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

[Ender]

There are so many valuable resources for studying the social teaching, but of those listed on my website noted in the earlier post, perhaps the most user friendly are the two volume Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy and the recent *Supplement *

Here is what is written under the heading Death Penalty:

“Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the traditional teaching that the state has authority to impose the death penalty. His *Evangelium Vitae *and the Catechism of the Catholic Church have provided a new development of the teaching as to the use of that authority…

“Under this teaching, a Catholic can rightly support the use of the death penalty only in cases that satisfy the enhanced requirement of absolute necessity, when it would not be possible to otherwise defend society.…

“This severe restriction on the use of the death penalty arises from the importance of the conversion of the criminal. St. Augustine and St. Thomas agree that “for a just man to be made from a sinner is greater than to create heaven and earth” (STh, I, II, Q. 113, art. 9)” (Volume 1, pp. 282-283, Italics in original)

This is what you get when you have to explain something you don’t really understand. On the one hand we are told that states have the right to impose the death penalty and on the other we are told they are to all intents and purposes prohibited from using it. What essential difference is there between “imposing” and “using”? This isn’t an explanation, it is merely wordplay.

As for the restriction being based on the importance of converting the criminal, where is the evidence for this? The catechism says nothing about this; it talks only of protection. It doesn’t even recognize the obligation of justice let alone of rehabilitation. An off-topic comment from Aquinas bent to serve a different purpose hardly constitutes a convincing explanation, but it does show the lengths to which even the knowledgeable have to go to find justification for this new opposition to capital punishment.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

This is what you get when you have to explain something you don’t really understand. On the one hand we are told that states have the right to impose the death penalty and on the other we are told they are to all intents and purposes prohibited from using it. What essential difference is there between “imposing” and “using”? This isn’t an explanation, it is merely wordplay.

As for the restriction being based on the importance of converting the criminal, where is the evidence for this? The catechism says nothing about this; it talks only of protection. It doesn’t even recognize the obligation of justice let alone of rehabilitation. An off-topic comment from Aquinas bent to serve a different purpose hardly constitutes a convincing explanation, but it does show the lengths to which even the knowledgeable have to go to find justification for this new opposition to capital punishment.

Ender

That has been, exactly, my experience and is what we have been dealing with in these more recent discussions.

As Aquinas found, I think it more than arguable that facing the death penalty is much more of an incentive to conversion than is a life sentence.

This goes to the so true point - there are no atheists in foxholes.

 

[dudleysharp]

Capital punishment does provide protection but it is not justified on that basis; the need to protect society does not justify the use of capital punishment.

Ender

I. completely, agree.

 

[dudleysharp]

I don’t see the conflicts you do. It seems both are saying essentially the same thing, though with different language.

No, they are saying the opposite, which was my point.

2267 continues:

“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Consider this newest recommendation:

(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context:

The point being, no blood, no execution, if sufficient for public safety.

(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)

This is a command, a mandate, which is recognized as “paramount obedience” to the fifth commandment.

One is based upon the sufficiency of prison security to avoid blood, the other is an eternal mandate based upon shedding blood as paramount obedience to eternal teachings.

They could hardly be more in conflict.

The Catechism decides that a stated and well known eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Though I have enjoyed the back and forth around this important subject, I’m going to have to check out on this discussion as it’s gone into a decidedly circular mode over the past few days and what with the proof-texting approach, an approach which is okay, but doesn’t dialogically work in relation to the approach I use: that what the Church says in her two universal catechisms resulting from ecumenical councils involving the bishops and Peter, is error free; so if I do not understand it, I seek, through more study and prayer, to bring my intellect into congruence.

That position, of course, is built on faith, faith that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and her teaching delivered in that magisterial way—through ecumenical councils and universal catechisms—is also true.

Again, I’ve enjoyed the discussion and wish you all well.

 

[dudleysharp]

I’ll add one more thought:
“Many who live deserve death. And many who 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.” -Gandalf the Grey in LOTR by J.R.R. Tolkien

HTH.

Gandalf killed thousands, if not tens of thousands, by himself, and was part of an effort which may have killed millions, based upon his efforts that good triumph over evil.

Gandalf did so, being wise and seeing the end.

 

[dudleysharp]

It has been asserted that older penal systems didn’t have the capabilities of incarcerating prisoners for life but I have yet to see a document that attempts to support the claim with evidence … and the evidence I have seen argues that it isn’t true.]Ender

The earliest historical notation of life imprisonment was in pre Christian Athens

See here: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Prisons

I suspect Egypt had it by 2000 BC, if not sooner.

Egypt kept capture warriors and criminals as slaves, until death. That would certainly be considered a life sentence.

The earliest known prisons I was able to find were also in Egypt, around 200 BC.

 

[dudleysharp]

The earliest historical notation of life imprisonment was in pre Christian Athens

See here: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Prisons

I suspect Egypt had it by 2000 BC, if not sooner.

Egypt kept capture warriors and criminals as slaves, until death. That would certainly be considered a life sentence.

The earliest known prisons I was able to find were also in Egypt, around 200 BC.

That would be 2000 BC

 

[LongingSoul]

Though I have enjoyed the back and forth around this important subject, I’m going to have to check out on this discussion as it’s gone into a decidedly circular mode over the past few days and what with the proof-texting approach, an approach which is okay, but doesn’t dialogically work in relation to the approach I use: that what the Church says in her two universal catechisms resulting from ecumenical councils involving the bishops and Peter, is error free; so if I do not understand it, I seek, through more study and prayer, to bring my intellect into congruence.

That position, of course, is built on faith, faith that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and her teaching delivered in that magisterial way—through ecumenical councils and universal catechisms—is also true.

Again, I’ve enjoyed the discussion and wish you all well.

I’m with DavidLukenbill at this point. Being Catholic first and foremost is being obedient to the Magisterium. I’ve personally had my own issues ie. having an unbaptised infant die prior to the official Church abandonment of the limbo of infants… I wouldn’t have dreamed of condemning the Church position based on my own confident belief that my child could not be anywhere other than with God in heaven. The Church is my parent and in accordance with the fourth commandment… I obey. My heart is Gods though. He ‘gets’ it and that’s good enough for me. I’ll leave it to the holiest of holies to challenge the teachings.

Discussing this topic has been an education on many levels. Cheers all!

 

[dudleysharp]

As for the restriction being based on the importance of converting the criminal, where is the evidence for this? The catechism says nothing about this; it talks only of protection. It doesn’t even recognize the obligation of justice let alone of rehabilitation.

Ender

Redemption and expiation are both mentioned. In addition, I think rehabilitation must be considered within both redemption and expiation, just as all three are part of redressing the disorder, which is a very inclusive term.

 

[Ender]

Redemption and expiation are both mentioned. In addition, I think rehabilitation must be considered within both redemption and expiation, just as all three are part of redressing the disorder, which is a very inclusive term.

Redemption, rehabilitation, and expiation may all be mentioned somewhere but they are all ignored in the context of capital punishment. So for that matter is retribution, which is also - indirectly - mentioned elsewhere.

As for “redressing the disorder” that should be understood to mean neither more nor less than retribution. That was an unfortunate choice of terms in that its precise meaning isn’t clear and it invites readers to formulate their own understanding of what it means. The USCCB gets at least this much right, however:*The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. *
And if what the USCCB said wasn’t clear hear is an explanation of their comment:*The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” *(Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Ave Maria Law School)
Ender

 

[Ender]

I’ll leave it to the holiest of holies to challenge the teachings.

One of the more aggravating aspects of debating this topic is dealing with the misperception that what is being challenged is the teaching of the church rather than a different understanding of what is actually being taught. I’m not challenging the teaching of the church. I’m challenging your understanding of it.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The fact that all Christian countries bar one, have gradually abandoned its use since the 1800’s as not in keeping with the dignity of humanity, indicates that this development is not sudden.

I found this interesting comment whilst perusing some old copies of the Australian national Catholic paper The Freemans Journal. This is from 1924 and was back then produced in Sydney NSW where the question of the death penalty was being debated. By this time, Queensland had abolished the death penalty in 1922 and within another 40 years, the death penalty would be gone nationally. The article shows the Catholic approach to the question from that time.

"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) (Later to become the Catholic Weekly still being printed today)
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/123253640

At this stage in our history, Australia had only been settled about a century and the Australian Catholic Church was still strongly the product of Irish and Scottish catholicism. The purpose of the death penalty is here, clearly linked with the effectiveness of the penal system. The article also makes mention of how in past centuries death punishments were ‘almost considered divine law’ … a recognition that the strict literal interpretation of Gen 9:6 was not spot on the mark.

As I’ve tried to suggest to you… the US Church has a *cultural component *that has supported the death penalty up until 40 years ago, that was not so prevalent universally in catholicism. Augustines objections to magistrates about using the death penalty have been part of the catholic view on the death penalty consistently in other parts. The vehemence of anti-abolition Catholics in the US, is more a reflection of the Puritan roots that mark the development of Christianity in the US I believe.

 

[Ender]

I found this interesting comment whilst perusing some old copies of the Australian national Catholic paper The Freemans Journal. This is from 1924 and was back then produced in Sydney NSW where the question of the death penalty was being debated.

This article carries neither more nor less weight than if it appeared in a magazine today. The fact that it is an old article gives it no more status than a new one would have.

The article shows the Catholic approach to the question from that time.

What it shows is that the author’s perception of the “Catholic approach” does not track all that closely with what Pius XII said about capital punishment thirty years later. I see no reason to accept it as accurate.

The article also makes mention of how in past centuries death punishments were ‘almost considered divine law’ … a recognition that the strict literal interpretation of Gen 9:6 was not spot on the mark.

Actually this is exactly what the church considered it. It is the author’s opinion that is off the mark.On the contrary*,** These punishments are fixed by divine law *(Aquinas)

As I’ve tried to suggest to you… the US Church has a *cultural component *that has supported the death penalty up until 40 years ago, that was not so prevalent universally in catholicism.

My arguments have had nothing whatever to do with American perspectives on capital punishment. You are wedded to this perception despite a complete and utter lack of evidence suggesting it is true.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This article carries neither more nor less weight than if it appeared in a magazine today. The fact that it is an old article gives it no more status than a new one would have.
What it shows is that the author’s perception of the “Catholic approach” does not track all that closely with what Pius XII said about capital punishment thirty years later. I see no reason to accept it as accurate.

The purpose for my posting the article, was to show that the perspective on capital punishment that is reflected in the CCC today, did not just ‘suddenly change’ out of the blue after Vatican II, a fact which you give as a significant reason for your doubts. In 1924, Australia was uneasy with capital punishment because naturally, without a culturally pervasive sense of equality and human solidarity, the justice system is not serving the dignity of humankind. At that time, no one was suggesting that we dispense with the justice system altogether, imperfect as it is, it is God given to address evil in society. The issue was whether a sentence of death which takes away the chance to reform and redeem; takes away the very life given by God… was serving a divine duty to justice or serving human pride.

If we have the capacity to protect society while protecting that sacred space ie. “the term of one’s natural life”, we have to do that. We never did have the power to damn another to death. I can’t help but feel that objections to this reasoning bear the converse imprint of the schismatic principle of ‘once saved always saved’. A ‘once damned always damned’ principle, which denies the very nature of our pilgrim journey of faith towards salvation. To my sensibilities, it seems very schismatic and Protestant to keep asserting that.

 

[Ender]

The purpose for my posting the article, was to show that the perspective on capital punishment that is reflected in the CCC today, did not just ‘suddenly change’ out of the blue after Vatican II…

Yes, it did. In fact the change occurred between the first and second editions of the new catechism. The version published in 1992 contained the church’s traditional position on capital punishment. The new position showed up somewhat concurrently with the publication of Evangelium Vitae in 1995-1997. You cite an article in an Australian magazine from the 1920s that does not even accord with what Pius XII was saying in the 1950s and Vatican City itself did not remove capital punishment from her laws until 1969. Whatever was happening in Australia to cause her to oppose capital punishment in the '20s, that position was not being led or even supported by the Catholic church.

If we have the capacity to protect society while protecting that sacred space ie. “the term of one’s natural life”, we have to do that.

The church never taught this. What she has always taught is that there are three cases where human life may be legitimately taken.

We never did have the power to damn another to death.

I’m not sure about “damning” someone to death but the church has always recognized that the state had - and has today - the right to kill (in specific circumstances). I wonder how you can say what you do given that the church has been so steadfast and clear on this point:*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of St. Pius X)

I can’t help but feel that objections to this reasoning bear the converse imprint of the schismatic principle of ‘once saved always saved’. A ‘once damned always damned’ principle, which denies the very nature of our pilgrim journey of faith towards salvation. To my sensibilities, it seems very schismatic and Protestant to keep asserting that.

Deal with the arguments I present and skip the armchair psychology.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m not sure about “damning” someone to death but the church has always recognized that the state had - and has today - the right to kill (in specific circumstances). I wonder how you can say what you do given that the church has been so steadfast and clear on this point

I’m afraid I don’t accept that you are aligned with the other modern spokesman against abolition of the death penalty that you’ve cited…. especially Cardinal Dulles. You appropriate some of their words but not in the same spirit.

The state does not and never did have ‘the right to kill’. The state has a right to defend its citizens by just war or punishment… and if in the course of this defensive action, the extreme measure of taking another life is required, then the state is not forbidden to kill under those conditions. You have and continue to take what is an ‘allowance’ and make it a ‘right’. As Aquinas states, ‘divine law presupposes natural law’ and within that fact, be are seriously behoved to realise our human flawed status… made in Gods image… but definitely NOT God. Humility (as with human) from the Latin humus meaning ‘low’, ‘grounded’, ‘not God by of the earth’, is deathly important for us to recall when we are treating of God and divine things so that we do not misappropriate what is given us by the great benevolence and mercy of God.

We do not now and never will have ‘a right to kill’. It is ‘allowed’ under certain dire circumstances. When we read or study theology, we must assume the Church is speaking entirely infused with this noble attribute and I’d be interested to see if you could find the words ‘right to kill’… (not ‘right to punish or defend’ but ‘right to kill’ which is from an entirely different perspective)… anywhere in the teachings of the Church.

 

[Ender]

I’d be interested to see if you could find the words ‘right to kill’… (not ‘right to punish or defend’ but ‘right to kill’ which is from an entirely different perspective)… anywhere in the teachings of the Church.

Is there in your mind a distinction between “right to kill” and “lawful to kill”? Those phrases seem synonymous to me but I don’t know how you interpret them.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Is there in your mind a distinction between “right to kill” and “lawful to kill”? Those phrases seem synonymous to me but I don’t know how you interpret them.

Ender

A ‘right’ denotes a thing that doesn’t need to be justified before man. It doesn’t need to be proved. There are no contingent factors other than the existence of the thing itself. ‘Lawfulness’ means it meets mans legal standards. It has to prove itself, measured against a standard.

‘Rights’ are a phenomenon fundamental to mans relationship to each other. Rights anchor the common good as the centerpiece of its orbit. Laws serve the common good like the ozone layer keeping the order within it.

They are different things. There is no ‘right to kill’. Killing in defense of the common good is ‘lawful’.

 

[Ender]

A ‘right’ denotes a thing that doesn’t need to be justified before man. It doesn’t need to be proved. There are no contingent factors other than the existence of the thing itself. ‘Lawfulness’ means it meets mans legal standards. It has to prove itself, measured against a standard.

What would you call it when the church says a thing is lawful? She is clearly not speaking about national laws. Would she not be speaking of God’s laws and would not something that was lawful in God’s eyes also be a right?Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself* the right to kill**. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.” It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.”* … And thus* that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers** when they act by His mandate. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)

There is no ‘right to kill’. Killing in defense of the common good is ‘lawful’.

*The traditional position affirms the right of the state to intentionally kill malefactors for the sake of the common good. *(E. Christian Brugger, 2008)
Ender