Death penalty

[Swiss_Guy]

I accept Dulles’ comment but it isn’t relevant to the point. The first part of 2267 isn’t about whether someone else will be harmed if a criminal is executed (Dulles) but about whether it is necessary to execute someone if he is not a threat to society. If 2267 had claimed that society would be harmed by continued executions that would have been both a stronger argument and consistent with Church teaching, but that wasn’t the path that was taken.

When would it be necessary to execute someone if he is not a moral or physical threat to society?

Feel free to criticize the Catechism but not all of us have a problem with it.

We are agreed on this point and it is probable that JPII believed that executions presented just such a risk … but that is not the argument being made. It is one thing to argue for an exception to the precept but quite another to argue that the precept is itself wrong.

So are you suggesting Bl. Pope John Paul II didn’t know what he was talking about?

Only the very last statement in your citation applied to prudential teaching and it surely cannot apply to every position in opposition to them. Dulles was quite clear on this: *“To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.” *Prudential judgments are owed respect, not assent.

Ender

Yes, but I wanted to provide a context for the statement.

Surely it can’t apply to every position, but the fact that the topic of capital punishment seems to be one where prudential judgment is commonly found in Church documents makes it likely that the Church strongly encourages us to listen to her about this.

I didn’t say it was dissent to disagree with the opinion of the hierarchy and didn’t mean to imply it. But I would say it’s a dangerous road to go down. It wouldn’t be a sin per se for me to look at a women who was naked, but it definitely would be an occasion of sin.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The problem involves intent. (CCC 2263):* “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.”*

In the execution of a prisoner the death is intended. That is the whole purpose of the act: to terminate a life, so it is difficult to see how an execution can be justified as an act of self defense when self defense explicitly requires that we not intend the killing. Beyond that it cannot be argued that the principle of double effect allows it inasmuch as that principle demands that the beneficial aspect of the act not be the result of the harmful effect. In other words we cannot derive our benefit from the execution even though that is exactly its source.

But why is that the purpose CP is being done? Because it is needed to protect:

a. flowers
b. the earth from global warming
c. Human lives
d. Aliens

Correct answer: C!

God gives us all the opportunity to come to Christ and we are not able to thwart his plans.
These things are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed. I think we were on a different page…

I don’t understand this comment. If a man receives a fair trial, is found clearly guilty, and is formally sentenced, and finally executed this is exactly in accord with Church teaching. You may object that it is not perceived this way but that is very different than arguing about what is objectively true.

How often are trials actually “fair”? It’s also not often someone is clearly found to be guilty.

The Papal States had their own official executioner at least until 1865.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Bugatti

My attempt at clarity clearly wasn’t clear. Surely you would accept the distinction between prudential and doctrinal?

Ender

Technically you could say that it was the Pope acting as a temporal ruler who saw the execution through rather than the Pope acting as a spiritual head in the name of the Church.

Yes I would. But the DP is a tricky issue that requires much prudence in its application similar to other issues like freedom of speech, etc etc.

 

[triumphguy]

1. The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html
2. Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

If the death penalty worked then countries such as the USA which has one of the highest rates of capital punishment in the world should have the lowest murder rate.

And countries such as Canada which do not have the death penalty should be cesspits of violent crime, especially since we have the same rate of gun ownership as Americans, and have a very similar society to the USA.

Do we even need to check the stats to know the reality of that?

 

[Spider42]

*While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war…

Pope Benedict XVI*

Because of my obligation to truth, I must point out that this quote is incorrectly attributed. It is by then Cardinal Ratzinger. Further, it was correspondance to Cardinal McCarrick and then Cardinal Ratzinger stated that it could not be properly understood out of context.

Folks often pull this one out in arguing about elevating certain teachings to special status in voting, but then ignore that the letter closes with the example of a Catholic licitly voting for a pro-choice candidate.

In this case, the important consideration, aside from having been asked by the author not to interpret the memorandum at all, is that the context was presentation for Holy Communion. The memorandum begins “Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion…”

It is also worth mentioning that Cardinal Dulles has clarified his 2001 First things article on several occassions. He does not use the term ‘prudential judgment’, he now clarifies his meaning as “prudential application of the principles”, which has a specific theological meaning. He also lists reasons why his in agreement with the Magisterium’s judgement. As in the original article he usually raises “Among them would be the likelihood of miscarriages of justice, the difficulty of assessing the personal guilt of the offender, and the danger of fostering a mentality of vindictiveness, which would be contrary to the teaching of the Gospel.” But he also also mentioned Catholic obligations to deferrence and obedience in at least two post-2001 interviews.

 

[estesbob]

Because of my obligation to truth, I must point out that this quote is incorrectly attributed. It is by then Cardinal Ratzinger. Further, it was correspondance to Cardinal McCarrick and then Cardinal Ratzinger stated that it could not be properly understood out of context.

Folks often pull this one out in arguing about elevating certain teachings to special status in voting, but then ignore that the letter closes with the example of a Catholic licitly voting for a pro-choice candidate.

In this case, the important consideration, aside from having been asked by the author not to interpret the memorandum at all, is that the context was presentation for Holy Communion. The memorandum begins “Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion…”

It is also worth mentioning that Cardinal Dulles has clarified his 2001 First things article on several occassions. He does not use the term ‘prudential judgment’, he now clarifies his meaning as “prudential application of the principles”, which has a specific theological meaning. He also lists reasons why his in agreement with the Magisterium’s judgement. As in the original article he usually raises “Among them would be the likelihood of miscarriages of justice, the difficulty of assessing the personal guilt of the offender, and the danger of fostering a mentality of vindictiveness, which would be contrary to the teaching of the Gospel.” But he also also mentioned Catholic obligations to deferrence and obedience in at least two post-2001 interviews.

There is nothing inaccurate about the Quote. He made it clear a Catholic can in good conscience support the death penalty. The Church does now and always had allowed a state to use the death penalty. I personally oppose it in all cases but it is a disservice to fellow Catholics to misstate Church teaching on this.

 

[sw85]

One of my quibbles with the way the Church phrases its present teaching (whatever the heck it actually is) is that it’s not clear to me the modern state actually is capable of rendering evildoers incapable of harm through means short of the death penalty. Or, rather, it’s only clear that it can *if *you don’t treat other prisoners as human beings who deserve to be protected from harm (the violent crime rate within prisons themselves, at least in the United States, being significantly greater than 0 and probably substantially greater than the national average). And that’s presumably not something we’re allowed to do.

 

[sw85]

If the death penalty worked then countries such as the USA which has one of the highest rates of capital punishment in the world should have the lowest murder rate.

And countries such as Canada which do not have the death penalty should be cesspits of violent crime, especially since we have the same rate of gun ownership as Americans, and have a very similar society to the USA.

Do we even need to check the stats to know the reality of that?

One possibility is that Canada, unlike America, does not have to deal with a very very large minority population that fetishizes crime and violence, lacks our history of violent internal struggle and exploitation, and doesn’t share 3,000 miles of border with a failed narco-state.

 

[triumphguy]

One possibility is that Canada, unlike America, does not have to deal with a very very large minority population that fetishizes crime and violence, lacks our history of violent internal struggle and exploitation, and doesn’t share 3,000 miles of border with a failed narco-state.

We do though…

Just kidding! It’s hard to resist lines like that!

Apart from about 2 million aboriginal peoples everybody here is an immigrant. I teach one Grade 10 social studies class where 25 kids have lived in Canada AND spoken English for less than 3 years. They come from countries like Columbia, Philippines, Iraq, Ghana, Sudan, Vietnam, Korea. There are also 5 white kids in this class, and one of them has just come out of jail.

So I’m not sure that the makeup of our peoples is really that different.

What we don’t have is the large illegal immigrant population - but is that where most of your crime is?

 

[triumphguy]

One of my quibbles with the way the Church phrases its present teaching (whatever the heck it actually is) is that it’s not clear to me the modern state actually is capable of rendering evildoers incapable of harm through means short of the death penalty. Or, rather, it’s only clear that it can *if *you don’t treat other prisoners as human beings who deserve to be protected from harm (the violent crime rate within prisons themselves, at least in the United States, being significantly greater than 0 and probably substantially greater than the national average). And that’s presumably not something we’re allowed to do.

Just a thought - If all the money spent on the entire capital punishment process was spent on your prison system they might be a lot safer.

 

[RyanBlack]

One possibility is that Canada, unlike America, does not have to deal with a very very large minority population that fetishizes crime and violence, lacks our history of violent internal struggle and exploitation, and doesn’t share 3,000 miles of border with a failed narco-state.

This is too broad a generalization, and it unfairly stereotypes non-white Americans, or whichever particular minority group you have in mind. There are indeed subcultures of the various minority populations within the United States that glorify crime and violence, and the same can be said about the majority white population. However, I do not think it can be said of any minority group as a whole that it “fetishizes crime and violence.”

 

[Ender]

When would it be necessary to execute someone if he is not a moral or physical threat to society?

To satisfy the primary objective of punishment. The fact that an act may not be necessary to satisfy a secondary objective surely cannot mean that the act may not be committed when called for by the primary objective.

Feel free to criticize the Catechism but not all of us have a problem with it.

Don’t take that approach. I am not criticizing “the Catechism”; I am pointing out that the first sentence in one section is in error, an observation I am far from alone in noticing.

So are you suggesting Bl. Pope John Paul II didn’t know what he was talking about?

The statement is either true or it is false and the truth is that nowhere in all I have seen that the Church has written on the subject has she ever made the use of capital punishment dependent on the need to protect society. I think the statement that comes closest to making this claim is from the Baltimore Catechism in answering the question of when it is lawful to take a life:By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution.
I think it would be a mistake, however, to assume this makes the same point as 2267 inasmuch as 2266 points out that *“The primary scope of the penalty is to **redress the disorder **caused by the offense.”*Order" here is not the simple maintenance of an orderly society; it is the order of justice that has been disrupted by the crime and that must be restored by the punishment.the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)
This goes to the first question you asked: when is it necessary to execute someone who is not a threat? When justice demands the punishment as necessary to redress the disorder of the crime.

Surely it can’t apply to every position, but the fact that the topic of capital punishment seems to be one where prudential judgment is commonly found in Church documents makes it likely that the Church strongly encourages us to listen to her about this.

I think what is being said is that just because a statement is prudential and not doctrinal and the obligation of assent does not directly apply, we may still be accountable for dissenting.

Ender

 

[sw85]

We do though…

Just kidding! It’s hard to resist lines like that!

Apart from about 2 million aboriginal peoples everybody here is an immigrant. I teach one Grade 10 social studies class where 25 kids have lived in Canada AND spoken English for less than 3 years. They come from countries like Columbia, Philippines, Iraq, Ghana, Sudan, Vietnam, Korea. There are also 5 white kids in this class, and one of them has just come out of jail.

So I’m not sure that the makeup of our peoples is really that different.

What we don’t have is the large illegal immigrant population - but is that where most of your crime is?

I didn’t just say “large minority population,” I said “large minority population that fetishizes violence.” That’s two conditions. Is there an equivalent of gangster rap and flash mobs in Canada? Are there parts of Toronto (or wherever) that everyone implicitly understands are no-go zones for peoples of certain racial/ethnic groups? I don’t know for sure, but my gut says no, or at least not to the same extent as the US. And yes, our illegal immigrant population is overrepresented in gang violence and the like here. When I left Maryland (a very whitebread part of Maryland), the second-largest city in Maryland was just starting to have problems with a notorious El Salvadorean gang known for beheading its victims; I saw one of their signs scratched on the wall at a bus station where I often caught rides.

Just a thought - If all the money spent on the entire capital punishment process was spent on your prison system they might be a lot safer.

I have my doubts. The number of people on death row is pretty tiny compared to the overall prison population, and most of those costs are things that wouldn’t be defrayed if their sentences were commuted (i.e., they still have to be housed, fed, clothed, guarded, etc.), so the difference is largely (private) legal costs. I’d imagine the difference would amount to at most a few tens or maybe two or three hundred million dollars, and I’m not sure what could be done there to ameliorate violence. More guards? More solitary confinement? What?

This is too broad a generalization, and it unfairly stereotypes non-white Americans, or whichever particular minority group you have in mind. There are indeed subcultures of the various minority populations within the United States that glorify crime and violence, and the same can be said about the majority white population. However, I do not think it can be said of any minority group as a whole that it “fetishizes crime and violence.”

When someone says “men are taller than women,” it isn’t necessary to point out that a small proportion of women are taller than the average man. We’re talking about means and covariances, not absolute ironclad laws of reality.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

To satisfy the primary objective of punishment. The fact that an act may not be necessary to satisfy a secondary objective surely cannot mean that the act may not be committed when called for by the primary objective.

If society is moral, then retribution not occurring should be a moral threat to society/human lives. So the death penalty still remains “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Don’t take that approach. I am not criticizing “the Catechism”; I am pointing out that the first sentence in one section is in error, an observation I am far from alone in noticing.

Alright, my bad.

But the first sentence isn’t in error. Or else the Ordinary Magisterium has erred and we’re all doomed, since it is defining what is traditional Catholic teaching regarding CP.

The statement is either true or it is false and the truth is that nowhere in all I have seen that the Church has written on the subject has she ever made the use of capital punishment dependent on the need to protect society. I think the statement that comes closest to making this claim is from the Baltimore Catechism in answering the question of when it is lawful to take a life:By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution.
I think it would be a mistake, however, to assume this makes the same point as 2267 inasmuch as 2266 points out that *"The primary scope of the penalty is to **redress the disorder ***caused by the offense.“Order” here is not the simple maintenance of an orderly society; it is the order of justice that has been disrupted by the crime and that must be restored by the punishment.the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)
This goes to the first question you asked: when is it necessary to execute someone who is not a threat? When justice demands the punishment as necessary to redress the disorder of the crime.

Personally I think the Catechism of Trent says pretty much the same thing when speaking of the 5th commandment:

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.

Aquinas also says CP can’t be used if it will negatively affect the common good. Like I said before, a morally healthy society will demand a punishment that effectively redresses the disorder of the crime, I would assume including capital punishment. If the disorder of the offense was not redressed, it would not adequately defend the moral health society.

In a corrupt, immoral society like one we live in today, where justice is portrayed as hate or when justice could be served legitimately but those who demand a proper punishment do so out of hate and vengefulness and not out of love for justice (which makes the first problem partly justified), the application of capital punishment isn’t as clear-cut. And this I believe is why the Church is coming out against the death penalty.

I think what is being said is that just because a statement is prudential and not doctrinal and the obligation of assent does not directly apply, we may still be accountable for dissenting.

Ender

Would it actually be dissent or would it be more of situation where dissent could easily follow, hence “dangerous”?

Peace.

 

[triumphguy]

If society is moral, then retribution not occurring should be a moral threat to society/human lives. So the death penalty still remains “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Alright, my bad.

But the first sentence isn’t in error. Or else the Ordinary Magisterium has erred and we’re all doomed, since it is defining what is traditional Catholic teaching regarding CP.

Personally I think the Catechism of Trent says pretty much the same thing when speaking of the 5th commandment:

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.

**Aquinas also says CP can’t be used if it will negatively affect the common good. Like I said before, a morally healthy society will demand a punishment that effectively redresses the disorder of the crime, I would assume including capital punishment. If the disorder of the offense was not redressed, it would not adequately defend the moral health society. **

In a corrupt, immoral society like one we live in today, where justice is portrayed as hate or when justice could be served legitimately but those who demand a proper punishment do so out of hate and vengefulness and not out of love for justice (which makes the first problem partly justified), the application of capital punishment isn’t as clear-cut. And this I believe is why the Church is coming out against the death penalty.

Would it actually be dissent or would it be more of situation where dissent could easily follow, hence “dangerous”?

Peace.

I repeat - Iran, China and the USA have the highest rates of Capital Punishment. Could a disinterested observer honestly say that the direct result of this is that they the most morally ordered societies?

Too often capital punishment seems to be a symptom of something wrong in society, rather than an effective and just tool for order and good government.

 

[Ender]

But the first sentence isn’t in error. Or else the Ordinary Magisterium has erred and we’re all doomed, since it is defining what is traditional Catholic teaching regarding CP.

I don’t think it is quite that serious. The Church is protected from serious moral error, not so much from errors of fact … otherwise she wouldn’t have survived Galileo.

Personally I think the Catechism of Trent says pretty much the same thing when speaking of the 5th commandment:

It does say the same thing speaking of the 5th commandment … but not of punishment. The end of the commandment is not the same as the ends of punishment.

Aquinas also says CP can’t be used if it will negatively affect the common good. Like I said before, a morally healthy society will demand a punishment that effectively redresses the disorder of the crime, I would assume including capital punishment. If the disorder of the offense was not redressed, it would not adequately defend the moral health society.

I accept this point. This is the prudential exception to the precept … but the precept laid out by Gen 9:6 is unaffected by this.

In a corrupt, immoral society like one we live in today, where justice is portrayed as hate or when justice could be served legitimately but those who demand a proper punishment do so out of hate and vengefulness and not out of love for justice (which makes the first problem partly justified), the application of capital punishment isn’t as clear-cut. And this I believe is why the Church is coming out against the death penalty.

This might justify the exception and explain 2267 but I am arguing that the doctrine - the life of the murderer is forfeit - is unchanged and indeed is unchangeable.

Would it actually be dissent or would it be more of situation where dissent could easily follow, hence “dangerous”?

If “dissent” is a loaded word I am happy to use something more innocuous like disagree.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

I don’t think it is quite that serious. The Church is protected from serious moral error, not so much from errors of fact … otherwise she wouldn’t have survived Galileo.
It does say the same thing speaking of the 5th commandment … but not of punishment. The end of the commandment is not the same as the ends of punishment.
I accept this point. This is the prudential exception to the precept … but the precept laid out by Gen 9:6 is unaffected by this.
This might justify the exception and explain 2267 but I am arguing that the doctrine - the life of the murderer is forfeit - is unchanged and indeed is unchangeable.
If “dissent” is a loaded word I am happy to use something more innocuous like disagree.

Ender

Minor point: I don’t believe the Church imposed any sanctions on Galileo because he stated our earth orbited the sun.

 

[Isimba]

I dont see why not

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I repeat - Iran, China and the USA have the highest rates of Capital Punishment. Could a disinterested observer honestly say that the direct result of this is that they the most morally ordered societies?

Too often capital punishment seems to be a symptom of something wrong in society, rather than an effective and just tool for order and good government.

No. Can you also honestly say they perform capital punishment because of their love of justice and not out of anger?

As Bl. Pope John Paul II said, “Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution, much less take the form of social retaliation or a sort of institutional vengeance.”

Plus, I think that there are other penalties besides capital punishment that are “proportionate to the gravity of the offense”, even for murder.

So I repeat that a morally healthy society will demand a punishment that effectively redresses the disorder of the crime, including in extreme cases capital punishment.

 

[triumphguy]

No. Can you also honestly say they perform capital punishment because of their love of justice and not out of anger?

As Bl. Pope John Paul II said, “Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution, much less take the form of social retaliation or a sort of institutional vengeance.”

Plus, I think that there are other penalties besides capital punishment that are “proportionate to the gravity of the offense”, even for murder.

So I repeat that a morally healthy society will demand a punishment that effectively redresses the disorder of the crime, including in extreme cases capital punishment.

I agree: justice must build society up, not contribute to the tearing of its fabric.

One of my favourite lay theologians says this:

“He deserves death.” …

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it.”

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I don’t think it is quite that serious. The Church is protected from serious moral error, not so much from errors of fact … otherwise she wouldn’t have survived Galileo.

This might justify the exception and explain 2267 but I am arguing that the doctrine - the life of the murderer is forfeit - is unchanged and indeed is unchangeable.

Ender

Well the Church is somewhat justified with Galileo since the sun isn’t immovable or the center of the universe like he thought.

If what CCC 2267 says is wrong, how is it not a teaching error when it is explaining precisely what Catholic teaching is? Why couldn’t I just say to anything the Church teaches that I don’t agree that it is a “factual” error, not a “teaching” error based on my own personal understanding of what Church Tradition says and not what the Magisterium says?

If you are arguing what you say you are arguing (“the doctrine - the life of the murderer is forfeit - is unchanged and indeed is unchangeable”), then you’re preaching to the choir. I’m arguing that paragraph 2267 in the Catechism isn’t incorrect.