Death Penalty

[Ender]

Through their own actions in braking the Law of Man and God, they have forfeit their own right to life.

This is just what Pius XII said:

Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.

There is justice and mercy in carrying out the biblical and historical penalty.

Justice is actually a simple concept that consists of giving every man his due, either rewards for good works or punishment for crimes. We seem uncomfortable with the concept of punishment as somehow un-Christian when in fact it is a fundamental necessity and tenet of faith. Again, Pius XII:

In the metaphysical order, penalty is a consequence of dependence on the supreme will, dependence which exists in the deepest recesses of created being.

A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium …

Ender

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Why have you not responded to my post #37?

Because you failed to provide any proof of your claim that: The Church rejoiced when the Phillipians ended the Death Penalty.

What you provided in the links - read both articles - indicates that **local **Catholics in the Phillipians were happy with the decision to do away with the Death Penalty, not that the Church itself made any sign of rejoicing.

In fact, in the first article, it specifically quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the official stance of the Church which DOES PERMIT THE DEATH PENALTY!

My position is backed up by the Church and her Teaching as I’ve quoted numerous times the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You’ve failed to provide any proof that the Catholic Church backs up your opinion. The reason for your failure is in the simple fact that the Catholic Church has not ever changed her stance on this issue, the Death Penalty is and always has been a legitimate means of punishment in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

I choose to believe what the Church teaches. You can continue believing your own opinion, but you are not going to sway me away from believing the Teaching of the Church.

Peace to you now and always!

 

[vin61]

This is a great thread and another excellent example of the progressive evolution of Church teaching.

First point-- it is clear from official teaching and history that the Church did support capital punishment for the overwhelming majority of it’s history. See Shin’s pertinant post #18.

Second point-- How can anyone read the current catechism and conclude that the Church still supports capital punishment as it’s practiced in the world today? It is a serious stretch of reason to conclude that the statement “… does not exclude recourse to… if this is the only possible way…” from the catechism means the same as “supports.” Permits? Yes. Allows? Yes. But the essence of the teaching is now contained in the catechism’s qualifying proviso which follows the language quoted above, that is, “Today… the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

“Very rare, if not practically non existant” clearly means that there are almost no circumstances today in which the use of the death penalty is justified. This is Catholic teaching today, straight from the official catechism.

For further elucidation, read the words of Pope John Paul II: usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml

Capital punishment is a significant moral issue, and the Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals, right?

As for whether or not this constitutes an actual “change” in Church teaching, I would suggest placing the words of Pope Pius XII, the Council of Trent, and St. Thomas Aquinas that Shin quoted earlier next to those of Pope John Paul II that I cited above and drawing your own conclusions.

 

[Benedict108]

Reading all these posts has been quite interesting and one cannot deny that the church has allowed certain recourse to the death penalty, but it certainly does not favor or strongly support it. Take into consideration not only the link above Vin61 from the USCCB, which talks about Evangelium Vitae, but this direct excerpt from Evangelium Vitae:

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 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. 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.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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”.48
Full text:vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM

In the above excerpt the Pope talks about the “growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.” I believe the wording of this document (in its entirety) leads one to believe that other means should be sought instead of the death penalty and that life in general is sacred, especially those of the innocent, but life nonetheless.

You are free to disagree with me, but I think as Catholics we should be looking to support other means of punishment other than the death penalty.

Pax.

 

[JustWar]

I thought as Catholics that we believe in the perpetual laws handed down to Moses and Jesus not the arbitrary and obscene laws of the State which can rationalize all sorts of killing. (see Germany 1939-45). The Church has to be clear on this, we Catholics do not check our faith at the doorsteps to the secular municipal courts and bow down to Baal. “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord!”

 

[thistle]

Because you failed to provide any proof of your claim that: The Church rejoiced when the Phillipians ended the Death Penalty.

What you provided in the links - read both articles - indicates that **local **Catholics in the Phillipians were happy with the decision to do away with the Death Penalty, not that the Church itself made any sign of rejoicing.

In fact, in the first article, it specifically quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the official stance of the Church which DOES PERMIT THE DEATH PENALTY!

My position is backed up by the Church and her Teaching as I’ve quoted numerous times the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You’ve failed to provide any proof that the Catholic Church backs up your opinion. The reason for your failure is in the simple fact that the Catholic Church has not ever changed her stance on this issue, the Death Penalty is and always has been a legitimate means of punishment in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

I choose to believe what the Church teaches. You can continue believing your own opinion, but you are not going to sway me away from believing the Teaching of the Church.

Peace to you now and always!

The Catholic Church in the Philippines is openly and publicly against the death penalty.

Extract from the link below:

“The opinion of the Catholic Church may also have influenced the issue. The Philippines is a predominantly Roman Catholic nation and the Vatican’s envoy to Manila has congratulated the president and lawmakers for abolishing capital punishment.”

If that is not a sign of rejoicing then what is??

voanews.com/english/archive/2006-06/2006-06-26-voa10.cfm

You also seem to have trouble reading or listening.

The Church teaches that the death penalty may be necessary in instances so rare to be almost non-existent. That is the teaching. That does not mean it supports it. It simply means they accept it.

 

[jhash1]

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.

Amen. Human reason and human capabilities to deliver justice are not sufficient. DNA evidence has shown the many mistakes that would have been made for people unjustly accused. Is it worth taking the life of one of God’s children incorrectly? I understand the need to separate and prevent the access of people who harm others from the general population. Why is “sanctioned” murder the answer for some? Who decides if a crime is “bad enough”?

 

[Ender]

How can anyone read the current catechism and conclude that the Church still supports capital punishment as it’s practiced in the world today?

CCC 2267 was added in 1997 to reflect Evangelium Vitae 56. Those comments are fairly clear: JPII was trying to eliminate capital punishment. It is legitimate to question whether his opinion of the practical effects of executions imposes a moral obligation on us to agree.

This is Catholic teaching today, straight from the official catechism.

The catechism of 1997 is not the only document that addresses this issue; we do have nearly 2000 years of commentary on the subject. None of which, by the way, is cited in support of 2267. There is nothing in the previous writings of the Church that supports this position.

Capital punishment is a significant moral issue, and the Pope cannot err on matters of faith and morals, right?

Well, actually he can.

As for whether or not this constitutes an actual “change” in Church teaching, I would suggest placing the words of Pope Pius XII, the Council of Trent, and St. Thomas Aquinas that Shin quoted earlier next to those of Pope John Paul II that I cited above and drawing your own conclusions.

If this did not constitute a change to earlier teaching then there would be references to those earlier statements to support this position. What you have, in fact, are the words of JPII on one hand and the entire body of Church history on the other. As you said, draw your own conclusions.

Ender

 

[vin61]

CCC 2267 was added in 1997 to reflect Evangelium Vitae 56. Those comments are fairly clear: JPII was trying to eliminate capital punishment. It is legitimate to question whether his opinion of the practical effects of executions imposes a moral obligation on us to agree.

I agree that it is legitimate to question a pope’s opinions expressed as teachings in an encyclical letter like Evangelium Vitae. There are a few others I have doubts about, too, but our Church frowns on that kind of thinking. See further below.

The catechism of 1997 is not the only document that addresses this issue; we do have nearly 2000 years of commentary on the subject. None of which, by the way, is cited in support of 2267. There is nothing in the previous writings of the Church that supports this position.

Granted. However, this is still the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the basic standard source for teaching the faithful. You seem to be saying that the catechism is in error on this particular subject.

Well, actually he can.

You wrote this in response to my comment that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals, capital punishment clearly being a moral issue. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but I assume you were thinking of the distinction of between an ex cathedra declaration of a doctrine which would be “infallible” and a so-called “ordinary” teaching.

I was actually trying to be a bit facetious in my comment, but I concede your point anyway. However, as I alluded to at the top of my post, our Church still does assert that a teaching promulgated from the Pope’s exercise of his ordinary Magisterium remains authoritative and binding on the faithful.

If this did not constitute a change to earlier teaching then there would be references to those earlier statements to support this position. What you have, in fact, are the words of JPII on one hand and the entire body of Church history on the other. As you said, draw your own conclusions.

This is precisely my point. What now appears in the catechism on the subject of the death penalty does, in fact, constitute a change in what the official Church has traditionally taught for centuries. (It appears that you agree with me on this.) The catechism remains, however, official church teaching.

The crux of your argument-- if I may-- seems to be that Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae is not authoritative on the death penalty question because it’s not consistent with historical church teaching, even though his teaching “made it” into the catechism.

My primary purpose for posting on this topic the first place was to point out that the “Rome said it, I believe it” argument from death penalty supporters-- often written here with an attitude of derision toward the faith of the folks who believe differently-- is not, in this case, a clear cut position. (I’m inclined to a little stronger language, but then I don’t want to be derisive myself.) And it is, of all things, a papal teaching that clouds the issue.

There’s another area, however, that we should perhaps be discussing, if as it seems, you really are rejecting or questioning the teaching contained in the catechism and in a papal encyclical. If I tried to do that here, someone out there would call me a “cafeteria Catholic.”

 

[Ender]

You seem to be saying that the catechism is in error on this particular subject.
Well … I mean … uhhh – (I’m looking for a euphemism for yes).

You wrote this in response to my comment that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals, capital punishment clearly being a moral issue. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but I assume you were thinking of the distinction of between an ex cathedra declaration of a doctrine which would be “infallible” and a so-called “ordinary” teaching.
Prudential opinions, even of popes, are not at the level of ordinary teachings. I contend that EV 56 (and thus CCC 2267) is JPII’s opinion.

…our Church still does assert that a teaching promulgated from the Pope’s exercise of his ordinary Magisterium remains authoritative and binding on the faithful.
I don’t dispute this.

What now appears in the catechism on the subject of the death penalty does, in fact, constitute a change in what the official Church has traditionally taught for centuries. (It appears that you agree with me on this.)
There has certainly been a change although we may not agree on exactly what the change was.

The catechism remains, however, official church teaching.
Section 2267 should not have been included. That it is in there does not change the fact that it is opinion.

The crux of your argument-- if I may-- seems to be that Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae is not authoritative on the death penalty question because it’s not consistent with historical church teaching, even though his teaching “made it” into the catechism.
It is not authoritative not because of its inconsistency but because it is opinion.

My primary purpose for posting on this topic the first place was to point out that the “Rome said it, I believe it” argument from death penalty supporters-- often written here with an attitude of derision toward the faith of the folks who believe differently-- is not, in this case, a clear cut position.
This is in fact the sole argument against the death penalty. Once people venture away from that mantra they have literally no moral argument on their side.

…it seems, you really are rejecting or questioning the teaching contained in the catechism and in a papal encyclical. If I tried to do that here, someone out there would call me a “cafeteria Catholic.”
I am questioning the teaching contained in the catechism and I have been called, among other things, a cafeteria Catholic … but I have not been shown to be wrong. In fact I have found it extremely difficult to find someone willing address the issues of punishment, justice, and mercy. As I said, once they stray from “Rome says …” there isn’t much left them.

My strongest defense is that I make no argument at all based on my personal understanding of the issue. All of my points are made by quoting from past documents. I do not present my own opinion; I present the Church’s understanding as it has existed from the very beginning.

Ender

 

[mchale]

I agree with the notion that sin causes one to forfit the right to one’s own life. I think we should be clear though, that any mortal sin ultimately has that effect. As Catholics, we recognize but two types of sin, mortal and venial. Thus, I think it could be argued that any sin which is mortal would result in the same forfiture. Indeed this seems to be the very position Christian society took in the past; all sorts of crimes we would consider minor these days would bring a sentance of death.

Therefore, when we discuss the death penalty, we need keep in mind that if we have committed any sins that are mortal, that we have committed sins that essentially lead to the forfiture to our right to life. It is only by the grace of our Lord through his death on the cross and the sacrement of confession, that we can reclaim that right to life.

Ultimately I think we need to consider all of the Church’s teachings on the matter of the death penalty in the past, not in light of who was Pope or what Aquinas said, but rather, in light of the realities of premodern society. I.e, the concept of rehabilitation of criminals as a rule didn’t even exist and perpetual incarceration was not considered practially possible. Ultimately therefore, the Church rightly supported the Death Penalty as the only practical means of protecting society from the practical effects of the evils that criminals performed. As it stands now, however, alternatives exist. Such alternatives, when available allow us to exercise the virtue of Mercy. Jesus did not condemn the Adulteress, rather he gave her her life back. Remember, the Adulteress had not even explicitly repented when Jesus pardoned her.

Ultimately the Church is not changing its teaching on the Death Penalty; it remains an option and when it is the only option, it is fully justified as a means of protecting society and exercising justice. However, since alternatives now exist that allow us to exercise mercy, the church has incorporated those alternatives into its teaching.

–
Bill

 

[LJN21]

No, Mortal sin does not forfeit your right to life, there has never been any Church teaching that even remotely states that. Certain crimes against humanity (like MURDER) do, according to Aquinas and others.

 

[mchale]

No, Mortal sin does not forfeit your right to life, there has never been any Church teaching that even remotely states that. Certain crimes against humanity (like MURDER) do, according to Aquinas and others.

The Church has never needed to teach it explicitly because it was already documented in the Bible in Romans 6:23 (The wages of sin is death). Even a cursory examination of the Old Testament reveals that the list of offenses that merited the death penalty was extensive; the list included not just murder and rape, but adultery, beastiality, homosexuality and kidnapping. While some of these can be considered crimes against humanity, others certainly do not rise to that level.

And actually, St. Thomas Aquinas, did in fact write that it was moral to kill sinners… from the Summa, part II, second part, q64.
St. Thomas Aquinas:

Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Thus, it is certainly permissable for the state to kill any sinner if their sin represents a corrupting influence on the community (not just a physical danger). I think it is a safe extrapolation to say that any sin of man is potentially corrupting of others. Therefore, in theory at least, any sinner could be lawfully put to death by the state if we don’t temper our approach with as much mercy as is possible while still protecting the community.

And even in the Old Testament, God granted mercy to King David, to Cain and to others who sinned even those sins that could be considered crimes against humanity.

–
Bill

 

[LJN21]

Thus, it is certainly permissable for the state to kill any sinner if their sin represents a corrupting influence on the community (not just a physical danger). I think it is a safe extrapolation to say that any sin of man is potentially corrupting of others. Therefore, in theory at least, any sinner could be lawfully put to death by the state if we don’t temper our approach with as much mercy as is possible while still protecting the community.

And even in the Old Testament, God granted mercy to King David, to Cain and to others who sinned even those sins that could be considered crimes against humanity.

–
Bill

That is notably different that “All mortal sin forfeits your right to life”.

Yes one could make the argument that all sin corrupts society therefor all man is deserving of death, but no one in the Church has ever argued that we should go killing all of society because we are all sinners. Simply that there are cases it is perfectly just and merciful to do so.

 

[mchale]

That is notably different that “All mortal sin forfeits your right to life”.

Yes one could make the argument that all sin corrupts society therefor all man is deserving of death, but no one in the Church has ever argued that we should go killing all of society because we are all sinners. Simply that there are cases it is perfectly just and merciful to do so.

I never said that the Church ever argued that we should kill all of society. What I did say was that sin forfits our right to life. Fortunately that right is restored through repentance in confession.

The argument that Aquinas made in the Summa was independent of any particular sin. It essentially boils down to granting just authority the power to kill any sinner if such killing will remove the corrupting influence of that sinner from society.

Aquinas further writes that “By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others.” (Summa Part II second part q64).

Again this argument is made independent of the human perceived severity of the sin (though I think it is safe to assume that Aquinas would not hold it reasonable for venial sins). He is essentially arguing here that a sinner, any sinner, can be justly executed by the state if said execution removes a corrupting influence or is otherwise “useful to others”.

In other words, if as Catholics, we hold that the Death Penalty is valid for murder in our current society, we should logically hold that it is valid for crimes that cover other specific sins such as theft, purgery, prostitution, etc.

Mind you, I am not arguing, and Aquinas is not arguing that the Death Penalty should be applied in every case; only that it is permissable in any case where a person has sinned because they have removed themselves from their human dignity and therefore have forfitted the rights that come with that dignity. Ultimately the choice that the Church makes should be the ones that follow true mercy, that encourages the greatest number of people to repent their sins and thus through the sacrement of confession, have their human dignity restored.

–
Bill

 

[Shin]

Bill this is good stuff.

I am thinking about all the Old Testament examples God gave us that people in this corrupt time find unreasonable for God to give people the death penalty for.

 

[vin61]

… My strongest defense is that I make no argument at all based on my personal understanding of the issue. All of my points are made by quoting from past documents. I do not present my own opinion; I present the Church’s understanding as it has existed from the very beginning.

Ok, Ender, I see where you’re coming from. If you’ll indulge me, I’d like to cover a few more points.

First, what distinguishes a papal opinion from a valid exercise of the pope’s ordinary teaching authority? Who gets to decide? Isn’t the very fact that Pope John Paul II’s “opinion”-- which was expressed in an encyclical, not, say, in a homily-- was incorporated into the catechism evidence that others in the hierarchy responsible for such things consider this an authoritative teaching? (Can we even know?)

As an aside, there’s an interesting thread elsewhere in the forum that talks about whether encyclicals are authoritative and binding. The consensus is decisively affirmative.

Second, there are members of the faithful out there who rely on the catechism to define what they should believe. Catholics who are trying to be faithful to the Magisterium cannot reasonably be held to account for believing error taught from a legitimate source. (And isn’t alleged error in the catechism a serious issue?)

You acknowledged John Paul’s Evangelium Vitae and its inclusion in the catechism as a change from traditional church teaching, but that we perhaps do not agree on what actually changed. The change, in my view, concerns the statement, “today… the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” Though the statement feigns continuity with prior teaching by including a temporal condition, the language is so extreme as to render any allowance for capital punishment essentially impossible. In other words, “we’ll allow for the possibility of capital punishment, but there aren’t any practical circumstances we can think of in which it can be legitimately used.”

By the way, the entire Evangelium Vitae is an interesting read. It was the Pope’s unequivocal answer to what he saw as the growing “culture of death” in modern society. I find it to be well documented and persuasive-- not “just” one pope’s opinion.

So, what do you think?

 

[Ender]

Thus, I think it could be argued that any sin which is mortal would result in the same forfiture {of ones life}. Indeed this seems to be the very position Christian society took in the past; all sorts of crimes we would consider minor these days would bring a sentance of death.
It is a great step even from the claim of your first sentence (with which I disagree) to the conclusion you draw in your second sentence. Clearly more crimes were considered capital in the past than now but never was it considered just to execute everyone for any mortal sin.

It is only by the grace of our Lord through his death on the cross and the sacrement of confession, that we can reclaim that right to life.
Don’t conflate God’s retribution with that which society metes out. We have an obligation to render justice and that has never included executing everyone who commits a mortal sin.

Ultimately I think we need to consider all of the Church’s teachings on the matter of the death penalty in the past, not in light of who was Pope or what Aquinas said, but rather, in light of the realities of premodern society. I.e, the concept of rehabilitation of criminals as a rule didn’t even exist and perpetual incarceration was not considered practially possible.
Morality does not change with the times and the primary objective of punishment has never been either the protection of society or the rehabilitation of the sinner, rather it is the just retribution for the sin. Sin incurs a debt that can only be paid with punishment.

Ultimately therefore, the Church rightly supported the Death Penalty as the only practical means of protecting society from the practical effects of the evils that criminals performed.
This is incorrect; protecting society was always a subsidiary objective of punishment; it was never the primary objective.

As it stands now, however, alternatives exist. Such alternatives, when available allow us to exercise the virtue of Mercy.
It is not merciful to give someone a punishment he deserves; that is simple justice. If you want to argue that we should be merciful and not execute those who clearly deserve it then you first have to agree that execution is in fact what they deserve. Are you willing to make such a concession because if not you can’t argue that not executing someone is being merciful?

However, since alternatives now exist that allow us to exercise mercy, the church has incorporated those alternatives into its teaching.
It seems an enormous stretch to me to argue that no society prior to ours has had the resources that would allow them to show mercy. Mercy has been taught since the beginning; it has never been caveated with “don’t show mercy until it is safe to do so.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

First, what distinguishes a papal opinion from a valid exercise of the pope’s ordinary teaching authority? Who gets to decide? Isn’t the very fact that Pope John Paul II’s “opinion”-- which was expressed in an encyclical, not, say, in a homily-- was incorporated into the catechism evidence that others in the hierarchy responsible for such things consider this an authoritative teaching? (Can we even know?)

This is a very valid concern and if it can’t be answered satisfactorily then there is no need to go beyond “Because Rome says so.”

First there is Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”
holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm

Second is this quote from the USCCB document on the death penalty in 2005:

“The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty.”
usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf

Finally there is this from Cardinal Avery Dulles’ 2001 article on capital punishment:

• The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.*

Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175

Cdl. Ratzinger’s statement might be interpreted to mean that there could be disagreement over the application in a specific case - e.g. whether Hussein met the criteria. That seems like the less likely interpretation but I grant a certain vagueness.

The statement by the USCCB would simply be incomprehensible if they were talking about an ordinary teaching of the Church. “Our goal is not to proclaim a position”? “People of goodwill disagree” and we “neither judge nor condemn”? This is not the language one uses to discuss moral teaching and I cannot believe they would be so cavalier with Church doctrine … if this position was in fact doctrine.

There is zero doubt, however, about Cdl. Dulles’ statement: this was the prudential opinion of JPII and the magisterium - of which he himself was a part. I don’t know if you are familiar with Dulles but he was one of but a handful of cardinals who was not also a bishop. He was given a red hat because of his theological brilliance so his opinion is weighty and accords what I think is the best understanding of the other two quotes.

Ender

 

[mchale]

Ender,
In the future, please don’t respond inside my quotes… it is not polite since it makes it considerably more awkward to reply to you with your quotes included.

Ender

Originally Posted by mchale View
Thus, I think it could be argued that any sin which is mortal would result in the same forfiture {of ones life}. Indeed this seems to be the very position Christian society took in the past; all sorts of crimes we would consider minor these days would bring a sentance of death.

You may disagree with the statement, but in other posts I have made on this forum, Aquinas, in his Summa, made no distinction between the sin committed and whether it opened the door to the Death Penalty. Any (presumably mortal) sin removed one from the dignity accorded humanity and thus could be disposed of as the state saw advantageous.

Further, in the past, Capital Punishment could be applied for sins that are not even crimes today or are crimes that are considered minor in comparison. In England, one could be executed for being a pick pocket until 1808 and anyone including children could be and were hung for theft.

It is only by the grace of our Lord through his death on the cross and the sacrement of confession, that we can reclaim that right to life.

Don’t conflate God’s retribution with that which society metes out. We have an obligation to render justice and that has never included executing everyone who commits a mortal sin.

It has never been acted on that way, but certainly we can make no distinctions between mortal sin as to the nature of how serious a sin is. Any mortal sin causes one to forfeit one’s right to life. Justice at best is a subjective concept; in the past it was considered just to execute a child for theft, now we would be outraged at what we would consider a disproportionate punishment.

Ultimately I think we need to consider all of the Church’s teachings on the matter of the death penalty in the past, not in light of who was Pope or what Aquinas said, but rather, in light of the realities of premodern society. I.e, the concept of rehabilitation of criminals as a rule didn’t even exist and perpetual incarceration was not considered practially possible.

Morality does not change with the times and the primary objective of punishment has never been either the protection of society or the rehabilitation of the sinner, rather it is the just retribution for the sin. Sin incurs a debt that can only be paid with punishment.

Actually I think this position needs to be better documented by you. Clearly Aquinas argues from a position of utility; protection of society from the corrupting influence of the sinner. Certainly justice is an aspect of punishment, but clearly, such punishment can never repay the debt for sin; only repentance and the grace granted to us by Jesus’s sacrifice.

Ultimately therefore, the Church rightly supported the Death Penalty as the only practical means of protecting society from the practical effects of the evils that criminals performed.

This is incorrect; protecting society was always a subsidiary objective of punishment; it was never the primary objective.

If this is indeed the case, then I think we have a problem. The current Catechism argues that the Death Penalty should be used as a last resort. This clearly contradicts the notion that punishment is the primary objective. It also is clearly at odds with what Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa.

As it stands now, however, alternatives exist. Such alternatives, when available allow us to exercise the virtue of Mercy.

It is not merciful to give someone a punishment he deserves; that is simple justice. If you want to argue that we should be merciful and not execute those who clearly deserve it then you first have to agree that execution is in fact what they deserve. Are you willing to make such a concession because if not you can’t argue that not executing someone is being merciful?

Read what I wrote again. Every mortal sin forfeits the right one has to one’s life. It is mercy that God does not strike us down for each and every such sin. Likewise, as a result (as Aquinas clearly argued) the state has the right to execute a person for any mortal sin and an obligation to do so if it protects society.

However, since alternatives now exist that allow us to exercise mercy, the church has incorporated those alternatives into its teaching.

It seems an enormous stretch to me to argue that no society prior to ours has had the resources that would allow them to show mercy. Mercy has been taught since the beginning; it has never been caveated with “don’t show mercy until it is safe to do so.”

Mercy must be tempered by the needs of society. Without the means to safely incarcerate a criminal for long periods of time, protection of society demanded less mercy be granted to those who threatened it. And yes, no society had the resources… remember the modern first world is not just absolutely richer than any civilization in the past, it is richer by orders of magnitude.

–
Bill