matter of the Death penalty protecting the public; it should be the only method capable of protecting the public (i.e., no bloodless means are available) before the state uses its. I think it is equally true that we have to be careful how we read it; I don’t think it is legitimate to use current laws limiting prison terms to argue that sufficient means are not available – we need to work to change the laws to make sure that the bloodless means are sufficient as often as possible.

–
Bill

 

[thistle]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church supports it. As a Catholic, I would think it is best not to be a “cafeteria” Catholic by taking only what you like about the Church and leaving the rest behind. Jesus was more of an “all or nothing” kinda guy. He even said, “I will spit out the lukewarm from My Mouth”.

We as Catholics can disagree with the each other about specific cases as to whether or not the death penalty is warranted for that particular situation, but we as Catholics don’t have a leg to stand on to say it should “always” or “never” be used, since the Church teaches it can be used in some instances - where it is clear who the guilty party is and that using the death penalty will protect the public from him/her.

As a Catholic I chose to believe the Churches teachings even those I don’t like or don’t understand. The Church has spoken on the Death Penalty, so I will shut up and obey her should I ever be placed on a Jury where the Death Penalty comes into play.

This has nothing to do with lukewarm beliefs. Catholics do NOT have to agree with or support the death penalty. By opposing capital punishment Catholics are not subject to sanctions and nor are they committing a sin by doing so.
We are simply obliged to accept the Church teaching that it might be necessary in instances so rare to be almost non-existent.

As to the Church position in the Philippines:

www1.prolife.org.ph/page/death_penalty1

newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090109-182434/Still-no-to-death-penalty–clergy

 

[Shin]

While it is good to be concerned about this issue, I would be far more happy to see people concerned about prison reform and making sure that prisoners have only restricted to no access to television, no pornography, and other degenerating entertainments.

Prison has become a school for criminals in so many places, and tool for turning men into degenerates rather than regeneration and penance.

And yes PENANCE is key to prison, without which Our Lord says men cannot achieve salvation.

Part of the purpose of prison is punishment and it is very sad to see the large movement that opposes this.

I far more approve of the Singaporean prison system than the one we have here.

 

[JBassist17]

I far more approve of the Singaporean prison system than the one we have here.

I may have missed this in an earlier post, but what about Singapore’s prison system to you approve of so much more?

I agree, ours is lacking greatly, and I’m not asking that in a challenging manner, I just know nothing about Singapore’s system and am curious.

 

[expectthebest]

Thanks for this explanation. So, it seems that the only Doctrine is that the death penalty can be used. It is not Doctrine to say it can be used in this case but not that case. It is not Doctrine to say that it’s almost never ok to use. Are these correct statements?

Thank you! Your very clear answers are very helpful. You get right to the point and answer the question. I appreciate that.