Do you support the death penalty?

[Ender]

Permit me to quote from your earlier post: “The position expressed in the catechism is a prudential opinion; it is not doctrine and we have no obligation to assent to it.”

Since you make such bold statements such as “I reject this claim” and “we have no obligation to assent to” the Catechism, etc.,…

Start with what I actually said, which was not that we have no obligation to assent to the Catechism but that section 2267 contains prudential opinion - with which we do not have to assent. In this I do nothing more than agree with Karl Keating on this point:

*Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. *

… then why should I heed a lone statement by a national conference of bishops, which is WAY below the Catechism in terms of authority?

They weren’t offering an authoritative opinion on the morality of capital punishment, they were simply citing the Church’s teaching on the matter … or do you think they didn’t understand it?

You continue to connect some supposed dots between the phrase “redress” and “retribution,” ignoring any other possible interpretation than your own. Again, read those posts and consider how rehabilitation might also be a way to “redress.”

The Catechism says punishment has a primary objective. Cardinal Dulles lists the four valid objectives. So, pick one. Are you claiming it is rehabilitation?

Here we go again… retribution is certainly a PART of punishment. And we can also diverge into a discussion about justice compared to punishment, two words which you seem to falsely equate.

Not equated. Retribution is demanded by justice; it is the means of achieving the end.

We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. (Aquinas)

why does retribution mean that the same act, to the same degree, be inflicted on the perpetrator?

It doesn’t. The punishment doesn’t have be the same as the crime but the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

• Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments.* (Aquinas)

you seem to say that every crime MUST be met with punishment by civil authorities that is SOLELY for retribution, where retribution is satisfied only by turning the SAME incident back onto the offender.

Neither is accurate. There are four valid objectives as I have already said; retribution may be primary but it is not the sole objective.

Paragraph 2267 indeed speaks about what civil authorities are to do. And if retribution were the sole (or even primary) purpose of punishment, then civil authorities should be instructed to carry that out first, and then take other purposes into consideration. However, since your interpretation of 2267 cannot mesh with your interpretation of punishment, ergo, the Magisterium of our Church must be wrong.

In the case of 2267 the magisterium has exercised its prudential judgment and claimed that, in today’s society, capital punishment should not be used as it does more harm than good. That is a judgment call about the advisability of using capital punishment; it is not a moral condemnation.

But … this is not my interpretation of punishment. It is the Church’s. I have not said anything that I cannot support with citations from Church documents.

Ender

 

[surritter]

The punishment doesn’t have be the same as the crime but the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

So in the case of murder, what punishment would have a severity that is commensurate with the crime?

In the case of 2267 the magisterium has exercised its prudential judgment and claimed that, in today’s society, capital punishment should not be used as it does more harm than good. That is a judgment call about the advisability of using capital punishment; it is not a moral condemnation.

Not quite. The statements in 2267 clearly involve a moral teaching that seems to apply across all times and places: They say that civil authorities should not exercise the ultimate retribution solution if non-lethal means are possible. Perhaps this teaching has been “developed” in clarity, just as other teachings have (although somehow I suspect this notion of development of doctrine bothers you?).

Yes, the very last sentence in the paragraph does offer a prudential judgment about the application of this moral law in today’s society. But do not fail to read the middle sentence, which lays down a moral principle (not a doctrine, I concede) that is more than a prudential judgment.

 

[Ender]

The term “retributive justice” is not mine; it is how the Church speaks of it.*
*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles)
Justice means giving each man his right; treating him as his actions deserve.
Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,” (Aquinas)
Treating a person on the basis of his actions is called retribution which can be either punishment or reward.Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. (Aquinas)
It is unjust not to reward someone for a good that he has done (a positive retribution) and it is equally unjust not to punish someone for an evil he has committed (penal retribution.) That is, justice obliges both. This is why retribution is the primary objective of punishment - it is an obligation of justice.

Ender

 

[AndyF]

Well do you?

One one hand, it’s a way different case then abortion, because killing a serial killer is different from killing an unborn baby.

But on the other day, isn’t it illogical to kill people who kill people to show people who kill people than killing people is wrong?

Once the Church officially has taken a position of the matter, the Faithful agree and support only that position.

Andy

 

[Ignatius]

The church is against it because it takes away the chance for that convict to turn away from evil and embrace Jesus. God wants to give his gift to everyone and if we kill that person before they have a chance to get right with God so to speak, we mess with their possible salvation.

It certainly does not take away the chance to turn to Christ. The average time on death row is over 10 years. They also get the opportunity to repent at the very hour of their death. If they are going to have a conversion, it will have happened. There is no surpise death, they know they’re going to be facing God in the next moment.

 

[lisahiku]

John Wayne Gacey was given the death penalty. He MURDERED at least 32 people.
Mostly teen boys.
anyone feel bad HE was executed? I sure don’t.

 

[Ender]

So in the case of murder, what punishment would have a severity that is commensurate with the crime?

There is only one: the life of the murderer is forfeit.

The statements in 2267 clearly involve a moral teaching that cuts across all times and places: They say that civil authorities should not exercise your ultimate retribution solution if non-lethal means are possible.

It is an interesting claim that 2267 is a moral teaching that cuts across all times a places … given that the Church obviously failed to mention it for nearly 2000 years.

Yes, the very last sentence in the paragraph does offer a prudential judgment about the application of this moral law in today’s society. But do not fail to read the middle sentence, which lays down the moral principle, not a prudential judgment.

Then we are agreed: the Catechism contains a prudential judgment in 2267. It’s worth pointing out that the first sentence in that section is factually incorrect; the Church never had the restriction on the use of capital punishment that it describes. So the first sentence is wrong, the third is opinion, now what about the second?

*"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. *

As I said earlier, this section was written in the belief that the use of capital punishment in current societies did more harm than good. This is how I understand the phrase regarding the preference for prisons that they “better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good.” This, too, is a prudential judgment.

Regarding the statement that prisons conform more to the dignity of man, this assertion is hard to understand. The foundational source of man’s dignity is that he is made in the image of God and the Church continually references the scriptural passage that states this. But the very passage that identifies the source of man’s dignity is given as the *reason *why a murderer must die for his crime. How are we to understand that execution is not in conformity with man’s dignity when that is the precise reason we are given that a murderer must be executed?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Once the Church officially has taken a position of the matter, the Faithful agree and support only that position.

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

I agree with you, but given that there “may be a legitimate diversity of opinion” on this matter can we agree that 2267 is not Church doctrine?

Ender

 

[Ender]

It certainly does not take away the chance to turn to Christ. The average time on death row is over 10 years. They also get the opportunity to repent at the very hour of their death. If they are going to have a conversion, it will have happened. There is no surpise death, they know they’re going to be facing God in the next moment.

This same point was made by Romano Amerio (peritas, Vatican II):

Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications.

Ender

 

[surritter]

It is an interesting claim that 2267 is a moral teaching that cuts across all times a places … given that the Church obviously failed to mention it for nearly 2000 years.

As I suspected, you don’t believe in what Catholics call “the development of doctrine.” A development is not the same as a contradictory teaching.

There is only one [punishment commensurate with murder]: the life of the murderer is forfeit.

Well, let’s put the pieces together, then. You claimed in post #147 that “the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime” (my emphasis). And here you write that the only punishment that has the necessary severity for the crime of murder is the murderer’s own death.
By simple logic, then, you are saying that the punishment for murder must be the death penalty. Clearly, this puts you at odds with the Catholic Church’s teaching.

Then we are agreed: the Catechism contains a prudential judgment in 2267. It’s worth pointing out that the first sentence in that section is factually incorrect; the Church never had the restriction on the use of capital punishment that it describes. So the first sentence is wrong…

Permit me to stop the quote right there. In several posts you have made no bones about placing your beliefs above an authoritative statement from our Church. To faithful Catholics, this is an immediate red flag.

But, actually, the statement is perfectly fine because the subject of that first sentence is the “traditional teaching of the Church.” The predicate of the sentence states that this teaching “does not exclude” the use of the death penalty. You twist this to mean that the traditional teach of the Church is that the death penalty has always been an option that is not a favorable one. Quite a different statement!
An analogy: The traditional teaching of the Church “does not exclude” Catholics from driving a car on Sunday morning to Mass. But that is not the same as saying that the traditional teaching of the Church is that we drive a car to Church.

[T]his section was written in the belief that the use of capital punishment in current societies did more harm than good. This is how I understand the phrase regarding the preference for prisons that they "better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good." This, too, is a prudential judgment.

This again might be considered a development of the teaching. But I see the last sentence as the prudential judgment part, because it specifically speaks to today’s society.

Regarding the statement that prisons conform more to the dignity of man, this assertion is hard to understand. The foundational source of man’s dignity is that he is made in the image of God and the Church continually references the scriptural passage that states this. But the very passage that identifies the source of man’s dignity is given as the *reason *why a murderer must die for his crime. How are we to understand that execution is not in conformity with man’s dignity when that is the precise reason we are given that a murderer must be executed?

There are many things in Catholicism that are “hard to understand.” Forgive me for getting personal, but might you ever consider speaking less authoritatively, and ponder the Catechism with a more submissive tone? It seems that you come out swinging at any post in this thread that challenges your absolutist interpretations.

To the point, however, the Church would say that there is no inconsistency when those passages in the Bible and the Catechism are properly understood.

 

[Ender]

As I suspected, you don’t believe in what Catholics call “the development of doctrine.” A development is not the same as a contradictory teaching.

This teaching didn’t develop. It sprang up in 1995 and is based on nothing the Church had ever said on the subject, and if you don’t find it contradictory then you haven’t read 2260.

Well, let’s put the pieces together, then. You claimed in post #147 that “the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime” (my emphasis). And here you write that the only punishment that has the necessary severity for the crime of murder is the murderer’s own death. By simple logic, then, you are saying that the punishment for murder must be the death penalty. Clearly, this puts you at odds with the Catholic Church’s teaching.

Given that 2267 appears to be prudential opinion and not doctrine your conclusion is incorrect.

Permit me to stop the quote right there. In several posts you have made no bones about placing your beliefs above an authoritative statement from our Church.

This is absurd. You yourself called the third sentence of 2267 an opinion. I have never put my beliefs above authoritative statements of the Church. I deny that 2267 is such a statement.

You twist this to mean that the traditional teach of the Church is that the death penalty has always been an option that is not a favorable one.

No again. The second clause beginning with “when” is factually incorrect. The Church never had such a restriction.

*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome)

There are many things in Catholicism that are “hard to understand.” Forgive me for getting personal, but might you ever consider speaking less authoritatively, and ponder the Catechism with a more submissive tone?

And you might consider the fact that everything the Church has said is not contained within the Catechism. I have read a great deal of what has been said on this subject and none of it supports 2267. None…of…it.

Ender

 

[surritter]

And you might consider the fact that everything the Church has said is not contained within the Catechism. I have read a great deal of what has been said on this subject and none of it supports 2267. None…of…it.

I certainly agree with the first part of this statement. The second one is a bit more doubtful. Nothing the Church has said (check that; nothing that the Church has said that you have read) supports 2267. Absolutely nothing, right?

 

[surritter]

Given that 2267 appears to be prudential opinion and not doctrine your conclusion is incorrect.

So I’ll push this point a little further. If your assertion that the death penalty is intrinsically mandatory for an act of murder were true, then shouldn’t the Church admonish a civil government that decides to give a murderer a life sentence instead? (This is because your reasoning naturally leads to the conclusion that anything but execution would be to shirk our sacred duty to carry out retribution.)

 

[Ender]

So I’ll push this point a little further. If your assertion that the death penalty is intrinsically mandatory for an act of murder were true, then shouldn’t the Church admonish a civil government that decides to give a murderer a life sentence instead? (This is because your reasoning naturally leads to the conclusion that anything but execution would be to shirk our sacred duty to carry out retribution.)

No. There have always been valid reasons for not executing someone and the Church has taught that an evil person should not be executed if it harms the good. 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). (Aquinas)
This appears to be the thinking behind 2267.The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
Ender

 

[Birdpreacher]

I don’t know.

Sounds like the Pope thinks that Life Imprisonment is an appropriate punishment for all murders my friend

 

[yosupman]

The church lays out the principles on the death penalty. She cannot and will not tell the laity how to exactly apply the death penalty.

So you must understand the principles the church lays out about the death penalty in today’s society are not unchangable due to the nature of what the church is doing, applying the death penatly to today’s situation.

But the teaching/principles the church lays out are absolutely a teaching that must be given religious assent.

Ender - you need to re-read all of Lumen Gentium 25. You seem to be focused only on infallible doctrine enunciated by the Ordinary of the Magisterium. Teachings that are given to give us a better understanding on faith and morals that are not infallibly set forth must be accepted with religious assent. Do you understand that YO!

 

[Ender]

Sounds like the Pope thinks that Life Imprisonment is an appropriate punishment for all murders my friend

Perhaps so, just understand that what he thinks is his prudential judgment; it is not doctrine.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ender - you need to re-read all of Lumen Gentium 25. You seem to be focused only on infallible doctrine enunciated by the Ordinary of the Magisterium. Teachings that are given to give us a better understanding on faith and morals that are not infallibly set forth must be accepted with religious assent. Do you understand that YO!

Haven’t we been through this before? I know what LG 25 says and nothing I have said is in conflict with it. We owe infallible teachings the obedience of faith and we must adhere to the teachings of the ordinary magisterium with religious assent. NOTE: There is nothing there that obliges our assent to prudential opinions which is what I have all along asserted that 2267 represents. So - Lumen Gentium 25 does not apply to this discussion.

Ender

 

[lisahiku]

good point ender! I get tired of reading on here that the RCC is AGAINST the death penalty and that a person is not pro-life if they support the death penalty.

FACT: The church allows the death penalty.

DEAL WITH IT!

 

[lisahiku]

hmmm…where are all the John Gacy supporters?