Do you support the death penalty?

[Jonatello]

probably not adding much of anything new but a few quick bullets

1. its a vessel of vengeance more than a deterrence.
   -the typical “what if it was your loved one” argument is an appeal to vengeance
   -murderers generally don’t ultimately give a rat about the repercussions, or think they can get away with it.
   -we are one of the only nations in the developed western world with the DP, and also one of the most violent. not working.
2. even if it was a proper punishment and useful deterrence, the stakes mean those convictions better be right 100% of the time, which is of course complete fantasy.
3. even in a fantasy world where nobody is ever wrongfully convicted, the sentencing process itself (death or life) is based on highly subjective and inconsistent factors.
4. i’m so pleasantly surprised and joyful to see the overwhelming majority here voting No.

 

[Ender]

1. Human life is sacred and every human has a dignity

This is true but how do we know this? Isn’t it because we are told that man is made in the image of God?

1. Therefore it is never right to cause the death of a person as an end in it-self

This is untrue; at least, it isn’t what the Church teaches.

“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 Pius X)

1. The Death Penalty is justified if it is given to safeguard the public

The death penalty is justified only if it is a just punishment for the crime. Surely you don’t believe that safeguarding the public allows for unjust punishments.

1. The Death Penalty is not justified if it is given to avenge death/deaths

But it is justified as an act of retributive justice.

1. In the current age, we can safeguard the public without causing the death of an offender

An evaluation of the capabilities of a nation’s penal capabilities can hardly be considered doctrine. It is a prudential assessment at best … and a dubious one at that.

1. Therefore, there is no reason today to have the Death Penalty

The reason for using capital punishment today is the same as the reason for using it in the past: it is the just punishment for the crime of murder.

many seem to have misunderstood exactly why the Death Penalty was considered OK by the church back then.

Start by explaining what you think the Church’s position on capital punishment was “back then” and then cite even one document to support your contention.

Some would now go in to quote fallible sources like Cardinals which really don’t say anything binding to begin with.

This is another way of saying: “I can’t refute what he says so I’ll simply pretend his comments don’t matter.”

Ender

 

[surritter]

Is Cardinal Dulles also employing tactics? He’s the one who said that 2267 is prudential and as for the Church having no doctrine on capital punishment that seems unlikely as well. You are not dismissing my opinion; you are dismissing his.

Wrong again. I am not concerned here with 2267. I was taking issue with your quote from the Catechism of Trent, which can be shown to be on a par with 2267.

*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)

Oh brother. Has anyone here said that the state does NOT have the right to impose the death penalty?
You once again read into that to say that the Church REQUIRES the death penalty. No such idea is shown in the quotes you give.

Because that’s what the Church teaches.

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

You are usually so quick to draw a line at what the Church officially teaches, yet here you use a quote from Aquinas and say that it is Church teaching! I’d be glad to debate the specific idea he refers to (which I do in my last paragraph below), but I need to point out that you can’t say “this is what the Church teaches” and proceed with that kind of quotation.

Because the Church also teaches that morality does not change. Are you really suggesting that the severity of the crime of murder can be different depending on the century in which it is committed? Can the value of life change over time?

No, I am not suggesting such. Please re-read post #362. I clearly stated that the harm done to human dignity (i.e., the severity) is unchangeable. But recall that we were discussing the justness of a particular punishment.

This isn’t quite accurate [that the justness of a punishment has contributing factors such as a society’s penal system]. The current catechism says nothing whatever about what constitutes a just punishment beyond observing that the State has a duty to impose a punishment “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” 2267 is completely silent on this point and bases the use of capital punishment solely on whether it is perceived to be necessary for protection. It ignores the obligation of justice.

My copy of 2266 says “proportionate” rather than “commensurate,” and while it might be irrelevant, it is curious why that word was changed. I suspect that “proportionate” is used because it better communicates the intent of the Church: the punishment need not replicate the offense committed, but be proportionate to it.

Do a simple online search for how the word proportionate is used in other areas of the Catechism. (Some examples are 2296, 2435, and 2269.) To use 2269 as an analogy, it states that unintentional killing can still be a mortal sin if one is acting recklessly and “without proportional reasons.” This doesn’t mean that the reasons have to be 100% equivalent to the danger at hand. Rather, the use of “proportionate” can be loosely translated as “good enough.” (For example, if I run a red light, my proportionate reason might be that my wife is about to give birth and needs to get to the hospital. If she merely had a paper cut, however, it would not be a proportional reason.) Perhaps “proportionate” can be quantified in some instances, but you seem to interpret the word’s usage in 2266 to mean that capital punishment is required, because it is the only sentence that is 100% equivalent to the crime itself. I don’t think Dulles or any other prelate would agree with you on this specific nuance.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Perhaps you haven’t been following this discussion very closely, in which case you might have missed the comment I just made (#346):

• We may decide for practical reasons or peculiar circumstances to make an exception in certain cases*
  Not exactly, but the Church does in fact teach that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

Actually, The reading is not concerning the standard punishment, but the maximum punishment.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

If you called a tail a leg would a dog have five legs? Obviously not since what you call something doesn’t change what it is. For the same reason, believing that capital punishment is an affront to human dignity doesn’t make it so.
No, I am saying 2267 is mistaken.

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., Professor, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome)
No, all I have are facts. I can cite what the Church has said but I cannot cite what she has not said - I cannot prove a negative.
Except that I respond to your statements one at a time so at all of the intermediate steps I had to reset the font. Now I just reset the font before I begin.

Ender

IF the doge were to use its tail as a leg, then it would be proper to call it so, As with the Kangaroo, which officially has a three-legged gait.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, you have to deal with the problem that the current catechism and the Catechism of Trent express very different positions on capital punishment. It is not sufficient to simply ignore either of them, you have to find some rational way to deal with what they both say. The one position that seems least likely is that they can both be doctrine. One doctrine cannot simply override another, not if we want to continue to believe the Church teaches moral truths and that morality doesn’t change with time or place. I have not simply decided to reject 2267. As I said, I understand it to be a prudential suggestion and not doctrine. It seems pretty clear that if they are both doctrine then one of them was (or is) wrong and it is no small matter to assert that about Church doctrine.

I added bolding to the one sentence in your quote that I wish to emphasize. If both catechisms contain a *Nihil Obstat *and an *Imprimatur *, then neither states anything that goes against Church teaching. Therefore any confusion about what they state lies with the reader and not the catechisms. One catechism cannot be wrong; if it were that would mean that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church founded by God. They *can *both be doctrine unless it is Church teaching that somehow catechisms with a *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *can contain error regarding Church teaching.

The justness of a punishment is determined primarily by the nature of the crime and that cannot change from one age to another. Murder is neither more nor less heinous now than it was 2000 years ago. If capital punishment was a just punishment in the past then it is equally just today and there is simply no doubt that the Church always considered its use justifiable at the very least for the crime of murder.

Ender

Our understanding of doctrine can change - not the doctrine itself. Why would the Church of 2,000 years ago teach that executing a murderer might not be appropriate in the future when she had no authority to do so? The teaching is that human life is to be treated with dignity. If the parameters defining the morality of capital punishment change then the teaching regarding that morality will change.

It is my understanding that you have stated that there are circumstances which would make capital punishment inappropriate in some cases. Why? If “capital punishment was a just punishment in the past [and is] equally just today” then every single person who is convicted of murder should be executed. No exceptions, no mitigating circumstances, no mercy. Execution every single time.

If execution has been just in the past it is just now and that’s the end of the story, except for one little problem: that is not what the Church teaches. One can’t reconcile Church teaching with execution of every convicted murderer no matter how hard one tries. So perhaps one introduces the possibility of circumstances which in a case here and a case there somehow change execution from being the only just punishment to being morally wrong. But these circumstances appear to be will o’ the wisps, never identified or defined; just conveniently “there.”

And I really still wonder why anyone would defend capital punishment so aggressively when Church teaching (remember that *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *) clearly states that it is to be used only when there is no other way to protect the innocent. And I also wonder why in-vitro fertilization is now taught to be morally wrong when the Church remained silent on the issue for 2,000 years. Surely the Church must have known that in-vitro fertilization would someday exist as she must have known that it would someday be possible to incarcerate convicted murderers so that the innocent can be protected.

 

[Leegal]

No. I do not support a state sponsored death penalty. First, the DP as practiced in some of the states puts us in good stead with governments with which we would not even do business – let alone follow a practice such as the DP.

Second, for the worst of the worst the federal government (and at my last count) 36 states have Supermax prisons. There is no contact with anyone, other than an attorney, which is monitored. No TV. Mail, if allowed at all, is limited and rare. No reading material except one religious book such as the Bible and 3 other approved choices – nothing more. It’s erroneous to believe that they are housed in general population – or need to be.

Meals are taken alone. The cell is locked down 23/7. The one hour outside alternates each day for shower or exercise (also alone) in a dog run. There is never contact with another prisoner and the only other contact would be with the officer or marshal assigned to take the prisoner to the showers or exercise run for that one hour. Otherwise it’s 23 hours alone. Day after day.

In fact, extremely difficult and prisoners who are in Gen. Pop. of other prisoners, and who have not been convicted of murder, but are repeat violators can earn an interderminate transfer to a Supermax just by their behavior. It’s isolation at it’s worst and few can take the endless isolation.

When McVeigh first rejected the idea of any appeals, he was already at a federal Supermax, and said he would rather die than spend the rest of his life in this manner.

IMO, that would have been a just punishment. To live out one’s lifetime in such isolation is a just punishment, since it was exactly what he did not want. Despite erroneous reports, he had no TV access and the only TV they allowed him was when he was taken to the room before the execution chamber for one hour. At that point he was allowed a B&W to see the news of his execution.

It’s also been proven that the amount of government money spent on appeals is more than housing such a prisoner for life. Few, if any, can afford an attorney and so we pay for those appeals through our tax dollars.

Last, studies have shown that victims’ families have not found closure when the object of their hatred and sorrow is removed.

I believe all life is sacred, even those who we considered to be the worst of the worst.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If you called a tail a leg would a dog have five legs? Obviously not since what you call something doesn’t change what it is. For the same reason, believing that capital punishment is an affront to human dignity doesn’t make it so.-

If I called a tail a leg then my operational definition of “dog” would include the defining quality of dogs having five legs, unless one had not grown or had been amputated. A tail can be used in some cases to support an animal and so can a leg. A tail in some cases is prehensile and can be used in a way similar to the paw on the end of a leg. What is traditionally viewed as a tail can, in some cases (such as the kangaroo and some primates) share characteristics with what is traditionally viewed as a leg. Both are appendages containing muscle, bone, sinews, nerves, a blood supply, and probably fur, among other features. It is also certainly possible that some cultures view a tail as a leg of sorts; perhaps a special type of leg, but a leg nonetheless. This is why operational definitions are so important. It’s best to agree about our definitions.

Does saying that part of a catechism with a *Nihil Obstat *and an *Imprimatur *does not reflect Church teaching make it so?

No, I am saying 2267 is mistaken.

So you are saying that the *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *don’t apply to CCC 2267?

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., Professor, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome)

Is what Dr. Flannery says infallible? Does he have a *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *before his comment or his name? Why would traditional Catholic teaching contain a restriction that did not exist during most of the time the Church has been in existence?

No, all I have are facts. I can cite what the Church has said but I cannot cite what she has not said - I cannot prove a negative.

Isn’t it a FACT that a *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *are placed at the front of a document to show that said document is free from doctrinal error? Can you cite every single teaching the Church has provided us? Is there a possibility that you may have missed one or two?

Except that I respond to your statements one at a time so at all of the intermediate steps I had to reset the font. Now I just reset the font before I begin.

Ender

I just don’t want to make it difficult or time-consuming for anyone to respond to my posts. But I also don’t want to change my favorite font.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No. I do not support a state sponsored death penalty. First, the DP as practiced in some of the states puts us in good stead with governments with which we would not even do business – let alone follow a practice such as the DP.

Second, for the worst of the worst the federal government (and at my last count) 36 states have Supermax prisons. There is no contact with anyone, other than an attorney, which is monitored. No TV. Mail, if allowed at all, is limited and rare. No reading material except one religious book such as the Bible and 3 other approved choices – nothing more. It’s erroneous to believe that they are housed in general population – or need to be.

Meals are taken alone. The cell is locked down 23/7. The one hour outside alternates each day for shower or exercise (also alone) in a dog run. There is never contact with another prisoner and the only other contact would be with the officer or marshal assigned to take the prisoner to the showers or exercise run for that one hour. Otherwise it’s 23 hours alone. Day after day.

In fact, extremely difficult and prisoners who are in Gen. Pop. of other prisoners, and who have not been convicted of murder, but are repeat violators can earn an interderminate transfer to a Supermax just by their behavior. It’s isolation at it’s worst and few can take the endless isolation.

When McVeigh first rejected the idea of any appeals, he was already at a federal Supermax, and said he would rather die than spend the rest of his life in this manner.

IMO, that would have been a just punishment. To live out one’s lifetime in such isolation is a just punishment, since it was exactly what he did not want. Despite erroneous reports, he had no TV access and the only TV they allowed him was when he was taken to the room before the execution chamber for one hour. At that point he was allowed a B&W to see the news of his execution.

It’s also been proven that the amount of government money spent on appeals is more than housing such a prisoner for life. Few, if any, can afford an attorney and so we pay for those appeals through our tax dollars.

Last, studies have shown that victims’ families have not found closure when the object of their hatred and sorrow is removed.

I believe all life is sacred, even those who we considered to be the worst of the worst.

Thank you for your comments on prisons. I hadn’t done any research yet. And thank you, especially, for your last comment. Even the least of Christ’s brethen is His brethren.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Is Cardinal Dulles also employing tactics? He’s the one who said that 2267 is prudential and as for the Church having no doctrine on capital punishment that seems unlikely as well. You are not dismissing my opinion; you are dismissing his.

How would anyone but Cardinal Dulles and God know if Cardinal Dulles is employing tactics? Is Cardinal Dulles the Magisterium? Is there a possibility that perhaps Cardinal Dulles is fallible and that he is simply mistaken? And please, I am NOT DISMISSING CARDINAL DULLES!

*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Because that’s what the Church teaches.

Look, how many times do people have to tell you that nobody is saying the Church is teaching that the death penalty cannot be used? I don’t think that should be so difficult to understand.

Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. (Aquinas)
Because the Church also teaches that morality does not change. Are you really suggesting that the severity of the crime of murder can be different depending on the century in which it is committed? Can the value of life change over time?

Are you really suggesting that the safety of the public can’t be different depending on the century in which a crime is committed?

This isn’t quite accurate. The current catechism says nothing whatever about what constitutes a just punishment beyond observing that the State has a duty to impose a punishment “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” 2267 is completely silent on this point and bases the use of capital punishment solely on whether it is perceived to be necessary for protection. It ignores the obligation of justice.

Ender

So every convicted murderer ***MUST ***be executed as this is the only way that justice will be served. Is this what you are saying?

 

[Barbkw]

As the Catechism explains, the State has the right to determine threat levels and to access whether or not they have the ability to house violent prisoners longterm.

If they don’t, capital punishment may become the neccessary choice.

However, if a state has the ability to house violent criminals longterm, then they should not be put to death.

I’ve read and heard that states spend more money fighting legal battles of death row inmates than it would ever spend housing these individuals for life sentences.

 

[passer_by]

This is true but how do we know this? Isn’t it because we are told that man is made in the image of God?

Seriously? You are asking me how we know that every human being is sacred and has a human dignity?

This is untrue; at least, it isn’t what the Church teaches.

*“*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 Pius X)

First, I don’t think you understand what it means when someone says ‘as an end in it-self’.

If you understood that, you would know that what I said is actually 100% consonant with church teaching.

Second, I see you are very attracted to quoting Pius X’s Catechism. In the current Catechism it says that

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

So since you are living “today”, shouldn’t you be paying attention to what the current Catechism says?

An evaluation of the capabilities of a nation’s penal capabilities can hardly be considered doctrine. It is a prudential assessment at best … and a dubious one at that.

If it is so ‘dubious’ how do you even know that it is incompetent? What you are saying does not even help your position of being pro death penalty because your reasons would also then be ‘dubious’, yes?

This is another way of saying: “I can’t refute what he says so I’ll simply pretend his comments don’t matter.”

I was merely pointing out that if you don’t refute the core of the argument against the death penalty, you would be wasting time. No need to assume ‘another’ thing from it.

 

[Ender]

Seriously? You are asking me how we know that every human being is sacred and has a human dignity?

Yes, and I was hoping you would give an answer. The Church responds to that question by pointing to Genesis 9:6 where we are told that man is made in the image of God. This is the basis for man’s sacred nature. This passage, however, is given as the *reason *why God has said that the penalty for murder is death.

“The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: “If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man”, is said in Genesis (9,6).” (JPII, Regina Coeli, 2002)

Second, I see you are very attracted to quoting Pius X’s Catechism.

Actually I could have quoted from any of the five catechisms preceding this one or the comments of five different popes. I thought one would be sufficient to make the point.

In the current Catechism it says that

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime…
So since you are living “today”, shouldn’t you be paying attention to what the current Catechism says?

Since morality is the same yesterday - or a thousand years ago - as today, it really shouldn’t matter which Church source I cite. On moral issues one would expect them all to say the same thing. But you cannot seriously believe that statement represents Church doctrine. It is a prudential judgment of the capabilities of modern penal systems. If you wanted to argue in support of that claim, how would you do it? There are no Church documents you could turn to; you would rely entirely on a statistical analysis of the criminal justice system. You’re not going to find Church doctrine in the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

If it is so ‘dubious’ how do you even know that it is incompetent? What you are saying does not even help your position of being pro death penalty because your reasons would also then be ‘dubious’, yes?

My reasons for supporting capital punishment are based on Church doctrine, not on my personal understanding of criminal statistics. The assertion is made that prisons can adequately protect society but there is zero evidence provided, no supporting argument given, and we are clearly not bound to accept the claim. What else could Cardinal Ratzinger have meant when he said* “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”*?

I was merely pointing out that if you don’t refute the core of the argument against the death penalty, you would be wasting time. No need to assume ‘another’ thing from it.

I’ll be happy to address the core argument … what do you think it is?

Ender

 

[Ender]

So you are saying that the *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *don’t apply to CCC 2267?

No, I am pointing out the fact that 2267 contains error and opinion, both claims which are fairly easy to defend.

Can you cite every single teaching the Church has provided us? Is there a possibility that you may have missed one or two?

As I said before, one cannot prove a negative so I cannot prove that there are no Church documents that support the position expressed in 2267. I can say, however, that I have found nothing in any of the (five) catechisms preceding the current one, nor from any previous pope, nor any council, nor - significantly - has anyone else provide such a reference. The closest thing I have found was in the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken: 1)… 2)…
3) By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution.

Now, before you make too much out of this, it should be recognized that “the preservation of law and order and the good of the community” would also include an acknowledgement of the obligation of justice. Given that when Vatican City was created in 1929 (less than 40 years after the Baltimore Catechism was promulgated) it included the death penalty in its laws, I think it is clear how they understood that phrase. In any event, the Baltimore Catechism was written by the Third Council of Baltimore for Catholics in North America, it was not a universal catechism.

Ender

 

[ringil]

No, I am pointing out the fact that 2267 contains error and opinion, both claims which are fairly easy to defend.
As I said before, one cannot prove a negative so I cannot prove that there are no Church documents that support the position expressed in 2267. I can say, however, that I have found nothing in any of the (five) catechisms preceding the current one, nor from any previous pope, nor any council, nor - significantly - has anyone else provide such a reference. The closest thing I have found was in the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken: 1)… 2)…
3) By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution.

Now, before you make too much out of this, it should be recognized that “the preservation of law and order and the good of the community” would also include an acknowledgement of the obligation of justice. Given that when Vatican City was created in 1929 (less than 40 years after the Baltimore Catechism was promulgated) it included the death penalty in its laws, I think it is clear how they understood that phrase. In any event, the Baltimore Catechism was written by the Third Council of Baltimore for Catholics in North America, it was not a universal catechism.

Ender

So Ender,

Are you in communication the the appropriate authorities in the Holy See to have them address this “error” in 2267?

Since, through your own research and expertise, you have discovered aid error, surely sharing this insight would be the most appropriate action. I mean having such an error in the Churches official statement of Doctrine is a pretty big deal right?

 

[Ender]

Are you in communication the the appropriate authorities in the Holy See to have them address this “error” in 2267?

Since, through your own research and expertise, you have discovered aid error, surely sharing this insight would be the most appropriate action. I mean having such an error in the Churches official statement of Doctrine is a pretty big deal right?

I suppose if I was the only one making such comments your response might be reasonable … but I’m not alone. Others with a great deal more expertise are pointing this out as well. Did you not see this comment I posted earlier from a Jesuit professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University? (Kevin L. Flannery, S.J.)

The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception. … *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. *

And there are others who have serious issues with 2267:

*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 - 2003)

*To me it {Dunnigan’s article}demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. 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. *(Karl Keating, 2004)

*The most reasonable explanation for the current pope’s stance on this question is that his opposition is an exercise in prudence, which is the application of eternally true principles to the changing circumstances of time and place. *(Dennis Teti, Professor, Hillsdale College)

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

As the Catechism explains, the State has the right to determine threat levels and to access whether or not they have the ability to house violent prisoners longterm.

If they don’t, capital punishment may become the neccessary choice.

However, if a state has the ability to house violent criminals longterm, then they should not be put to death.

There are two problems with this.

First, although EV and the CCC say this is based upon traditonal teachings of the Church, no such teachings exist.

It was, simply, made up. How and why is still a mystery.

The primary foundation for all sanction in Church teaching is redress, which is the equivalent of justice, as also stated in the CCC.

It would be immoral to base any sanction on safety, if the punishment was not just. That is why the Church finds redress or justice primary.

Secondly, both EV and the CCC, apparently, did not realize that the death penalty better protects innocents and better defends society than does incarceration.

So, it is also a mystery how the Church intended to greatly restrict the death penalty, which was her obvious purpose with this amendment to the CCC, based upon defense of society, when the death penalty is a greater defender of the innocent and of society.

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

Deterrence

Of course the death penalty deters.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1. 27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
   cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
2. “Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
3. “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
4. This is out of date, but corrects a number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
   “Death Penalty and Deterrence”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent–confirmed–seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx
5. “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

The most reasonable explanation for the current pope’s stance on this question is that his opposition is an exercise in prudence, which is the application of eternally true principles to the changing circumstances of time and place. (Dennis Teti, Professor, Hillsdale College)

Ender

Which runs into this problem:

Eternally true teachings are not subject “to the changing circumstances of time and place.”

CCC 2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

The eternal teaching is that execution is the just command for murder. Numbers 31 duplicates this command by stating there is no mitigation for a murderer, they must be executed. For every other capital crime, mitigation and reduction in sentence is possible.

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

“There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.” (2)

“Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.” (2)

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” " . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have 'a general and abiding validity." (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2)." (2)

“Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998
therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

 

[Brendan]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

“There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.” (2)]

FYI, for those who do not know Fr. Hardon, he was the primary author of the 1975 Cathechism and an editor and major contributor for the 1992 Catechism.

His “Modern Catholic Dictionary” is also an incredible resource.

His cause for Canonization was opened in the Archdiocese of St. Louis and he has since been declared a “Servant of God”, the first step.

 

[dudleysharp]

A Father of the Church and Saint, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–216) " . . . addressed in particular the purposes of punishment; chief among these were correction of the punished and the general protection of society. The correction was a “blessing” that turned the person from wrongdoing to virtue." (1)

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–216) Clement’s Stromata 1.27 has been cited as an early Christian source in state-inflicted capital punishment, because Clement applied the analogy of surgery to the death penalty: just as a surgeon excises a diseased member or organ lest it harm the whole body, so it would be good to put to death any member of society that “falls into any incurable evil” Of execution, Clement said “it will be for his good if he is put to death.”(2).

Clement warns that whoever disobeys the divinely ordained authorities “receive the death penalty” (3)

---

Some anti death penalty positions argue that Roman Catholic teachings for the first 300 years was in opposition to the death penalty and, therefore, that the earlier position is more relevant to the truth of the faith, because it is closer to Christ, historically.

Had there been credible Church scholarship in those first 300 years, critical of the death penalty, there would be more Church scholarship which would have seized upon that claim, which the Church did not.

The credibility and importance of such claims is overwhelmed by contrary scholarship covering 2000 years.

Today, the Church teachings opposing the death penalty are extraordinarily weak compared to the biblical, theological, traditional and rational support for it, spanning 2000 years.

It could be argued, that serious, organized Church development of doctrine, biblical studies and theology, did not begin until about the 11th and 12th centuries.

1. “The Death Penalty in Catholic Teaching and Medicine: Intersections and Places for Dialogue”, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online,
   J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 36:4:470-481 (December 2008)
2. Quotations from Clement of Alexandria at 2.339, from Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.3.3 (A.D. 180s) at vol. 1 p. 416 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. American Reprint of the Edinburgh ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, N.Y.: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885-96; continuously reprinted Edinburgh: T & T Clark; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson)
3. footnote 30, page 34 The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine H. Pagels, Vintage, 1989

Review also:

and
newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm
earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book1.html