Death Penalty

[LongingSoul]

You can’t prove anything with mathematical certainty in a legal system. There is always at least some minute risk of error. This does not invalidate the use of a justice system. The same applies to all crimes, and the punishment for these crimes is just as irrevocable as the death penalty. You cannot give a person 4 years of freedom back.

From what I have read, the bishops do not use this as the basis for the current imprudence of capital punishment in developed countries. If they did, this argument theoretically should have been prevalent even in ancient Christian writings. The risk of error in a legal system isn’t anything new.

hu324b’s point is relevant in relation to that most important fact of the absolute inviolablity of *innocent *human life. This being a primary Catholic principle, it will engage the Catholic argument.

It is important to note the subtle error that appears in the arguments of some posters to this topic who will use the teachings of the shepherds of another era to undermine the clear teachings of Evangelium Vitae for todays flock.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

Par. 55 - 56

We are in no doubt about the true nature of capital punishment and its place in serving justice as a measure of the State. Thomas Aquinas especially made it clear the way in which this most gruesome measure, was strictly bound to the needs of the common good with his analogy of the infected limb.

*"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).” *– Summa Theologica (Murder)

We can be supremely confident in the mission of the Church lead by the Holy Spirit to guide us in following the will of God. Pope John Paul especially was never backwards in coming forward in presenting the Governments of the world directly with the godly requirements of public authority.

In today’s world, so deeply infused by a ‘culture of death’, the Church is most forcefully impelled to remind us again of the value of human life.

“In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the Church’s Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium. This consistent teaching is the evident result of that “supernatural sense of the faith” which, inspired and sustained by the Holy Spirit, safeguards the People of God from error when “it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals”.49” – Evangelium Vitae par.57

Did you know that every Christian country on the planet has abolished the death penalty over the last 150 years, apart from the US? There is of course legitimate right of States to discern whether the death penalty remains a necessity in one particular area or another for the safety and wellbeing (the common good) of the community it serves. However, we are called to honest reflection on this, lest we mistakenly hide behind a sense of ‘divine right’ at the expense of Catholic teaching. The world has become a small place by virtue of the technological age, making us more accountable on a global scale for our approach to human rights. And…

“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."” - CCC

 

[LongingSoul]

The Church is a living institution animated by the Holy Spirit. It is like a wellspring through which the divine waters flow to human beings to quench their spiritual thirst. The needs of the world evolve around this wellspring and we are charged with using this water wisely in growing a culture of life that will sustain all generations to come. To apply water held back in buckets from the past (invoking the letter of the law) to crops growing today is to apply lifeless water long removed from its divine living source and goes against everthing the Church means and the meaning of doctrine. Directives from past times that applied to the application of penalties in a culture less infused with a-theistic goals, hold no value as to applications of penalties in today’s culture. The waters of the Church wellspring are to be applied within each age directly from the wellspring, according to our worlds needs. Aquinas reminds us unequivocally that where the common good is at risk, we are to spare life lest we ‘water’ poison crops. ie advance the culture of death.

*“**Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked.” ***– Summa Theological (Murder)

As Catholics, we can so much more easily rise above the endless tug and pull between our higher and lower instincts and faithfully identify with Church teaching in our civil and political contributions. The Catholic Church in its unbroken Apostolic succession is without error in guiding us in regards to the magisterial position on the death penalty. Thank God. Amen.

 

[TK421]

There are no Christian nations anymore (and, on the positive side, a declining number of strictly non-Christian nations). The world is an open battlefield. Europe and its offshoot white nations are predominately guided by materialist thought. A position against capital punishment frequently accompanies a person that is supportive of abortion and euthanasia because of a vested interest in authorities not having control over issues of life and death, since the immediate life is the sum of all meaning.

Not that this means I disagree with its modern moral imprudence, but there are two very distinct trains of thought that lead to it being phased out, and you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that the EU remotely cares what the Catholic Church thinks. There is swelling desire for it to go away and never come back. The secular reasons for why it is phased out are because it is seen as intrinsically immoral (or whatever word they would prefer to use): leave life and death to the dictates of the individual and keep the notion of death out of sight and mind. A Christian isn’t capable of adopting this viewpoint without betraying 1900 years of thought.

 

[Ender]

It is important to note the subtle error that appears in the arguments of some posters to this topic who will use the teachings of the shepherds of another era to undermine the clear teachings of Evangelium Vitae for todays flock.

Everyone regardless of his position on this issue ought to be concerned with any argument claiming that past teachings of the church are now invalid.Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. (Fr John Hardon, 1998)

We are in no doubt about the true nature of capital punishment and its place in serving justice as a measure of the State. Thomas Aquinas especially made it clear the way in which this most gruesome measure, was strictly bound to the needs of the common good with his analogy of the infected limb.

The “common good” cannot be reduced to mere physical protection. Aquinas certainly never saw it that way.

In today’s world, so deeply infused by a ‘culture of death’, the Church is most forcefully impelled to remind us again of the value of human life.

This is very likely why JPII opposed the use of capital punishment, because in his judgment he felt that it contributed to that culture of death and caused more problems than it solved. That is a prudential objection, not a moral one.

Did you know that every Christian country on the planet has abolished the death penalty over the last 150 years, apart from the US?

The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[The_Serpent]

First of all, it is not the State that takes their right to life away, but the criminal, via their acts, give it up

Pope Pius XII

The two are not mutually exclusive. For example, look at Timothy McVeigh. While raised Catholic, he had left the Church. While on death row, he had a reversion, and requested and received Sacramental Absolution.

He received the Sacraments again, including full Last Rites, just prior to his execution. So we will certainly encounter saint (small s) Timothy in Heaven.

Cardinal Avery Dulles noted this is his article on the death penalty

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

McVeigh did not request the Sacrament of Penance; he was offered it by a priest that went and approached him. The new Catechism says a penitent must repair the harm he’s done. The Roman Catechism says a Priest should not give absolution without the obligation to make satisfaction. How does someone make satisfaction or repair the harm done in a mass murder? Is it not a sacrilege or insult to God to offer the Sacraments to such a person. kpeople:

 

[pnewton]

*Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment. *(Cardinal Dulles)*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God?
*(Pope St. Innocent I)
Ender

None of these are recent. As stated, they only address doctrine. Of course the death penalty is not always morally permissible. It can be used immorally, even though it is permitted by God. Here is something more recent by Blessed John Paul.

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II

And from Evangelium Vitae, the Holy Father taught us:
*
Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread…
In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.*

 

[pnewton]

For me, the deciding factor in being opposed to the death penalty is what it costs us as society. I am not referring to money, but the culture of death that we spawn where life is devalued. I am not saying I would never be in favor of putting one to death under any circumstance, but I do seriously weigh what it costs our soul each time we do. Even though King David was a many after God’s heart and fought just wars for God, he still had to pay the price of not being allowed to build the temple. If we are every to break out of the cycle of death, we will have to give on this issue.

 

[LongingSoul]

There are no Christian nations anymore (and, on the positive side, a declining number of strictly non-Christian nations). The world is an open battlefield. Europe and its offshoot white nations are predominately guided by materialist thought. A position against capital punishment frequently accompanies a person that is supportive of abortion and euthanasia because of a vested interest in authorities not having control over issues of life and death, since the immediate life is the sum of all meaning.

Not that this means I disagree with its modern moral imprudence, but there are two very distinct trains of thought that lead to it being phased out, and you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that the EU remotely cares what the Catholic Church thinks. There is swelling desire for it to go away and never come back. The secular reasons for why it is phased out are because it is seen as intrinsically immoral (or whatever word they would prefer to use): leave life and death to the dictates of the individual and keep the notion of death out of sight and mind. A Christian isn’t capable of adopting this viewpoint without betraying 1900 years of thought.

But are you sure you aren’t superimposing current* American thought *onto the entire history of the Catholic Church?

The reality is that all of the post conciliar Popes (bar Francis) were European, presumably in touch with the cultural perspectives around them… and consistently criticised the use of the death penalty. Pope Paul vi was accused of hypocrisy for criticising the use of the death penalty by Spain and Russia, then it came to light that it had been abolished from the law in Vatican city. That was in 1969.

It’s not important that some European agendas against the death penalty are merely opportunistic. Drug lords love to see other drug lords outed and prosecuted also. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep prosecuting drug lords because it happens to make it easier for other criminals to conduct their criminal lives in the foreseeable future. Opportunists who see some advantage by aligning themselves to a noble agenda are not a reason to drop the noble agenda.

Have a read of this article which appeared in the National Catholic periodical in Australia in 1924. (Australia has long abandoned the death penalty). This particular paper is still in circulation today under the title the Catholic Weekly, faithfully conveying the true Church perspective to Australian Catholics. It is not a liberal dissenter in any way shape or form. To the question…

• "Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?

This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system. Since it was difficult to arrest highway robbers, firebugs, etc., those that were actually caught were punished the more drastically. Whether fewer, such criminals now escape arrest and full punishment than formerly, especially if they are rich, may be questioned. But the fact remains that what we now call the police system was extremely primitive in the days of old. Robbery on a grand scale, formerly conducted by a liberal use of physical violence, is now carried on in a more refined manner, though the effect is the same. It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether. So much seems to be sure, that the number of those has not died out who will be deterred from committing great crimes by nothing short of death."*
Freeman’s Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932)

This was in 1924. Australians never really had a lust for the death penalty. Most of us exist from an act of its abolishment. In England up until the very early 1800’s the death penalty was mandatory for more than 200 crimes. When that was reduced to just the two crimes of murder and treason, a solution to ship the spared prisoners of mother England to a godforsaken dustbowl at the bottom of the world for the term of their natural lives, meant that for the most part, contemporary Australians are significantly infused with the reality of the unjust uses of this measure by public authorities and with a real affection for our convict ancestors who have more than amended for and redeemed their bloodlines! I for one would not be here without that act of abolishment 200 years ago.

I believe it is inevitable that the death penalty will vanish from Christian thought without any sense of betraying our ancestors in faith. Just as the modern distaste with killing polar bears for fur coats does not betray the legitimate needs of ancient Eskimos to keep warm in a time where there were no alternatives. Above all, the Church that ministers to us today, can be trusted and followed through the developments in the doctrines regarding the dignity and inviolability of human life.

 

[LongingSoul]

Everyone regardless of his position on this issue ought to be concerned with any argument claiming that past teachings of the church are now invalid.Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. (Fr John Hardon, 1998)

Not invalid. Developed. No one is denying that warmth is a valid goal for the Eskimos in every age… only the unnecessary killing of polar bears. Development.

No one is denying that justice is a valid goal of punishment in every age… only that unnecessary killing of the human being. Development.

The “common good” cannot be reduced to mere physical protection. Aquinas certainly never saw it that way.

You cannot attribute powers to the state that it never had.

 

[Brendan]

McVeigh did not request the Sacrament of Penance; he was offered it by a priest that went and approached him. The new Catechism says a penitent must repair the harm he’s done. The Roman Catechism says a Priest should not give absolution without the obligation to make satisfaction. How does someone make satisfaction or repair the harm done in a mass murder? Is it not a sacrilege or insult to God to offer the Sacraments to such a person. kpeople:

No, the attendant priest stated that he DID request and receive Sacramental Absolution.

As far as restitution, the Church has taught that willing acceptance of just temporal punishment atones for the crime. McVeigh chose to accept his sentence and forgo an additional appeals or requests for stays.

And as far as insult or sacrilege, I would recommend that you refresh yourself on Matthew 20:1-16

 

[Brendan]

No one is denying that justice is a valid goal of punishment in every age… only that unnecessary killing of the human being. Development…

I would also claim that the Church recognizes that not all instances of Capital Punishment are unnecessary. That is why it is permitted in rare circumstances where it is no other means are effective in safeguarding society.

But that has always been what the Church has taught and will continue to teach.

 

[Ender]

None of these are recent. As stated, they only address doctrine.

True, but isn’t it the church’s doctrine on capital punishment that we are discussing? As for not being recent, one would have thought that the more ancient the doctrine the more weight it carried. Should we not take something agreed on by “virtually all” of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as valid? The church’s acceptance of capital punishment goes back to Pope Clement I (who is referred to in scripture and was a personal friend of St. Paul). Over the centuries that position, while it was expounded upon and fleshed out with theological arguments, was absolutely unchanged. It remained what it had been for over 19 centuries: the state has the moral right and the authority to employ capital punishment. That doctrine remains unchanged today.

What has changed is the assertion that it should not be used in today’s societies, but the arguments used in support of that position are either prudential or, in offering a moral argument, call into question the morality of the church’s prior position. It is reasonable to offer prudential reasons why the death penalty ought not be used, but there are no moral or theological arguments against it today that did not exist before.

Of course the death penalty is not always morally permissible. It can be used immorally, even though it is permitted by God.

Yes, it can, and I don’t think anyone would suggest otherwise. The question is whether its use when not necessary for the physical defense of society is immoral. I don’t think any case can be made that this is so.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m not sure what you found in this article from 1924 that you think supports your position but I certainly have no problem with what it said.

"Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?
This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no.

Good start*.
*

Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6).

This confirms that the church’s position on capital punishment is based on this passage.

• In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law.*

*Objection: Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.
*Response: On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law… (Aquinas)

On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers.

The church’s position has not changed: it is a matter for secular authorities to decide. As for the assertion that the church has never opposed its abolition, that claim may be a bit more difficult to defend than is supposed.

It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether.
Freeman’s Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932)

The question of whether capital punishment should be extended to crimes other than murder is one that Aquinas addressed, although not explicitly for that reason. There are different arguments to be made in support of its use for murder and for lesser crimes.

Above all, the Church that ministers to us today, can be trusted and followed through the developments in the doctrines regarding the dignity and inviolability of human life.

This is where anti-death penalty arguments go off the rails when they suggest that for nearly 20 centuries the church, with then entire panoply of saints, popes, doctors, and fathers, had an incomplete understanding of “the dignity and inviolability of human life.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

No one is denying that justice is a valid goal of punishment in every age… only that unnecessary killing of the human being. Development.

I’m pretty sure no one has suggested that people be killed unnecessarily, nor that church doctrine needed to be developed on that point. The real question is what constitutes necessity. You claim that it is physical protection while I insist that it is justice itself.

You cannot attribute powers to the state that it never had.

What powers are you referring to? The one I was referring to was the (God given) authority to employ capital punishment.

Ender

 

[livingwordunity]

Hello!

I was wondering where the Catholic Church stands on the death penalty. Catholics believe in the sanctity of life, and that everyone deserves to live. I believe that no one - no matter how horrible - deserves to have their life taken away from them. There is always the chance of repentance with a lost soul. Thank you!

If it were true in an absolute sense that it’s never possible for anyone to do anything to forfeit their right to life then no one, not even the police, would have a right to use lethal force not even to stop a killer who is in the middle of a killing spree. When the “good thief” who was crucified next to Jesus said, “…for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong”, Jesus did not correct him. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to the death penalty, but it isn’t absolutely opposed to it the way the Church is absolutely opposed to something like abortion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the right to self-defense and the duty (CCC 2265) to protect the life of others from someone who threatens innocent human life. This is why the Church isn’t opposed to Catholics being in military service. It’s more common nowadays for a bishop to be opposed to capital punishment, but this isn’t an infallible teaching of the Church since it has never been a part of the ordinary Magisterium and since it has never been declared infallibly.

 

[LongingSoul]

I would also claim that the Church recognizes that not all instances of Capital Punishment are unnecessary. That is why it is permitted in rare circumstances where it is no other means are effective in safeguarding society.

But that has always been what the Church has taught and will continue to teach.

Absolutely. I agree. I’d advance the case of the death of Bin Laden as an example of someone that could not be safely incarcerated anywhere in the world without risk to the common good.

 

[Ender]

It’s more common nowadays for a bishop to be opposed to capital punishment, but this isn’t an infallible teaching of the Church since it has never been a part of the ordinary Magisterium and since it has never been declared infallibly.

Most church doctrines are not infallibly declared; I think there are only two that fall into that category. There are a number of doctrines that are taught infallibly although there is no list of them one could consult. The teaching that women cannot be priests is infallible not because it was proclaimed but because it was taught that way.

There is good reason to believe the church’s traditional doctrine on capital punishment is in that same category.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Most church doctrines are not infallibly declared; I think there are only two that fall into that category. There are a number of doctrines that are taught infallibly although there is no list of them one could consult. The teaching that women cannot be priests is infallible not because it was proclaimed but because it was taught that way.

There is good reason to believe the church’s traditional doctrine on capital punishment is in that same category.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)
Ender

Fr Hardon is obviously a very American specific theologian, but still his words don’t in any way imply that we are ‘compelled’ to impose the death penalty or that it should never be abolished. The Church also defends the practice of corporal punishment and bodily mortifications, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be forbidden in some environments (which they are especially when they are abused.)

Defending something as having a legitimate purpose for the good, doesn’t mean it must never be abolished. It just means that they are normally practices that are naturally and healthily abhorrent to Christian sensibilities.

You are trying to make the death penalty have a nature and value it never had.

 

[LongingSoul]

In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law.

In the very next sentence to that we read… "Vengeance is lawful and virtuous so far as it tends to the prevention of evil."

Further in response to that objection we are unequivocally cautioned… “Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners.”

We are clearly warned that there are situations and occasions that the Lord forbids… forbids … the use of the death penalty. The Lord obviously has the issue of divine vengeance for sin well in hand if He finds cause to forbid the use of the death penalty in the business of human penal justice. Divine law according to Aquinas, behoves us to seriously judge the legitimacy of the use of the death penalty before resorting to it.

 

[mikekle]

There is no need to go back and forth about this, one of the 10 commandments CLEARLY says…thou shalt NOT Kill…whats left to debate about? I did not see any asterisks following this commandment either that puts ANYONE, person, a state, or a nation above the 10 commandments. Its that simple.