Do you support the death penalty?

[passer_by]

2267 contains prudential opinion. This is not “against” Church teaching, it is an application of that teaching to a particular circumstance, but, inasmuch as it is prudential and not doctrinal, we are not obligated to assent to it.

Exactly. And to put it simply Ender, since it is merely your ‘prudential assessment’ that the Death Penalty is still needed, I think it safe to discard your view as mere opinion as well.

Since there are no credentials to believe that you have even done first hand research on the success and failures of the penal system, criminal escape rate, success of rehabilitation etc, I am at times surprised that you are still arguing others who have a opposite view from you.

The matter is simple, no one here is disagreeing that the Death Penalty is IMMORAL. They are merely pointing out that to dish out the Death Penalty today would be inappropriate and imprudent. The fact that people want to still do it just shows that society has not yet come to the appreciation of the dignity of life in a human being. So they might well be giving the Death Penalty for the wrong reasons and therefore it would be IMMORAL.

But you keep trying to prove that Death Penalty is Moral. As I said once before, in doing so, you are missing the CORE of the objection against the Death Penalty i.e. It is not that it is immoral but that today there is no need for it.

 

[Leegal]

There is never a contradiction when one adheres to the teachings of the Church.

As far as answering your question I don’t support the death penalty in any circumstances regardless of whether or not life without parole is available. I acknowledged however, that Catholics in good conscience can disagree with my view and can support the death penalty and still be in total compliance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I was speaking generally. I have non-Catholic friends who are opposed to abortion, but support a death penalty.

I am somewhat confused by “Evangelium Vitae” because it allows for the possibility of a death penalty while the Church’s official position has long been as an opponent.

I too am opposed in all cases – however I mention the LWOP because so many people who are in favor of the death penalty in a secular sense (generally speaking – not necessarily speaking of Catholics, but speaking to Catholics as well) believe that there is always a possibility that the offender will be freed.

 

[estesbob]

I was speaking generally. I have non-Catholic friends who are opposed to abortion, but support a death penalty.

I am somewhat confused by “Evangelium Vitae” because it allows for the possibility of a death penalty while the Church’s official position has long been as an opponent.

The Church does now and always has allowed for the death penalty So it is not correct to say the church’s official position is they oppose it. . Accordingly, there is no contradiction in “Evangelium Vitae” as it merely affirms 2000 years of Church teaching

 

[Leegal]

The Church does now and always has allowed for the death penalty So it is not correct to say the church’s official position is they oppose it. . Accordingly, there is no contradiction in “Evangelium Vitae” as it merely affirms 2000 years of Church teaching

Okay, so there’s no contradiction – it’s a qualifier. However, the Church as an organization or institution of some influence has long been an opponent of the death penalty, and one of the most recognized as such. They have prayers against the death penalty; the Church devotes weeks to campaign against it; and the Pope has been known to try and influence government for a stay, at the least. While they may qualify that the Church believes that some cases do allow for the use of the death penalty, overall they continue to be active in trying to stop this practice.

Not only am I an opponent for religious reasons, however I believe it violates (as practiced) our own secular laws. Slowly we (the USSC) is beginning to see that, as it is illegal for any state to impose the death penalty upon a minor (at the time of the crime) and those who are mentally retarded. This has only changed in the last 5 years or 6 years or so.

 

[Ender]

And to put it simply Ender, since it is merely your ‘prudential assessment’ that the Death Penalty is still needed, I think it safe to discard your view as mere opinion as well.

Of course. My opinion is not binding on anyone else just as no one else’s opinion is binding on me. We may as legitimately disagree about whether imprisonment adequately protects society as whether the Yankees are better than the Red Sox. I also believe, however, that it was imprudent to insert an opinion into the catechism.

I am at times surprised that you are still arguing others who have a opposite view from you.

I don’t argue so much that capital punishment provides greater safety - although I believe it does - as I persist in maintaining that its use is more in line with Catholic teaching than the rejection of its use.

But you keep trying to prove that Death Penalty is Moral. As I said once before, in doing so, you are missing the CORE of the objection against the Death Penalty i.e. It is not that it is immoral but that today there is no need for it.

If your point is that the death penalty is unnecessary because it isn’t needed for public safety I would respond that that point is irrelevant to its necessity. It is needed not because it does (or does not) protect us but for a proper understanding of the order of good and evil. I agree with this comment from Professor Steven Long (U. of St. Thomas, MN):

*The medicinality of penalty is not merely a function of “stopping” an offense, nor merely of deterring, but of manifesting the truth regarding the transcendent order of justice and the wickedness of the offense. Without this manifestation of truth in penalty, social healing is not promoted. **The medicinal value is not merely one of stopping prospective injustice, but of teaching and manifesting the truth. ***

His comment seems exactly in line with the beliefs of Pius XII:

For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. (Sixth Congress of International Penal Law, 1953)

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

Exactly. And to put it simply Ender, since it is merely your ‘prudential assessment’ that the Death Penalty is still needed, I think it safe to discard your view as mere opinion as well.

Since there are no credentials to believe that you have even done first hand research on the success and failures of the penal system, criminal escape rate, success of rehabilitation etc, I am at times surprised that you are still arguing others who have a opposite view from you.

The matter is simple, no one here is disagreeing that the Death Penalty is IMMORAL. They are merely pointing out that to dish out the Death Penalty today would be inappropriate and imprudent. The fact that people want to still do it just shows that society has not yet come to the appreciation of the dignity of life in a human being. So they might well be giving the Death Penalty for the wrong reasons and therefore it would be IMMORAL.

But you keep trying to prove that Death Penalty is Moral. As I said once before, in doing so, you are missing the CORE of the objection against the Death Penalty i.e. It is not that it is immoral but that today there is no need for it.

Thank you. Very well put!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Okay, so there’s no contradiction – it’s a qualifier. However, the Church as an organization or institution of some influence has long been an opponent of the death penalty, and one of the most recognized as such. They have prayers against the death penalty; the Church devotes weeks to campaign against it; and the Pope has been known to try and influence government for a stay, at the least. While they may qualify that the Church believes that some cases do allow for the use of the death penalty, overall they continue to be active in trying to stop this practice.

Not only am I an opponent for religious reasons, however I believe it violates (as practiced) our own secular laws. Slowly we (the USSC) is beginning to see that, as it is illegal for any state to impose the death penalty upon a minor (at the time of the crime) and those who are mentally retarded. This has only changed in the last 5 years or 6 years or so.

I’m somewhat troubled by those who claim that Church teaching regarding the death penalty has not changed in 2,000 years - because it has. I’m confused because it seems to me that our understanding of doctrine can be improved and clarified over time. Vatican City no longer allows the death penalty. Why? And as you say, the Church is making attempts to stop the practice, at least in societies where the innocent can be protected.

Anyone who honestly believes that Society is concerned with God’s Laws is uninformed. Society is only concerned with secular matters. The US is not administered by the Church, although she may have some influence.

I don’t understand why anyone would WANT a person to be executed. In my opinion it goes against the words of Jesus, who stressed mercy and forgiveness. Lives, even the lives of murderers, do not belong to us to do with as we wish. All lives belong to God and He should be the One to decide when a person will die.

I will continue to follow the teachings of the Magisterium as taught in the current CCC. I will continue to pray for an end to capital punishment and for the souls of those who have been executed. And I will pray that the hearts of those who defend the death penalty will be softened as they come to a greater understanding of the dignity of all human beings from conception to death.

As I’m typing this I’m stopping from time to time and looking up at a crucifix on the wall. And I’m thinking about how Society murdered, via execution, the most loving and perfect human being to ever exist; Jesus, who asked His Father to forgive us because we did not know what we were doing.

We still don’t.

 

[LittleSoldier]

2267 contains prudential opinion. This is not “against” Church teaching, it is an application of that teaching to a particular circumstance, but, inasmuch as it is prudential and not doctrinal, we are not obligated to assent to it.

In post #379 you stated that it contained ERROR.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I think the reason behind the Church not denouncing capital punishment is political. But that’s my personal opinion.

The death penalty is not a reliable deterrent, in fact in the US, states with the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those who don’t.

Thirdly, I consider supporting the death penalty against core Christian values.

 

[LittleSoldier]

There is never a contradiction when one adheres to the teachings of the Church.

As far as answering your question I don’t support the death penalty in any circumstances regardless of whether or not life without parole is available. I acknowledged however, that Catholics in good conscience can disagree with my view and can support the death penalty and still be in total compliance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Would you please elaborate a little about why you believe Catholics can support the death penalty (do you mean in all cases or only when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way?) and still be in compliance with the teachings of the Church? Thanks.

 

[Ender]

In post #379 you stated that it contained ERROR.

Yes, it does, as I pointed out with the citation I provided in #381.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Would you please elaborate a little about why you believe Catholics can support the death penalty (do you mean in all cases or only when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way?) and still be in compliance with the teachings of the Church? Thanks.

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

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Would you please elaborate a little about why you believe Catholics can support the death penalty (do you mean in all cases or only when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way?) and still be in compliance with the teachings of the Church? Thanks.

Pope benedict himself said Catholics cold in good conscience support the death penalty. The catechism allows for it.

 

[Ender]

I think the reason behind the Church not denouncing capital punishment is political.

No, the reason goes much deeper than that.

*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, 2001)

Thirdly, I consider supporting the death penalty against core Christian values.

Given that the Church has for 2000 years recognized the right of States to employ capital punishment I think we should assume that it is not contrary to Christian values.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

Pope benedict himself said Catholics cold in good conscience support the death penalty. The catechism allows for it.

I’m sorry - that’s not what I asked. I am aware of what Pope Benedict has said and what is stated in the CCC. Please let me repeat my question:

Would you please elaborate a little about why you believe Catholics can support the death penalty (do you mean in all cases or only when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way?) and still be in compliance with the teachings of the Church? Thanks.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, it does, as I pointed out with the citation I provided in #381.

Ender

But the *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *are guarantees that nothing stated in the CCC goes against Church teaching. An error would be going against Church teaching. If there is an error in the CCC, the CCC is wrong, what the Magisterium is teaching the faithful is wrong, and the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

 

[Ender]

But the *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *are guarantees that nothing stated in the CCC goes against Church teaching. An error would be going against Church teaching. If there is an error in the CCC, the CCC is wrong, what the Magisterium is teaching the faithful is wrong, and the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

We covered this. The Church is protected from error in matters of doctrine, not in matters of fact. It is ironic that you make this argument in that I hold that the current catechism is wrong on a question of fact while your position is that the Church was for 2000 years wrong on a matter of doctrine.

Ender

 

[Leegal]

I’m sorry - that’s not what I asked. I am aware of what Pope Benedict has said and what is stated in the CCC. Please let me repeat my question:

Would you please elaborate a little about why you believe Catholics can support the death penalty (do you mean in all cases or only when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way?) and still be in compliance with the teachings of the Church? Thanks.

Actually, Pope John Paul II said it – in a way.

Although the majority of Evangelium Vitae calls for no death penalty (and all the arguments appear against a death penalty from both the OT and NT), the Pope wrote:

• “It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.”*

When he said “in cases of absolute necessity” this has been interpreted as that there are some cases which the Pope did believe that the death penalty could be necessary – an exception.

But if one reads the entire Encyclical it clearly does not favor the death penalty. If we take the Pope words literally, there are always other ways to defend society, so the Church still stands opposed in this Encyclical. I think some have confused this statement as the Church’s position that some cases would warrant the death penalty. It’s not “some cases” but, rather, if there was no other way to protect society from this person. That appears to be wherein lies the disagreement.

As we know, and as I have stated, we do have the facilities which will protect society from such people upon conviction, without warranting an execution. There is no contradiction.

 

[ivory]

I do not support the death penalty because I believe in the dignity of every human life. I believe forcing someone to live with what they’ve done is a much better punishment and gives them the chance to fully repent.

 

[estesbob]

I’m sorry - that’s not what I asked. I am aware of what Pope Benedict has said and what is stated in the CCC. Please let me repeat my question:

Would you please elaborate a little about why you believe Catholics can support the death penalty (do you mean in all cases or only when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way?) and still be in compliance with the teachings of the Church? Thanks.

What is there to elaborate the Church allows for(always has) the pope reiterated a Catholic could support it