Do you support the death penalty?

[JerrySeibert]

I don’t know. Why did Aquinas call capital punishment for murder “fixed by the divine law?”

Ender

This all boils down to DISCIPLINE. Will you follow the teaching of the Church or will you question the Church? Really? Why debate a topic that THE CHURCH has made a very clear stance about. This is as silly as the COTT or the CITH debates that rage across this site. I should start my own site with better rules about such silliness.

 

[Flimmy]

Big intellectual debate in Law and Justice class. Capital punishment might make sense, but if the Church is against it… who’s to say. Punish the criminal, the fool’s all the wiser. But, death?

 

[surritter]

When did it become ultra-legalistic to cite Church teaching?

No one said that it is ultra-legalistic to cite Church teaching. But realize that the term ultra-legalistic has to do with interpretation of Church teaching.

Let’s dissect this whole thing a bit further … sorry if this bores the others or seems like I’m rehashing earlier points in this thread. But I’ve taken some time to re-analyze our discussion, simply to assess why this whole thing is such a sticking point for you, Ender. You have indeed cited what the Church has said on the subject, but then interjected your own interpretations. (And then you sometimes finish with “What else could it be?”)

It is not my logic nor my argument. I have been citing what the Church has said on the subject.

I had to go way back to post #127, but I think I see the root flaw in your logic (and yes, it does involve your logic; shouldn’t any debate involve logic presented by the speaker?): It’s a misunderstanding of the word “rehabilitate.”

The Church teaches that punishment has four objectives: retribution, protection, deterrence, and rehabilitation. What I said was that protection and deterrence cannot possibly be considered as redressing the disorder of past crimes as their focus is exclusively on preventing new ones. Nor can rehabilitation be said to redress past disorders because, even if a person repents of his crime his repentance does nothing to atone for it. That only leaves retribution.

Let’s review for the benefit of others: We all agree that punishment has the four objectives. We all also agree that punishment’s purpose is to redress the disorder caused by the crime. The problem, as you and I have discussed before, is to find how those two concepts intersect.

You insist that retribution is the only one that can redress the disorder. Recall that I pointed out how rehabilitation can also redress a disorder. But in post #127 you disagreed … let’s break down what I’ve quoted from your post.

[P]rotection and deterrence cannot possibly be considered as redressing the disorder of past crimes as their focus is exclusively on preventing new ones.

Agreed.

Nor can rehabilitation be said to redress past disorders because, even if a person repents of his crime his repentance does nothing to atone for it. That only leaves retribution.

Disagree. Everyone read this sentence very carefully. Ender, you’ve subtly narrowed the Church teaching about “redress” into the verb “atone.” If the purpose of punishment were to merely atone for the crime, then yes, the criminal would have to endure a punishment purely out of retribution, equivalent to the crime (even that wouldn’t suffice, since of course only God can truly atone for our offenses). Paragraph 2266 does say that the punishment may take on the value of expiation, but that is contingent on the criminal’s acceptance of such, and is not the main objective of the punishment. In other words, the Catechism’s mention of expiation is not to equate it with redress.

Rather, let’s stick with the word that the Church uses: redress, not atone. While rehabilitation is unable to atone, it is clear that rehabilitation is a form of redressing a disorder (the Church doesn’t say the disorder “done to society,” as you claimed in post #118; rather, paragraph 2266 seems to allow for a broader audience for the word disorder). With this clarification in place, we can see that it is not as simple as: “That leaves retribution. What else could it be?” Rather, while the DP might be most fitting, there is room for other punishments besides purely the death penalty, and this conclusion is not to be relegated to “prudential judgment” but is core to the meaning of paragraph 2266. (Perhaps that paragraph needs more discussion here; in the past we seemed to focus so much on 2267.)

And above all, I am not saying that the DP is wrong, or out of bounds. I simply reject your contention that the DP is mandated by the Church but for certain exceptions.

 

[Ender]

This all boils down to DISCIPLINE. Will you follow the teaching of the Church or will you question the Church? Really? Why debate a topic that THE CHURCH has made a very clear stance about. This is as silly as the COTT or the CITH debates that rage across this site. I should start my own site with better rules about such silliness.

The problem is that this issue is not at all as clear as you imagine it to be. I don’t know if you’ve read all of this thread but let me point out (again) some of the significant remarks that have been made.

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

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)

*The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue *(USCCB)

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. - canon lawyer)

Ender

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

Nor can rehabilitation be said to redress past disorders because, even if a person repents of his crime his repentance does nothing to atone for it. That only leaves retribution.

If the purpose of punishment were to merely atone for the crime, then yes, the criminal would have to endure a punishment *purely out of retribution*

, equivalent to the crime (even that wouldn’t suffice, since of course only God can truly atone for our offenses). Paragraph 2266 does say that the punishment may take on the value of expiation, but that is contingent on the criminal’s acceptance of such, and is not the main objective of the punishment. In other words, the Catechism’s mention of expiation is not to equate it with redress.

Thank you for making a reasoned argument. I disagree with it … but I appreciate it. I’ll turn to Aquinas to address this (Summa Theologica I-II 87 - the Debt of Punishment)

• Two things may be considered in sin: the guilty act, and the consequent stain. Now it is evident that in all actual sins, when the act of sin has ceased, the guilt remains; because the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice; *

But if we speak of the removal of sin as to the stain, it is evident that the stain of sin cannot be removed from the soul, without the soul being united to God… Now man is united to God by his will. Wherefore the stain of sin cannot be removed from man, unless his will accept the order of Divine justice, that is to say, unless either of his own accord he take upon himself the punishment of his past sin (Article 6)

When the stain is removed, the wound of sin is healed as regards the will. But punishment is still requisite in order that the other powers of the soul be healed, since they were so disordered by the sin committed,* so that, to wit, the disorder may be remedied** by the contrary of that which caused it. Moreover punishment is requisite in order to restore the equality of justice.* (6 ad 3)

As I understand this, there are two aspects of sin: the act and the stain on the soul. The latter is removed only if punishment is accepted but that acceptance does not remedy the disorder of the act, which punishment alone can accomplish. Punishment remedies the disorder; acceptance removes the stain but whether or not the punishment is accepted doesn’t change the fact that “punishment is requisite in order to restore the equality of justice.”

What is the purpose of punishment in the afterlife? You might argue that the objective in Purgatory is to rehabilitate the sinner but no such position is possible for those in Hell. What is the purpose of their punishment? Given that it cannot be protection or rehabilitation all that is left is retribution - retributive justice - and deterrence, but surely no one would argue that someone should be thrown into Hell merely to dissuade others from sin but only if their own sins deserve such punishment, and that’s the key: the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment. That’s the definition of retributive justice.

Ender

 

[Ender]

surritter:

Rather, let’s stick with the word that the Church uses: redress, not atone. While rehabilitation is unable to atone, it is clear that rehabilitation is a form of redressing a disorder (the Church doesn’t say the disorder “done to society,” as you claimed in post #118; rather, paragraph 2266 seems to allow for a broader audience for the word disorder).

Regarding the “disorder”, there are three aspects to consider:

In the first place a man’s nature is subject to the order of his own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters . . . . thirdly, it is subject to the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience;another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God. (Aquinas ST I-II, 87)

The punishment inflicted by man (the State) is retribution for the disorder done to society since it can surely not correct his own reason or his offense against God.

With this clarification in place, we can see that it is not as simple as: “That leaves retribution. What else could it be?” Rather, while the DP might be most fitting, there is room for other punishments besides purely the death penalty, and this conclusion is not to be relegated to “prudential judgment” but is core to the meaning of paragraph 2266.

The death penalty is simply a special form of retribution, like fines, imprisonment, and corporal punishment. Each is appropriate for different crimes but surely the determination of which punishment is appropriate for a specific incidence of a specific crime involves prudential judgment. I don’t know what your understanding of the core meaning of 2266 is.

And above all, I am not saying that the DP is wrong, or out of bounds. I simply reject your contention that the DP is mandated by the Church but for certain exceptions.

Ah. Well, I am certainly willing in principle to accept what I think JPII is saying: the death penalty should not be used in current societies because it does more harm than good, even if I might disagree with him that this is in fact the case. What I reject is that capital punishment is wrong in principle or that the objective of protection should be the primary justification for its use. I believe the primary justification is retributive justice.

Ender

 

[RockyF]

I am 100 percent for it. The Church advises that the State has the right to put to death those that are a danger to society. (Society is composed of those inside and outside the prison.) If the Church does not allow us to support the death penalty, it should make it a sin, but it clearly has not.
What some people don’t realize is that these criminals also kill others inside and outside the jails while still incarcerated. Are you going to isolate them in the jail? What is more humane, to completely isolate someone, or tell them the day they are going to meet their Maker? I opt for the latter. Those that say that some of these hardened criminals can be safely incarcerated, have obviously not dealt with criminals.
I also support it because it ticks off the liberal nuns.

 

[lisahiku]

 

[dudleysharp]

If you wish I will research and post case histories of people who were found to be actually innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted; crimes such as murder and rape. And I would also like to quote Peter Kreeft:

“Thus the Church’s prudence judges that capital punishment, though it remains a public right if necessary, is not right under today’s conditions. These conditions also include unequal justice for rich and poor. It is obviously unjust to kill one man and not another because only one can afford a good lawyer or because of any kind of racial prejudice.”

[Kreeft, Peter J., *Catholic Christianity

, Ignatius Press, 2001, p.230; Nihil obstat: Rev. Milton T. Walsh, S.T.D.; Imprimatur: Most Rev. William J. Levada, Archbishop of San Francisco]

Little:

If you do such research, you will find that the death penalty is a much greater defender of society. See below.

In the US, for example, likely about 28,000 innocents have been murdered, since 1973, by murderers that we know have murdered, again - recidivist murderers. And likely, as well, that an additional 100,000 innocents were murdered by those under “government supervison” while on parole or probation, also since 1973.

Kreeft has no effect on this discussion, because he can offer the same complaint for all crimes and all criminals.

In addition, he makes a moral reversal. If we justly execute someone because of their guilt of a crime, it is unjust not to do so under similar circumstances, but that doesn’t take away from the just sanction.

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1. “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
2. Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands
3. “A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
   tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

 

[Mar044]

no it does not support the death penalty and the pope has spoken out on this…and you forget that if can kill a man that is not guilty.

i cant believe this forum, you love god but allow murder, the word of jesus happened in the new testament, and didnt stop with a eye for a eye in the old.

 

[dudleysharp]

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?

We don’t kill people to show that killing people is wrong.

Even with no sanction, most folks know that committing murder is wrong.

The moral confusion exists because some accept the amoral or immoral position that all killing is equal.

For those, like some anti death penalty folks, who believe all killing is morally equivalent, they would equate the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 6-7 million additional innocents with the execution of those guilty Nazi murderers committing that slaughter.

Such people would also equate the rape and murder of children with the execution of the rapist/murderer. This is what the anti death penalty folks do, morally equate killing (murder) with the punishment for that murder, another killing (execution).

For such anti death penalty folks to be consistent, they must also equate holding people against their will (illegal kidnapping) with the sanction for it, the holding people against their will (legal incarceration) or the taking money away from people (illegal robbery) with a sanction for that, taking money away from people (legal restitution).

Some anti death penalty folks are either incapable of knowing the moral differences between crime and punishment, guilty criminals and their innocent victims, or they are knowingly using a dishonest slogan by equating killing (murder) with killing (execution).

 

[dudleysharp]

Someone brought up a very good point to me. 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.

That is incorrect and duplicates some problems within CCC 2267

2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267)

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves. Again, a very poorly written section.
Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in any context.

All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not, find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”. The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does death by car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come. (7)

The Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be.

This newest Catechism cannot rewrite that, even though it is trying to.

Furthermore, a unique benefit of the death penalty is that the offender knows the day of their death and therefore has a huge advantage over the rest of us and, most certainly over the innocent murder victim.

“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

 

[dudleysharp]

The bottom line is this - who, other than God, has the right to take someone’s life?
I seem to remember Jesus writing in the sand with His finger while people were asking Him to support stoning a woman to death:

God gave man both the right and the obligation to execute under certain circumstances. That is not part of this debate, because it is not disputed.

John 8 makes it very clear that the woman caught in adultery is not an anti death penalty passage, but a circumstance whereby Jesus could not go against the teaching of the Father, He could not condemn executions, but He did get Himself out of an effort to entrap Him, a situation wherein He caused those wishing to harm Him to retreat in shame.

 

[dudleysharp]

The direct taking of a human life – innocent or guilty – is wrong; smip

I am against the death penalty because our society is perfectly capable of providing secure incarceration.

There are 2000 years of solid Church teachings supportive of the death penalty, a history of theological teachings, traditon and reason which simply overwhelms the final amendment to the CCC on the topic which occurred in 2003, I believe.

There is absolutely no proof that our society is “perfectly” capable of providing secure incarceration. (1)

However, the proof is overwhelming that executing murderers offer much greater security.

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

“A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

1. Footnote
2. a) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website, Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_muslims

b) 1700 escape same Afghani prison within two years, 900 are Taliban
"Taliban stages mass jail-break in Kandahar "
english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/04/201142525410649746.html

c) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqaeda-members-in-jailbreak-20090924-g4no.html

d) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/massive_jailbreak_in_yemen.htm

e) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11/30/authorities-sex-offender-pulls-gun-on-texas-guards-during-prison-transfer-search-ongoing-17934/

f) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5if_tdQrE5B6tvgSYXBtfmfMOLEwwD9CACTHG0

g) Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005 policeone.com/corrections/articles/120563-Officials-embarrassed-by-Texas-death-row-inmate-escape/

“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.

h) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day seemingly forever, if it cared to look. It seems likely that hundreds or thousands of innocents die, everyday, because of the irresponsibility of prison systems allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again, in contradiction of the willful ignorance within EV and 2267.

 

[Flyingg]

When death penalty is allowed, governments will find whatever reason or excuse to kill, as little things would become the ultimate evil, like some countries do as honor killings, or killings based on different beliefs. Even if a person was condemned of murder, s/he could be in somehow innocent, we can’t be completly sure (example jesus in the bible was put to death). And even if the person was a criminal, there is always alternative ways.

 

[dudleysharp]

In all honesty some of it is i failed to communicate properly what the Church teaches, the Church is FOR capital punishment, in certain circumstances, however she states that these circumstances are extremely rare in the western world in the 21st century, to the point that it’s almost never justified, however in certain under developed countries, the death penalty would be warranted and just, as they would not have the prison systems that the west do, so less stopping criminals escaping and wreaking more havok.

That is precisely the point. It is a secular based position based upon an ever varying secular assessment of prison security as opposed to eternal teachings that the death peanlty is based upon redress and retribution.

In addition, the evidence is overwhelming that executing murderers offers much greater defense of society than not executing murderers, even in the US.

The question is why the Chuch would attempt to curtail the use of executions, when such an effort represents a lesser defense of society, more harm to innocents and such intends to apply secular based restrictions to severely limit eternal teachings.

 

[dudleysharp]

That’s where the warranted bit comes in , we have ways in the west to incarcerate 99% of those that have committed serious offenses and to stop them offending again, at least on the inside.

The point is is that such is untrue. Prison violence such as murder and rape have not been stopped.

In addition, prison is a breeding ground for continuous criminal activity, both in prison, as well as on the outside.

There are nearly countless stories of criminal enterprises being managed and controlled from inside prisons, for enteprises both in and out of prisons, as well as prions being a wonderful breeding ground for many additonal terrorists.

This is very well known.

As is:

Living murderers can and do harm and murder, again.

Executed ones do not.

 

[dudleysharp]

It appears that juries have made errors in about 25-40 death penalty casess since 1973, or about 0.4% od the cases (1),

Those actual innocents were released.

It appears that 28,000 additonal innocents have been murdered by murderers that have murdered, again - recidivist murderers - since 1973.

The threat to innocents is in NOT executing murderers. Why would the Chuch insist on a lesser defense of society and less protection for the innocent?

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

“A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

1. The 130 (now 138) death row “innocents” scam
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

snip the pope has spoken out on this…and you forget that if can kill a man that is not guilty.

snip the word of jesus happened in the new testament, and didnt stop with a eye for a eye in the old.

First, innocents are much more at risk without the death penalty, begging the question why would the Church change 2000 years of teachings, initiating, now, a “defense of society” position which is less a defense of society, putting many more innocents at risk and base it upon a secular evaluation of prisons, which, when properly evaluated, will tell all of us that executions are a greater defense of society.

Many Popes have spoken on this.

1. Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000:

"Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. "

1. Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).
2. Pope Pius XII: “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.” 9/14/52
3. Pope Innocent I" "It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Romans 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495
4. “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 millenia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture.” -Avery Cardinal Dulles
5. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI ): " . . if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004, www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
6. Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000:

“No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.” "At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9).

“Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners.” "The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment. "

"The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime. Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the Consistent Ethic of Life here at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the classical position that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.

When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate’s power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (Jn 19:1 l).Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Lk 23:41).

NOTE: although Dulles makes palpable errors of fact and logic within the sections “The Purposes of Punishment” and “Harm Attributed to the Death Penalty”, it is, otherwise, a solid historical treatment of the Church and the death penalty.

“The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?” at pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3

 

[dudleysharp]

I still don’t get the sense of being “for” it, ever. Just acknowledging it’s legitimacy in rare circumstances with a trace of regret and sadness in it’s tone.

I am for it, with that tone.

Justice is always a good, with a sense of burden, the realization of the innocent life destroyed by the murderer and the terrible sin/evil involved in such crimes.

It is not a “happy” moment for anyone, excpet maybe in this context, as with the “good thief”.

2266: “When (the offender’s) punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.”

Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.

“The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods. This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’ The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.” (3)

Some opposing capital punishment " . . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life." (3)

---

“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.