Did the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty change?

[LongingSoul]

I think what has been lost is the understanding that “punishment is the effect of justice” (Aquinas), that “Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium…” (Pius XII) and that “penalty and fault are action and reaction.” (Pius XII)

Crime deserves punishment. It is an obligation of justice.

Ender

All of that is true of punishment in the order of justice. However, knowing now that to be in accordance with the innate dignity of the human person, authority should limit its use of the death penalty to only those cases where the safety of society continues to be threatened… we see that the death penalty as punishment is first and foremost directed and beholden to mans experience of his dignity. In reading the traditional teaching of the Church, it can be ever seen to be thus, simply being illuminated now by doctrinal progress.

In Dives in Misericordia, John Paul gives some insight into the development of merciful justice…

The more the Church’s mission is centered upon man-the more it is, so to speak, anthropocentric-the more it must be confirmed and actualized theocentrically, that is to say, be directed in Jesus Christ to the Father. While the various currents of human thought both in the past and at the present have tended and still tend to separate theocentrism and anthropocentrism, and even to set them in opposition to each other, the Church, following Christ, seeks to link them up in human history, in a deep and organic way. And this is also one of the basic principles, perhaps the most important one, of the teaching of the last Council. Since, therefore, in the present phase of the Church’s history we put before ourselves as our primary task the implementation of the doctrine of the great Council, we must act upon this principle with faith, with an open mind and with all our heart. In the encyclical already referred to, I have tried to show that the deepening and the many-faceted enrichment of the Church’s consciousness resulting from the Council must open our minds and our hearts more widely to Christ. Today I wish to say that openness to Christ, who as the Redeemer of the world fully reveals man himself," can only be achieved through an ever more mature reference to the Father and His love…

…And yet, it would be difficult not to notice that very often programs which start from the idea of justice and which ought to assist its fulfillment among individuals, groups and human societies, in practice suffer from distortions. Although they continue to appeal to the idea of justice, nevertheless experience shows that other negative forces have gained the upper hand over justice, such as spite, hatred and even cruelty. In such cases, the desire to annihilate the enemy, limit his freedom, or even force him into total dependence, becomes the fundamental motive for action; and this contrasts with the essence of justice, which by its nature tends to establish equality and harmony between the parties in conflict. This kind of abuse of the idea of justice and the practical distortion of it show how far human action can deviate from justice itself, even when it is being undertaken in the name of justice. Not in vain did Christ challenge His listeners, faithful to the doctrine of the Old Testament, for their attitude which was manifested in the words: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."111 This was the form of distortion of justice at that time; and today’s forms continue to be modeled on it. It is obvious, in fact, that in the name of an alleged justice (for example, historical justice or class justice) the neighbor is sometimes destroyed, killed, deprived of liberty or stripped of fundamental human rights. The experience of the past and of our own time demonstrates that justice alone is not enough, that it can even lead to the negation and destruction of itself, if that deeper power, which is love, is not allowed to shape human life in its various dimensions. It has been precisely historical experience that, among other things, has led to the formulation of the saying: summum ius, summa iniuria. This statement does not detract from the value of justice and does not minimize the significance of the order that is based upon it; it only indicates, under another aspect, the need to draw from the powers of the spirit which condition the very order of justice, powers which are still more profound.

… Thus, the way which Christ showed to us in the Sermon on the Mount with the beatitude regarding those who are merciful is much richer than what we sometimes find in ordinary human opinions about mercy. These opinions see mercy as a unilateral act or process, presupposing and maintaining a certain distance between the one practicing mercy and the one benefitting from it, between the one who does good and the one who receives it. Hence the attempt to free interpersonal and social relationships from mercy and to base them solely on justice. However, such opinions about mercy fail to see the fundamental link between mercy and justice spoken of by the whole biblical tradition, and above all by the messianic mission of Jesus Christ. True mercy is, so to speak, the most profound source of justice.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia_en.html

Going back to the traditional teachings of the Church Fathers, it can be seen that when the specific mention of the death penalty is raised, it is always conditional upon it’s role in the safety of the community and is unfortunatey being skewed by the practice of isolating its mention from the whole context in which it is referred to.

 

[Genesis315]

The Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) says this concerning the execution of criminals and its relationship to the 5th Commandment:
Roman Catechism:

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. 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. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

I don’t see how this is any different than how the CCC ties capital punishment into the preservation and security of human life.

 

[Genesis315]

Also, the primary purpose of punishment is still taught in Evangelium Vitae 56 and CCC 2266.

“The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.

Here’s a good pamphlet which explains the relevant principles. It was written before Evangelium Vitae and the CCC (I think it was written in the 40s or 50s) and the conclusion is the same as that in the CCC:

A Catholic is entitled to argue, however, that in the present state of our civilization the use of the death penalty is not a practical necessity, and to that extent he may give his support to any movement for its abolition which is inspired by humanitarian motives. It must always be understood, however, that even if the use of the death
penalty were to be abolished, the State would still have the right, and in a particular case even the duty, to reintroduce the death penalty, if it were to be considered necessary in the circumstances for the security and adequate protection of society.

catholicpamphlets.net/pamphlets/CAPITAL%20PUNISHMENT.pdf

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add, St. Robert Bellarmine also ties capital punishment into preventing injury to the rest of society in the chapter on capital punishment in de Laicis, ch. 13:

Lastly, it is proved from reason; for it is the duty of a good ruler, to whom has been entrusted the care of the common good, to prevent those members which exist for the sake of the whole from injuring it, and therefore if he cannot preserve all the members in unity, he ought rather to cut off one than to allow the common good to be destroyed; just as the farmer cuts off branches and twigs which are injuring the vine or the tree, and a doctor amputates limbs which might injure the whole body.​

But neither is revenge forbidden absolutely, if, indeed, it is sought from a lawful judge and for a good end, either because there is hope that the malefactor will be reformed by this punishment, or because his malice can be kept in check and restrained in no other way, and he will continue to do evil if he is allowed to go unpunished; therefore, what is forbidden is only that revenge which private citizens wish to take on their own account, and which they seek from a judge through the desire of harming an enemy, and of satisfying their own ill-will and hatred.

catholicism.org/de-laicis.html/13

 

[Ender]

This comment by Aquinas is addressing the suggestion that a Judge should be free to remit punishment as in the way of a pardon. It isn’t affirming an obligation to inflict the death penalty. No one here is arguing that it is merciful to abolish punishment from the justice system altogether.

I was discussing mercy in that post, not capital punishment. Since, however, some have suggested that life in prison is a more merciful sentence that death - and that therefore this is a good thing - I’ll ask (again): why wouldn’t we abolish punishment altogether as the most merciful action of all? If a little mercy is a good thing then why isn’t a lot of mercy even better?

Ender

 

[Ender]

However, knowing now that to be in accordance with the innate dignity of the human person, authority should limit its use of the death penalty to only those cases where the safety of society continues to be threatened…

Knowing now? Are you saying that it was not until the very end of the 20th century that the church finally understood man’s innate dignity?

In reading the traditional teaching of the Church, it can be ever seen to be thus, simply being illuminated now by doctrinal progress.

Doctrinal progress requires continuity, not repudiation. The reversal of doctrine cannot be considered development.

In Dives in Misericordia, John Paul gives some insight into the development of merciful justice…

The only relevant part of your citation was the section where he talked of the “abuse of the idea of justice”, the “distortion of justice”, and “alleged justice.” I think this was his concern when he wrote in opposition to the application of capital punishment, that it wasn’t seen as justice but rather as an expression of angry vengeance.

I find these comments from Dives in Misericordia to be more applicable:Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it

In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness.

Going back to the traditional teachings of the Church Fathers, it can be seen that when the specific mention of the death penalty is raised, it is always conditional upon it’s role in the safety of the community and is unfortunately being skewed by the practice of isolating its mention from the whole context in which it is referred to.

I dispute this claim. Beyond this, it is one thing to recognize protection as a benefit of executing a criminal but it is quite another to suggest that it is therefore protection that motivates and justifies the act. Nowhere does anyone prior to JPII claim that capital punishment is permitted only if it is necessary to protect society.

Cite examples to support your contention and let’s see if they say what you believe they do.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I don’t see how [the Catechism of Trent] is any different than how the CCC ties capital punishment into the preservation and security of human life.

Trent did not condition the application of capital punishment on whether it was necessary to protect society. I think you misinterpret what the passage you cited actually means. Trent recognized the additional benefit of security that society received but the basis of its support for the use of capital punishment was not protection; it was, as specified later, Gen 9:6.Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.(1) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (1) Gn 9:5-6

The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man, since God declares that He created all things for man’s sake. Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself !
“He declares in Holy Writ” that the life of a murderer is forfeit. That was the basis of Trent’s position on capital punishment. That was also the basis every other church writer recognized until 1995. Even the current catechism cites this passage (2260) with the acknowledgment that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

Also, the primary purpose of punishment is still taught in Evangelium Vitae 56 and CCC 2266.

“The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.

This is true, but “redress(ing) the disorder” does not mean protection. It means retribution. There is simply no argument to be made that preventing future crimes in any way redresses the disorder caused by a crime already committed, therefore protection is only a secondary objective of punishment, therefore it cannot determine the degree of punishment as that is the obligation of the primary objective (whatever you believe that to be).

Here’s a good pamphlet which explains the relevant principles. It was written before Evangelium Vitae and the CCC (I think it was written in the 40s or 50s) and the conclusion is the same as that in the CCC:

I will grant that this pamphlet supports your position. What I won’t grant is that this pamphlet has any significance as it is solely the opinion of the author and is in no way representative of church doctrine, especially given what Pius XII wrote in 1952:“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.”
By his fault “he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” The redress of the disorder involves the “expiation of his fault” and the “right to live”. These are the relevant concerns, not the protection of society.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Just to add, St. Robert Bellarmine also ties capital punishment into preventing injury to the rest of society in the chapter on capital punishment in de Laicis, ch. 13:

“Ties” capital punishment to safeguarding society is vague. Bellarmine does argue that society has the right to execute someone to protect itself from harm, but it is more reasonable to argue that this allows the execution of thieves than claim it prohibits the execution of murderers except when it is necessary for protection. I think it misrepresents what is in ch 13 to suggest otherwise, especially as the chapter also contains this:Fourth proposition: It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept.
Once again we see that the basis for church teaching on capital punishment is Gn 9:5-6 and for Bellarmine this teaching was a “decree and a precept.”

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I was discussing mercy in that post, not capital punishment. Since, however, some have suggested that life in prison is a more merciful sentence that death - and that therefore this is a good thing - I’ll ask (again): why wouldn’t we abolish punishment altogether as the most merciful action of all? If a little mercy is a good thing then why isn’t a lot of mercy even better?

Ender

Because the aspect at issue is the lethal, final judgement of death… not the just punishment of wrongdoing. Non-lethal punishments can also fall prey to hatefulness and cruelty, but there, the justice system has the capacity to redress the harm caused by vengeful punishments. By taking a life, any redress of an injustice of punishment is impossible … other than to take the life of those who applied the vengeful sentence in the first place (under the principles of blood for blood)

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
However, knowing now that to be in accordance with the innate dignity of the human person, authority should limit its use of the death penalty to only those cases where the safety of society continues to be threatened.

I suppose what I find intensely curious about your rationales is the insistence that if you can’t explain or understand the progression we are being taught, then it constitutes a repudiation and reversal. Faith is a process of trusting in the mysteries of God in the Holy Spirit and the unbroken teaching authority of the Holy Catholic Church. How do we explain miracles? How do we explain conversion? Christ Himself was an anomaly to the Pharisees and brought about His death by their rigid rejection of what they couldn’t explain themselves. But how much of their rejection was to do with defending the Torah and how much was their personal dislike of the message Jesus brought?

Even the Jewish faithful through their history, have never given such a glorified defense of the death sentence as is being witnessed by pro-death penalty advocates today. It’s been viewed with unease throughout its history. Orthodox and Conservative Jewish Rabbis teach along the following lines…

In Orthodox Judaism it is held that in theory the death penalty is a correct and just punishment for some crimes. However, in practice the application of such a punishment can only be carried out by humans whose system of justice is nearly perfect, a situation which has not existed for some time.

Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Edelstein writes

“So, at least theoretically, the Torah can be said to be pro-capital punishment. It is not morally wrong, in absolute terms, to put a murderer to death …However, things look rather different when we turn our attention to the practical realization of this seemingly harsh legislation. You may be aware that it was exceedingly difficult, in practice, to carry out the death penalty in Jewish society …I think it’s clear that with regard to Jewish jurisprudence, the capital punishment outlined by the Written and Oral Torah, and as carried out by the greatest Sages from among our people (who were paragons of humility and humanity and not just scholarship, needless to say), did not remotely resemble the death penalty in modern America (or Texas). In theory, capital punishment is kosher; it’s morally right, in the Torah’s eyes. But we have seen that there was great concern—expressed both in the legislation of the Torah, and in the sentiments of some of our great Sages—regarding its practical implementation. It was carried out in ancient Israel, but only with great difficulty. Once in seven years; not 135 in five and a half.” (Rabbi Yosef Edelstein, Director of the Savannah Kollel)
Orthodox Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes:

“In practice, however, these punishments were almost never invoked, and existed mainly as a deterrent and to indicate the seriousness of the sins for which they were prescribed. The rules of evidence and other safeguards that the Torah provides to protect the accused made it all but impossible to actually invoke these penalties…the system of judicial punishments could become brutal and barbaric unless administered in an atmosphere of the highest morality and piety. When these standards declined among the Jewish people, the Sanhedrin…voluntarily abolished this system of penalties” (Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in Handbook of Jewish Thought, Volume II, pp. 170–71).
In Conservative Judaism the death penalty was the subject of a responsum by its Committee on Jewish Law and Standards:

“The Talmud ruled out the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in cases which involved a capital crime. Two witnesses were required to testify that they saw the action with their own eyes. A man could not be found guilty of a capital crime through his own confession or through the testimony of immediate members of his family. The rabbis demanded a condition of cool premeditation in the act of crime before they would sanction the death penalty; the specific test on which they insisted was that the criminal be warned prior to the crime, and that the criminal indicate by responding to the warning, that he is fully aware of his deed, but that he is determined to go through with it. In effect this did away with the application of the death penalty. The rabbis were aware of this, and they declared openly that they found capital punishment repugnant to them… There is another reason which argues for the abolition of capital punishment. It is the fact of human fallibility. Too often we learn of people who were convicted of crimes and only later are new facts uncovered by which their innocence is established. The doors of the jail can be opened, in such cases we can partially undo the injustice. But the dead cannot be brought back to life again. We regard all forms of capital punishment as barbaric and obsolete…”[30]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_capital_punishment

The people of the Old Law themselves recognise the original application as strictly dependent on the worthiness of the authority that inflicts it. I just don’t believe that pro-death penalty advocacy of today as being driven by “humility and humanity and not just scholarship”, as was the case in it’s 2 and more thousand history and I believe that is exactly what the Church is stressing also.

 

[Ender]

Because the aspect at issue is the lethal, final judgement of death… not the just punishment of wrongdoing. Non-lethal punishments can also fall prey to hatefulness and cruelty, but there, the justice system has the capacity to redress the harm caused by vengeful punishments. By taking a life, any redress of an injustice of punishment is impossible … other than to take the life of those who applied the vengeful sentence in the first place (under the principles of blood for blood)

If this is the defense you want to make, fine, but this is not the objection 2267 makes nor is it an objection that the church has made. This is not surprising inasmuch as this is a practical rather than a moral concern. Nor does it address the question of whether the punishment is proper in those cases where there is no doubt whatever about the guilt of the person charged with the crime.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I suppose what I find intensely curious about your rationales is the insistence that if you can’t explain or understand the progression we are being taught, then it constitutes a repudiation and reversal.

I can understand simple concepts and logical arguments and I have not encountered one that resolves the difficulties presented by 2267. Most people at least acknowledge that opposition to capital punishment within the church is a new phenomenon and I don’t know how you can define a change from supporting it to opposing it as anything other than a reversal.

Faith is a process of trusting in the mysteries of God in the Holy Spirit and the unbroken teaching authority of the Holy Catholic Church.

This is an argument about why the catechism ought to be right but it is not an argument that tries to demonstrate why it is right. The only viable solution I can see is if 2267 is understood to be a prudential judgment and not a moral doctrine. That perspective does not involve challenges to traditional doctrines.

Even the Jewish faithful through their history, have never given such a glorified defense of the death sentence as is being witnessed by pro-death penalty advocates today.

I can only speak to my own position and there is no justification in believing that it constitutes a glorified defense of capital punishment since it is nothing more than what the church has herself taught for nearly 2000 years.

The people of the Old Law themselves recognise the original application as strictly dependent on the worthiness of the authority that inflicts it.

I disagree. Even evil empires have the right to impose capital punishment so long as it is applied justly in each particular case…the error of Amarcanus, who teaches that the chief title of the ruler to his authority is the grace of God, or justice and charity; moreover, all other titles are based upon this, and he who lacks the virtue of justice and the grace of God has no true dominion. At the very same time, John Wyclif* taught the same error**…

Thirdly, from St. Augustine, who says, “Since this is the case, let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven only to the good, but the kingdom of earth both to the good and bad, as is pleasing to Him to Whom nothing unjust is pleasing.” And below, “He Who gave dominion to Marius, gave it also to Caesar, He Who gave it to Augustus, gave it also to Nero, He Who gave it to Vespasian, father or son, most benign emperors, gave it also to the most cruel Domitian; and that it may not be necessary to recount every instance, He Who gave it to Constantine the Christian gave it also to Julian the Apostate.”* (St. Bellarmine, de Laicis, ch 8)
Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

An excellent discussion of this still very important subject, which my apostolate work, as a former criminal who served many years in maximum security prisons, has addressed in a 2009 book, from which we have posted excerpts on our webpage at lampstandfoundation.org/capitalpunishment.html

 

[LongingSoul]

I can understand simple concepts and logical arguments and I have not encountered one that resolves the difficulties presented by 2267. Most people at least acknowledge that opposition to capital punishment within the church is a new phenomenon and I don’t know how you can define a change from supporting it to opposing it as anything other than a reversal.

This opposition is not new. I’ve demonstrated that by St Augustines letters to magistrates in the fifth century. He begged for the sparing of countless lives, regardless of their deemed worthlessness or worthiness. Augustine regarded the death penalty not as an honour, but as a terrible duty that should be inflicted carefully and sparingly. I’ve demonstrated by the teachings of the Orthodox Jewish Rabbis that the death penalty has never been regarded as the golden trump card of the Jewish jurisprudence. It was abolished in the Sanhedrin 40 years prior to the destruction of the Temple. The Jews who are the original guardians of the Law, don’t even regard it the way it’s being regarded by its proponents now. This is not a reversal, it’s a redressing of the mentality that’s distorted it.

The ‘reversal’, is merely the place it holds within the secular codes of law. It was ‘on the books’ and now it’s being withdrawn from the ‘the books’. The Church stresses that the death penalty is in certain circumstances ‘justifiable’. The error of thinking that has developed by the death penalty being written into the codes of law, is that it has assumed the nature of a ‘right’. A ‘right’ to be defended like the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to equality. It’s adopted the secular nature of ‘rights’. It never had that nature. As an Australian Catholic, I’ve always viewed it with repugnance. Because of the dynamic in early Australia, it was just an excuse to terrorise the marginalised. It never reflected Gods merciful justice. God who judges souls with perfect justice. We’ve never been God and we are obliged to consider mitigating circumstances and at least give benefit of the doubt as the default where those considerations are in dispute. We should not have to argue against a ‘mandated’ death. We should have to argue for a ‘justified’ death in an extreme circumstance. Catholic gentleness as Augustine calls it, or mercy should determine the default I am saying, not an indiscriminate, soulless code of law.

 

[Ender]

This opposition is not new. I’ve demonstrated that by St Augustines letters to magistrates in the fifth century. He begged for the sparing of countless lives, regardless of their deemed worthlessness or worthiness.

It is surely true that Augustine expressed his hope that capital punishment would not be used against those who had attacked and murdered Christians. It is equally true that his opposition was not doctrinal but prudential; he clearly recognized that the state had the moral right to use it and, relevant to 2267, he never suggested that its use was dependent on whether it was necessary for the defense of society.

Augustine regarded the death penalty not as an honour, but as a terrible duty that should be inflicted carefully and sparingly.

I’m not sure where you came up with the concept that anyone believes there is some kind of honor involved or that this is other than a terrible duty. It is, however, both: terrible and a duty.*What is more hideous than a hangman? What is more cruel and ferocious than his character? And yet he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws, and he is incorporated into the order of a well-regulated state; himself criminal in character, he is nevertheless, by others’ arrangement, the penalty of evildoers. *(Augustine)

I’ve demonstrated by the teachings of the Orthodox Jewish Rabbis that the death penalty has never been regarded as the golden trump card of the Jewish jurisprudence. It was abolished in the Sanhedrin 40 years prior to the destruction of the Temple.

It was abolished by Vatican City barely 40 years ago.

The Jews who are the original guardians of the Law, don’t even regard it the way it’s being regarded by its proponents now.

I haven’t been making an argument based on Jewish law but on Catholic doctrine.

This is not a reversal, it’s a redressing of the mentality that’s distorted it.

Catholic doctrine was distorted until 1995 - is that your position?

The Church stresses that the death penalty is in certain circumstances ‘justifiable’. The error of thinking that has developed by the death penalty being written into the codes of law, is that it has assumed the nature of a ‘right’.

It is a right.*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)

We’ve never been God and we are obliged to consider mitigating circumstances and at least give benefit of the doubt as the default where those considerations are in dispute.

This is not being disputed but neither does it address the question: in cases where there is no doubt about guilt and where the circumstances were especially vile, what is the proper punishment for murder?

Catholic gentleness as Augustine calls it, or mercy should determine the default I am saying…

I have addressed the issue of mercy but so far no one wishes to debate when its use is appropriate and when it isn’t. The implication of your comment is that it should be universally applied - is that what you mean?

… not an indiscriminate, soulless code of law.

Again you distort my position and demean the nature of justice itself.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Faith is a process of trusting in the mysteries of God in the Holy Spirit and the unbroken teaching authority of the Holy Catholic Church.

In the discussion, I am defending the authority of the Magisterium via the Catechism against the accusation that it technically demonstrates a reversal of doctrine.

The Magisterium of the Church: The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome… Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms" (CCC 85-87).

My approach is not to demonstrate why it is right, but to illuminate the possible errors in your rationale that render all of 2267 a ‘prudential judgement’ and not just the last part.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

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 non-existent.” CCC

 

[livingwordunity]

The same ones who argue that capital punishment should be absolutely abolished will also be the ones arguing to set them free.

How do you leap to that conclusion? I for one believe there is a role for imprisonment - especially for those deemed dangerous to the community.

I was speaking in general terms.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by livingwordunity
The same ones who argue that capital punishment should be absolutely abolished will also be the ones arguing to set them free.

That’s just silly. You’re suggesting that the Church will be arguing to set all prisoners free?

 

[Ender]

In the discussion, I am defending the authority of the Magisterium via the Catechism against the accusation that it technically demonstrates a reversal of doctrine.

The church has always taught that circumstances have to be taken into account in determining the proper sentence for a crime. If 2267 is a prudential judgment that the use of capital punishment causes more problems than it solves then opposition to its use is not a change of doctrine. If, however, 2267 is a new doctrine, then it is not merely a development of the traditional doctrine but a move away from it.

My approach is not to demonstrate why it is right, but to illuminate the possible errors in your rationale that render all of 2267 a ‘prudential judgement’ and not just the last part.

I don’t know that all of 2267 is prudential. The first sentence is not; it is a statement about facts. Either it correctly describes the traditional teaching on this subject or it doesn’t and I don’t see evidence to support the claim. Actually though, it is the part of the second sentence that claims capital punishment is somehow contrary to man’s dignity that is most troubling as it is that very dignity that is the reason God gave for a murderer to lose his life. I am at a loss as to how to understand that part of 2267.

Ender