Do you support the death penalty?

[Brendan]

I think you’ve fallen for the falsified stories of the Spanish Inquisition that are given by our secular media. The Church herself has never implemented the death penalty!

I think what PNewton is referring to is that the Vatican State\Papal State has had the death penalty for most of it’s existance.

It was removed in 1969

At several times, the Vatican State itself, with the Pope acting as a secular power, utilized it’s right to execute criminals.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Bugatti

And here is what Charles Dickens wrote about the execution he witnessed while in Rome.

idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/2006/12/dickens-in-rome-execution.html

 

[surritter]

The Church has always handed off the punishment to civil authorities. Yes, perhaps the Papal States engaged in such, but I still think that’s different than the Church as such doing so.

 

[pnewton]

I think what PNewton is referring to is that the Vatican State\Papal State has had the death penalty for most of it’s existance.

Yes, the Church has exercised civil power in the past, including executions. No, I know the Inquisition involved handing prisoners over to the civil authorities.

 

[Brendan]

The Church has always handed off the punishment to civil authorities. Yes, perhaps the Papal States engaged in such, but I still think that’s different than the Church as such doing so.

Well, it was Bishops who handed down the sentence, the Pope was the final authority for appeal and the exectutioner worked for the Pope himself.

How would you describe the role of the Church in those executions?

What if the hierarchy of the Church are also the civil authorities, to whom does the Church hand off punishment to?

As PNewton correctly noted, in the Inquisition, the role of the Church was to determine the truth of the allegations. The crime and the punishment were determined by the secular power.

But in the case of the Papal States, the Pope himself was also the secular power (as is current the case for the Vatican City). Then, as now, clergy excercised the various secular roles such as judge.

 

[surritter]

Well, it was Bishops who handed down the sentence, the Pope was the final authority for appeal and the exectutioner worked for the Pope himself.

How would you describe the role of the Church in those executions?

I would describe the role of the Church, back then and today, as teaching us in areas of faith and morals; the scenarios described lie outside of that realm. The role of the Church in close proximity to those executions has nothing to say to us as Catholics about the application of the death penalty. Recall that numerous popes have bungled numerous decisions – outside of the teaching of faith and morals – throughout the centuries! That is why JPII and others are so careful to talk about the theology of the death penalty, not its use in a given time or place.

 

[yosupman]

Interesting, that is not what Cardinal Dulles had to say

• features.pewforum.org/death-penalty/reader/17.html

A prime example is Timothy McVeigh. He was baptized a Catholic, but never practiced his faith. While on death row, though, he had a reversion. He requested (and recieved) the Sacrament of Reconcillion several times while on death row, and again, just prior to his execution.

In addtion, he also recieved viaticum and the Apostolic Blessing ( a plenary indulgence)

That also brings up a topic that has not been talking much lately, that the willful acceptance of punishment expiates sin.

Cardinal Dulles also had this to say

Purgation is easier to accomplish in this life than in the next, so Capital Punishment can aid a person’s journey to eternal life, which really should be our ultimate consideration

In the case of McVeigh, the crimes he commited were expiated in accord with the level of his acceptance of his punishment, greatly reducing or even eliminiating his time in Purgatory. Is that not a cause to rejoice in?

Ok, China executes people with a handgun in a soccer stadium 5 minutes after conviction. I wonder if that “helps” the criminal to repent.

 

[Brendan]

Ok, China executes people with a handgun in a soccer stadium 5 minutes after conviction. I wonder if that “helps” the criminal to repent.

What it means is that China should follow the US example and give them both time and access to Catholic clergy prior to the execution.

 

[Brendan]

I would describe the role of the Church, back then and today, as teaching us in areas of faith and morals; the scenarios described lie outside of that realm. The role of the Church in close proximity to those executions has nothing to say to us as Catholics about the application of the death penalty. Recall that numerous Church popes have bungled numerous decisions – outside of the teaching of faith and morals – throughout the centuries! That is why JPII and others are so careful to talk about the theology of the death penalty, not its use in a given time or place.

Well, here is the theology of the Death Penalty as articulated by the Council of Trent

(regarding the 5th Commandment)

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life.

Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

This is the Church teaching us our Faith ( presuming that you agree that the 10 Commandments are part of our Faith)

This teaching clearly cannot be in error, so do you subscribe to it fully and with an free heart.

I do.

God is unchanging. What did not offend God in the past does not offend Him today.

What was once Justice is always Justice, as Justice is unchanging (since God Himself IS Justice)

 

[surritter]

Well, here is the theology of the Death Penalty as articulated by the Council of Trent

…

This teaching clearly cannot be in error, so do you subscribe to it fully and with an free heart.

I do.

God is unchanging. What did not offend God in the past does not offend Him today.

What was once Justice is always Justice, as Justice is unchanging (since God Himself IS Justice)

Understood and agreed. You should re-read my posts in this thread… I’ve never stated that the death penalty itself is intrinsically wrong. But somehow recent posts have become more concerned on its application today (talking about prisoners escaping etc.), and that’s where you and I are free to disagree (ref. CCC 2267, which I hope you’ll agree is not in conflict with Trent).

 

[Brendan]

Understood and agreed. You should re-read my posts in this thread… I’ve never stated that the death penalty itself is wrong. But somehow recent posts have become more concerned on its application today (talking about prisoners escaping etc.), and that’s where you and I are free to disagree (ref. CCC 2267, which I hope you’ll agree is not in conflict with Trent).

Correct.

I would claim that since Justice is unchanging, the just use of the Death Penalty would also be unchanging.

Pope John Paul II, in the current CCC, only address one aspect the theological aspects of punishment (protection of society).

The other three ( Rehabilitation, Deterence and Retribution), being unaddresses, would remain unaffected. Correct.

Cardinal Dulles, and Servant of God John Harden S.J. both touched on these on their analysis of Church teachings on the death penalty.

FYI, since it was Pope John Paul II who elevated Fr. Dulles to the College of Cardinals on his expertise as a theologian ( Cardinal Dulles was never even a bishop), and Pope Benedict advanced the cause of Fr. Hardon’s cause for Canonization, the theology they both presented cannot be in opposition to their own beliefs.

 

[Brendan]

Here is Servant of God, John Hardon’s analysis

therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

FYI, Fr. Hardon was the primary author\editor of the 1975 Catechism, and Pope John Paul asked him to lead the editing of the 1992 Catechism, but Fr. Hardon declined, due to age and sickness.

 

[surritter]

Correct. Let me just add a comment… when you state that “the just use of the Death Penalty would also be unchanging,” I completely agree, but realize that the circumstances in a given society that constitute that “just use” can change. That’s why I jumped into the discussion again, since a prison scenario of 400 years ago can’t always be compared on an equal par with today’s prisons (if they were used to their full potential).

FYI – I’m quite familiar with Fr. Hardon You and I both attend a Detroit-area parish where he is fondly remembered.

 

[Brendan]

Correct. Let me just add a comment… when you state that “the just use of the Death Penalty would also be unchanging,” I completely agree, but realize that the circumstances in a given society that constitute that “just use” can change. That’s why I jumped into the discussion again, since a prison scenario of 400 years ago can’t always be compared on an equal par with today’s prisons (if they were used to their full potential).

I agree wholeheartly, but we do have to have the understanding that we cannot rely onthe historical argument too much. Again, both Cardinal Dulles and Fr. Hardon addressed, and we cannot put ourselves in a position where we use it in a greater extent than they.

Fr., Hardon

Because 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.”

FYI – I’m quite familiar with Fr. Hardon You and I both attend a Detroit-area parish where he is fondly remembered.

:

Excellent to hear, so many are unfamilar with his work.

 

[Ender]

Correct. Let me just add a comment… when you state that “the just use of the Death Penalty would also be unchanging,” I completely agree, but realize that the circumstances in a given society that constitute that “just use” can change.

Some things change, some do not. The justness of a punishment is determined by whether it is proportionate in severity to the severity of the crime and unless the severity of the crime changes then punishments that were just in the past are equally just today. Given that the severity of the crime of murder is today exactly as it was 2000 years ago, if execution was a just punishment then it is equally just now. From prior church teaching (e.g. the Catechism of Trent) we know that executions were considered just sentences before … therefore they are just punishments today. That calculus has not and cannot change.

That’s why I jumped into the discussion again, since a prison scenario of 400 years ago can’t always be compared on an equal par with today’s prisons (if they were used to their full potential).

The capabilities of prison systems have indeed changed and this change would apply to the determination of what is necessary to secure protection for society, but protection is only a secondary objective of punishment. The primary objective is retributive justice and, as I think I showed above, this will not change with time or circumstance.

Ender

 

[Bill1940]

The direct taking of a human life – innocent or guilty – is wrong; there is no case for doing so to “teach” someone or to set an example. Only God, the author of all life, has the authority to take a life.
However, just as a person can defend himself from an unjust aggressor, even to the point of lethal force, the Church teaches that a society can sometimes use lethal force on an aggressor (the criminal) if there is no alternative such as secure incarceration.

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

There has been little discussion here of deterence. Have we all uncritically accepted the notion that the death penalty does not deter would be murderers? Consider the recent case of a murderer ascertaining that there was no death penalty in the state in which he then committed murder. To be believe the canard that the death penalty does not deter is to believe that murderers are merely mentally ill,good and evil do not exist, and people can not choose. There are exceptions, some people are insane or at least stupid. However, most people are rational and consider the possible consequences of their actions. I recall reading in Evangelium Vitae, that the death penalty can be justified in the case of heinous crimes. The sadistic murders of a wife and children of a Connecticut doctor not only come to mind but are difficult to put out of mind. Link to story: nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07slay.html?pagewanted=all
The murderers sought not merely to burglarize the home but to engage in satanic cruelty their evil pleasures to satisfy. God judges, we do not but we must confront the facts of life with logic. The death penalty should be rarely used but to abolish it will result in more crimes against people such as the Petit family. War also should be rare but it will not be abolished until the Lord comes again. Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle…

 

[Ender]

There has been little discussion here of deterence. Have we all uncritically accepted the notion that the death penalty does not deter would be murderers?

Nowhere in the entire Catechism is attention given to deterrence, despite the fact that it is as valid an objective of punishment as security.
The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution, deterrence, and reform. (USCCB, 1980)

The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
This raises an interesting question: suppose it is discovered that executions provide a significant deterrent effect, what would that mean in light of 2267? That section justifies capital punishment solely on whether it is necessary for protection … but if we discover that executions, through their deterrent effect, provide greater protection, wouldn’t that argue for a greater use of capital punishment? It seems that the logic of 2267 would require us to employ capital punishment in such a case.

Without addressing the question of whether capital punishment actually deters or not we must surely recognize the situation 2267 has created: given that determining the validity of its use has been handed over to the social scientists studying its deterrent effect it completely severs the use of the death penalty from any concept of justice and morality.

Ender

 

[surritter]

This raises an interesting question: suppose it is discovered that executions provide a significant deterrent effect, what would that mean in light of 2267? That section justifies capital punishment solely on whether it is necessary for protection … but if we discover that executions, through their deterrent effect, provide greater protection, wouldn’t that argue for a greater use of capital punishment? It seems that the logic of 2267 would require us to employ capital punishment in such a case.

Regarding Bill’s recent post, aren’t deterrence and protection of society really the same thing? Yes, the word deterrence has a more proactive stance (a murder has not yet been committed), and the protection we’ve been discussing is more reactive (keeping in jail someone who’s already murdered). But the moral guidelines they fall under is the same.

Without addressing the question of whether capital punishment actually deters or not we must surely recognize the situation 2267 has created: given that determining the validity of its use has been handed over to the social scientists studying its deterrent effect it completely severs the use of the death penalty from any concept of justice and morality.

Disagree. What you keep missing is that the methods used to enact justice and morality can be tempered by the situation of a given society in a given time and place. Besides, you yourself have said several times that the death penalty can be dispensed if there is sufficient reason. Well, isn’t your concession also “handing it over to social scientists”?

 

[Ender]

Regarding Bill’s recent post, aren’t deterrence and protection of society really the same thing?

I think this was probably why the USCCB in their 1980 document only listed three objectives: they were including protection as an aspect of deterrence. The release of Evangelium Vitae in 1995 and the new catechism in 1997 with their exclusive focus on protection might explain why Dulles listed four objectives in his 2001 document, separating defense from deterrence.

Yes, the word deterrence has a more proactive stance (a murder has not yet been committed), and the protection we’ve been discussing is more reactive (keeping in jail someone who’s already murdered). But the moral guidelines they fall under is the same.

What moral guideline would that be? Whether or not protection is provided?

Disagree. What you keep missing is that the methods used to enact justice and morality can be tempered by the situation of a given society in a given time and place.

We are discussing the same method: the use of capital punishment. My point is that (per 2267) the determination of whether or not to employ that method is determined solely by the degree of protection it provides. That is not a moral question.

You yourself have said several times that the death penalty can be dispensed if there is sufficient reason. Well, isn’t your concession also “handing it over to social sciences”?

It may be dispensed with for practical reasons but that does not mean that such reasons may justify its use. The problem 2267 creates is that it has severed the connection between the crime and the punishment it deserves. The concept that the criminal deserves punishment and that there is a relationship between the severity of his crime and the severity of the punishment such a crime merits, has been discarded. What we are left with is only a practical consideration about the effectiveness of certain actions, and the justification that the act is acceptable if the results are beneficial. It is an argument that the ends justify the means.

Ender

 

[Vouthon]

“…I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary, that there no longer be recourse to capital punishment, given that states today have the means to efficaciously control crime, without definitively taking away an offender’s possibility to redeem himself. Our model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message. The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will acclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform…The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity…” - Pope John Paul II, 1999

In my humble opinion, 'nuff said

 

[surritter]

Good post, Vouthon. Unfortunately some participants in this discussion will say that in the first sentence JPII was not in line with constant Church teaching. He states that the death penalty is unnecessary, but some have countered that the DP is necessary because of justice’s need for retribution. To get around the problem of saying that JPII violates or changes Church teaching, they will say that this is his personal opinion (as is paragraph 2267 of the CCC). And unless the pope were to make an ex cathedra statement, I suppose it is difficult to settle the issue definitively.