Did the Death Penalty change in the Catechism disprove the Church?

[Emeraldlady]

Which is not to say that the Church will never recognize that governments have never been authorized by God to kill citizens. Then capital punishment will be seen as an intrinsic evil unrecognized as such by the Church for many years. I do not know why they would ever say that, but I see it as a possibility.

The Church won’t ever say that the death penalty is intrinsically evil because in this fallen world there’ll always be characters who present no other alternative. ie. the killing of Osama bin Laden by a US death squad. There was no possible way that incarcerating bin Laden was ever going to be a safe option.

The comment of Pope Benedict XVI at the time was not against that action but against the celebration of bin Ladens death. Celebrating the Death of Bin Laden? - Word on Fire

But I agree with your prediction that once the Church finalised the doctrinal clarifications about the death penalty in this era, that the death penalty as general law will be regarded as a form of murder and abolished by every Christian nation.

 

[Ender]

I think the issue is not, “What is the primary objective of punishment?” But rather, “Is death as a punishment ever legitimate?” The teaching says, “No.”

Is capital punishment simply a punishment different in degree than say, incarceration or is capital punishment different in kind to all other forms of punishment? The latter interpretation is necessary, I think, to understand the teaching.

Think about what this implies. We punish someone only because he deserves it, and here you say that the punishment of death is never legitimate, never deserved. That is, no one deserves to die as a penalty for his sin, but you also said that someone could be executed if it was necessary to protect society. What this means is that while someone might not deserve to die because of what he has done, we may kill him because of what he threatens to do. How do you justify that?

 

[Ender]

Consequently it is a form of murder which supposedly is intrinsically evil.

This need not be seen as contradicting all previous statements about capital punishment.

Given that the church held it to be heretical to argue that States did not have the right to impose capital punishment, your argument accepts that the heretics were right and the church was wrong. It means that the church for 2000 years could not recognize an intrinsic evil and taught that it was a legitimate right. If this new teaching is not a contradiction of a doctrine held by all of her great Doctors and Fathers, as well as the previous popes and Magesteriums, including her councils, then nothing has meaning.

According to your interpretation, what was unequivocally taught for millennia - that States might properly impose capital punishment - is now understand as evil. That is, the church taught that this evil was good. That ought to give you some cause to reconsider this interpretation.

 

[Dovekin]

According to your interpretation, what was unequivocally taught for millennia - that States might properly impose capital punishment - is now understand as evil.

And it could be that it was not evil for those millennia, but is evil now.

Your hysterics about this are simply not justified. This was not taught “unequivocally.” For instance, at time it was allowed to the state but not the Church to execute people, a sign that there was something wrong with executing people. Similarly there have been rules against ordaining anyone who has been involved in killing someone. Or again, the cult of the martyrs stands as a challenge to those who claim that states may kill citizens. It simly is not the case that capital punishment has had unequivocal support.

If you reject what Pope Francis has said on this, it is not surprising you reach such a dramatic conclusion. A characteristic of Catholicism is faith in the Pope, and losing that, “nothing has meaning.”

 

[Brendan]

And it could be that it was not evil for those millennia, but is evil now.

That statement is very problematic theologically. Evil is that which is offensive to God. The same act, a millennia ago would be just as offensive as one committed today.

What about God would have changed, in that He was not offended a 1,000 years ago, but He is offended now?

 

[graciew]

Jesus did not physically hurt, attack damage anyone. I do not know how else to say it…

 

[adgloriam]

@Emeraldlady @graciew hey sisters in Christ, I see we’re on yet another death penalty thread.
It seems like 100 years since that last thread that started around Christmas.
Good to see you are still fighting the good fight.

I tell you, these threads are a crime for taking up our energy and time.
However, it’s a work of mercy and truthfulness on your part. (and of patience and fortitude, I’m sure.)
And for that you ladies have my admiration.

God bless.

 

[Dovekin]

What about God would have changed, in that He was not offended a 1,000 years ago, but He is offended now?

What about God changed that he was offended when one person killed another and not when the state killed a person?

A critical element in murder is whether a person is authorized to kill another person. If the state is authorized to kill people, the death penalty is not murder. If the state is not authorized, it is murder. It is not that God has changed, but the role of the state has changed. The superficial similarity of capital punishment 1000 years ago with the death penalty today does not mean they are identical acts.

 

[o_mlly]

Think about what this implies. We punish someone only because he deserves it, and here you say that the punishment of death is never legitimate, never deserved. That is, no one deserves to die as a penalty for his sin, but you also said that someone could be executed if it was necessary to protect society. What this means is that while someone might not deserve to die because of what he has done, we may kill him because of what he threatens to do. How do you justify that?

The teaching on the just use of capital punishment follows the same circumstances that permit killing in self-defense – force, even lethal force, to protect innocent human life from an unjust aggressor is licit.

 

[o_mlly]

We punish someone only because he deserves it, and here you say that the punishment of death is never legitimate, never deserved.

In justice, society may take away from a non-conforming citizen only that which society has provided – liberty of action. Society did not give the citizen his life. Recognizing this principle as just, limits society’s punishment to banishment and its equivalents, i.e. incarceration.

 

[Ender]

And it could be that it was not evil for those millennia, but is evil now.

Except the church teaches that morality does not change with time or place, so if it is evil now - and especially if it is intrinsically so - then it was equally evil for all those centuries the church believed it to be legitimate.

Your hysterics about this are simply not justified.

Please, don’t go there. I have done nothing more than present arguments for what I believe is true, and counter arguments I believe are false.

This was not taught “unequivocally.”

Yes, it was.

It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation). (Professor Stephen Long)

For instance, at time it was allowed to the state but not the Church to execute people, a sign that there was something wrong with executing people.

Pope Leo I in the fifth century and Pope Nicholas I in the ninth century made it clear that the Church herself could not be directly involved in capital punishment; but the pontiffs assumed that the State was divinely authorized to do so. So, too, the Councils of Toledo (675) and Fourth Lateran (1215) forbade the clergy to take direct part in the juridical process or sentencing of a person on a capital charge. But again, the councils took for granted that the State may condemn a convicted criminal to death and execute the sentence. (Fr. John Hardon)

If you reject what Pope Francis has said on this…

What I reject is your interpretation of what he said.

 

[Ender]

A critical element in murder is whether a person is authorized to kill another person. If the state is authorized to kill people, the death penalty is not murder. If the state is not authorized, it is murder. It is not that God has changed, but the role of the state has changed. The superficial similarity of capital punishment 1000 years ago with the death penalty today does not mean they are identical acts.

The right of States is not dependent on their goodness. Bad States have the same rights as good ones.

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.” (St. Bellarmine)

The teaching on the just use of capital punishment follows the same circumstances that permit killing in self-defense – force, even lethal force, to protect innocent human life from an unjust aggressor is licit.

The church has always taught that self-defense is a different category than capital punishment. She has never justified execution as a form of defense. Beyond that, the critical requirement of self-defense is that the death of the aggressor not be the objective. In an execution, death is precisely the objective.

In justice, society may take away from a non-conforming citizen only that which society has provided – liberty of action. Society did not give the citizen his life. Recognizing this principle as just, limits society’s punishment to banishment and its equivalents, i.e. incarceration.

But the church has never recognized this principle - she has never taught this. What she teaches is quite the opposite:

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. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of "Thou shalt not kill; is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

 

[Brendan]

Jesus did not physically hurt, attack damage anyone. I do not know how else to say it…

Huh? the people of Sodom were very physically hurt. They were killed by Christ.

Are you saying that Christ was not the one who killed them?? Or is it because Christ killed them will just by desiring that it be so, and humans are forced to use things like lethal injection?

 

[Brendan]

A critical element in murder is whether a person is authorized to kill another person. If the state is authorized to kill people, the death penalty is not murder. If the state is not authorized, it is murder. It is not that God has changed, but the role of the state has changed. The superficial similarity of capital punishment 1000 years ago with the death penalty today does not mean they are identical acts.

Correct. Now the question becomes , where does the State get it’s authorization. Is it from the Church, or directly from God?

The State has such authorization in the past, when and how did it get revoked?

 

[o_mlly]

The right of States is not dependent on their goodness. Bad States have the same rights as good ones.

A state’s right to execute is dependent on its legitimacy. In as much as legitimacy contributes toward goodness, an illegitimate state is a bad state and may not execute.

… the critical requirement of self-defense is that the death of the aggressor not be the objective. In an execution, death is precisely the objective.

That is the very point. The intent (the object or end in view) of any state execution must be one of defense – protection of society – and the judgment that no other means can achieve that end.

But the church has never recognized this principle - she has never taught this. What she teaches is quite the opposite:

I did not offer the principle as Church teaching. The principle stands on its own merits.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate …

And the authority on earth for determining His mandate is His Church. His Church has spoken.

 

[TrueRomanCatholic]

The Holy Lady, Mother Church, can never be disproven! She was handed down to us by our Lord and savior.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The teaching on the just use of capital punishment follows the same circumstances that permit killing in self-defense – force, even lethal force, to protect innocent human life from an unjust aggressor is licit.

False, false, false. The Catechism treats of the death penalty under the sub heading of Legitimate Defense as distinguished from murder. 2263 -2267

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Secondly it is Aquinas’ work in the 13th century that clearly defined state execution as lawful defense as far as the welfare of society is served.

ST II II Q64 Murder (Article 2)

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).

However if society is harmed by the use of execution it is forbidden.

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. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

And yet again, the death penalty is referred to the common good as a defense. (Article 3)

it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.

 

[Emeraldlady]

(Article 6) Just in case it isn’t clear yet.

An individual man may be considered in two ways: first, in himself; secondly, in relation to something else. If we consider a man in himself, it is unlawful to kill any man, since in every man though he be sinful, we ought to love the nature which God has made, and which is destroyed by slaying him. Nevertheless, as stated above (Article 2) the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin.

(Article 7) Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?

Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good

To say that the Church has never taught that capital punishment is a form of legitimate defense is completely false.

 

[Dovekin]

The State has such authorization in the past, when and how did it get revoked?

As Ender has noted, “pontiffs assumed that the State was divinely authorized to [execute].” That has been reconsidered in the light of the totalitarian governments of the last century. State sponsored genocide raised the question in an urgent manner. Francis is providing an answer to those questions.

 

[Ender]

That is the very point. The intent (the object or end in view) of any state execution must be one of defense – protection of society – and the judgment that no other means can achieve that end.

You grant to the state a distinction not granted to the individual. The individual may kill in self-defense only if he doesn’t directly intend the death. The State, however, directly intends the death of the criminal. Those are two very different scenarios.

I did not offer the principle as Church teaching. The principle stands on its own merits.

As far as the church is concerned the principle has no merit since it is contrary to what she teaches.

And the authority on earth for determining His mandate is His Church. His Church has spoken.

Not exactly. First, the church is more than the judgment of one pope, and second, no one can interpret Scripture contrary to the interpretation given by the Fathers. If your interpretation is correct that would be exactly what Francis has done, which is another reason I don’t believe your understanding is accurate.

We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (First Vatican Council)