Do you support the death penalty?

[estesbob]

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.

Since the Pope specifially said Catholics could disagree with the vatican on applicatin of the death penalty this is true. The Pope can not make an ex-cathedra statement banning the death penalty any more than he can make and ex-cathedra statement allowing female priests. I personally oppose the death penalty but recognize for the church to suddenly ban it would overtrun 2,000 years of teachings and tradition and would bring into doubt ALL of its moral teachings.

 

[surritter]

Since the Pope specifially said Catholics could disagree with the vatican on applicatin of the death penalty this is true. The Pope can not make an ex-cathedra statement banning the death penalty any more than he can make and ex-cathedra statement allowing female priests. I personally oppose the death penalty but recognize for the church to suddenly ban it would overtrun 2,000 years of teachings and tradition and would bring into doubt ALL of its moral teachings.

Good point – I guess I didn’t mean that the pope would make an ex cathedra statement that the DP shouldn’t be used. I meant that we need clarification from the Vatican about whether the DP is required de facto (by the need for retribution), as maintained by Ender and others in this thread. Having JPII say that he feels the DP is unnecessary obviously means that he doesn’t share the view that the DP is inherently required.

 

[Ender]

I guess I didn’t mean that the pope would make an ex cathedra statement that the DP shouldn’t be used.

Neither he nor any other pope will ever make such a statement.

*“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, 2002)

I meant that we need clarification from the Vatican about whether the DP is required de facto (by the need for retribution), as maintained by Ender and others in this thread. Having JPII say that he feels the DP is unnecessary obviously means that he doesn’t share the view that the DP is inherently required.

It is reasonable to assume that this is what he meant but that conclusion is not necessarily correct. There are practical reasons for opposing capital punishment other than the belief that it is never necessary … as Cardinal Dulles pointed out. For comparison, Aquinas’ position on capital punishment was not open to a variety of interpretations. He raised this issue and then answered it:

- Objection: … Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.

• • On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (ST II-II 108 3,3)*

Given that capital punishment is fixed by divine law I’m guessing the Church will never repudiate it despite the many practical reasons she might have for opposing its use in particular instances.

Ender

 

[Vouthon]

The Death penalty was often the only truly available or fully viable means of safeguarding the public at large from the potencial threat which a dangerous individual posed for society at large. “Divine Law” I think should be seen in this regard vis-a-vis the Old Testament and its use in Church history. The fact that earlier Popes approved of the death penalty in the past, in times before the invention of electricity, computers and modern prison systems, need not I think “bind” the current Pope or any future Popes from pronouncing ex cathedra that the death penalty is no longer legitimate - since it has outlived its historical necessity.

I don’t believe that the Pope will do that, however I would not limit the scope of his infallible authority in that regard. Times change. The Church’s teachings are immutable, its dogmas and doctrines eternal. However we continually grow in understanding of Divine Revelation.

Suffice to say, some early Church Fathers and indeed perhaps the majority of the very Early Church were against the death penalty. That it was encouraged in later ages, out of practical necessity, need not I think diminsh the truth of those earlier statements, which I think rested upon principle rather than expedient reality in the 1st century.

I think that we have arrived at a time when the world can actually safely implement the abolitionist/anti-death penalty teachings of much of early Christianity.

I hate when Cardinal Dulles is continually used by the pro-death penalty side, since his views alone without a broad consensus of opinion hardly substantiate an arguement in favour of the death penalty, do they? He is fallible, after all.

The simple, inescapable truth is this: In the 21st centurym in Western countries, we don’t have to execute people. The public are protected because of modern prison systems. There is no need to take a life and repay his/her evil for evil. It serves no purpose except for some kind of societal vengeance. We are better than that. If it isn’t a necessity to protect the public, it shouldn’t be thee in my opinion.

 

[surritter]

Neither he nor any other pope will ever make such a statement.

*“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, 2002)
It is reasonable to assume that this is what he meant but that conclusion is not necessarily correct. There are practical reasons for opposing capital punishment other than the belief that it is never necessary … as Cardinal Dulles pointed out. For comparison, Aquinas’ position on capital punishment was not open to a variety of interpretations. He raised this issue and then answered it:

- Objection: … Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.

• • On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (ST II-II 108 3,3)*

Given that capital punishment is fixed by divine law I’m guessing the Church will never repudiate it despite the many practical reasons she might have for opposing its use in particular instances.

Understood – thanks. Perhaps we can find some common ground, after riding this merry-go-round through hundreds of posts: The teaching you highlight is that the gravity of murder in theory “necessitates” that the perpetrator forfeit his life. This was your main point (retribution, etc.). But for practical reasons it can be dispensed. JPII highlights this latter aspect, but he doesn’t come out and contradict the first statement.

It’s like the requirement to attend Mass each Sunday… it’s a “requirement” but it can be dispensed if there are adequate reasons (sickness, etc.).

In this way, your view is still correct (the DP is necessary in theory) and my view is correct (the DP isn’t a requirement in the strict sense of 100% of the time), and JPII’s statement melds with both views if we read between the lines. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[Ender]

The Death penalty was often the only truly available or fully viable means of safeguarding the public at large from the potential threat which a dangerous individual posed for society at large.

That this is a commonly held opinion doesn’t make it so and based on what we know about those sentenced to life in the galleys, or the mines, or thrown into an oubliette, there is every reason to believe that earlier methods were more secure than our own.

“Divine Law” I think should be seen in this regard vis-a-vis the Old Testament and its use in Church history.

The divine law was never based on securing protection against crimes in the future but of securing just retribution for crimes already committed. Doesn’t it seem just a bit odd to suppose that the application of divine law would depend on … electricity?

The fact that earlier Popes approved of the death penalty in the past, in times before the invention of electricity, computers and modern prison systems, need not I think “bind” the current Pope or any future Popes from pronouncing ex cathedra that the death penalty is no longer legitimate - since it has outlived its historical necessity.

No again. "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.” (Fr. John Hardon citing Pius XII)

I don’t believe that the Pope will do that, however I would not limit the scope of his infallible authority in that regard.

It is wrong to believe that a pope has the authority to set moral law. He doesn’t. He has the authority to declare the certainty of a particular doctrine but morality is not his to define.

Suffice to say, some early Church Fathers and indeed perhaps the majority of the very Early Church were against the death penalty.

This is another commonly held misconception. The truth is just the opposite: *“Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment.” *(Cardinal Dulles)

That it was encouraged in later ages, out of practical necessity, need not I think diminsh the truth of those earlier statements, which I think rested upon principle rather than expedient reality in the 1st century.

I will happily accept the truth of those earlier statements.

I think that we have arrived at a time when the world can actually safely implement the abolitionist/anti-death penalty teachings of much of early Christianity.

Except for the opinions of Tertullian and Lanctantius you will be hard pressed to find any anti-death penalty teachings among the early fathers.

I hate when Cardinal Dulles is continually used by the pro-death penalty side, since his views alone without a broad consensus of opinion hardly substantiate an arguement in favour of the death penalty, do they? He is fallible, after all.

When you include the Early Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, a half dozen popes and the teachings of five earlier catechisms it should be apparent that Cardinal Dulles is hardly alone. It should be noted that Dulles agreed with JPII that capital punishment should be avoided; his article was not an opinion piece, it was a historical explanation of the Church’s position on the subject.

The simple, inescapable truth is this: In the 21st centurym in Western countries, we don’t have to execute people. The public are protected because of modern prison systems.

You overlook the fact that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment and that it is the primary objective that must always be satisfied, not the secondary ones. It is the primary objective - retributive justice - that determines the severity of the punishment and that obligation is utterly unaffected by the capabilities of a prison system.

There is no need to take a life and repay his/her evil for evil. It serves no purpose except for some kind of societal vengeance.

The fact that 2267 has caused people not only to forget about the obligation of justice but to denigrate it has surely been among its most disastrous contributions.

Ender

 

[surritter]

You overlook the fact that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment and that it is the primary objective that must always be satisfied, not the secondary ones.

I was hoping this issue could be settled, but your statement here doesn’t make sense. You are saying that the primary objective (if it even be retribution, but let’s say it is) must always be satisfied, and never set aside for secondary ones. If that were true, then it’s a no-brainer: we must use the death penalty.
But even you acknowledge that the primary objective can be set aside, if there is due reason! So what gives? Must the primary objective “always be satisfied,” or not?

 

[Ender]

I was hoping this issue could be settled, but your statement here doesn’t make sense. You are saying that the primary objective (if it even be retribution, but let’s say it is) must always be satisfied, and never set aside for secondary ones. If that were true, then it’s a no-brainer: we must use the death penalty.
But even you acknowledge that the primary objective can be set aside, if there is due reason! So what gives? Must the primary objective “always be satisfied,” or not?

The perfect solution is not always possible. Sometimes there aren’t even any good solutions, just less awful ones. When the primary objective of punishment is set aside it must always be for a greater reason, not a lesser one like a secondary objective.

Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners. (Aquinas)

Setting aside the primary objective in order to protect the innocent is acceptable; setting it aside because it is (claimed) not to be necessary to achieve a secondary objective is sacrificing a higher objective for an irrelevancy.

Ender

 

[kim_zef]

H E double hockey sticks yeah!

And when the Catechism is changed to say it is no longer an option, I’ll follow suit.

 

[dudleysharp]

When the primary objective of punishment is set aside it must always be for a greater reason, not a lesser one like a secondary objective.
snip
Setting aside the primary objective in order to protect the innocent is acceptable; setting it aside because it is (claimed) not to be necessary to achieve a secondary objective is sacrificing a higher objective for an irrelevancy.
Ender

So true. It is immoral, both secularly and in religion, to punish someone because it defends society. The primary foundation must be that the wrongdoer committed the crime and is sanctioned based upon the nature of the crime. Everything else must be secondary, no matter how important.

The complaint that this Catechism has removed just retribution (and therefore, balance, redress, correction, etc.) from punishment is based upon the reality that 2267 has allowed an improper and inaccurate evaluation of secular penal standards to dominate over both just retribution or “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense” (2266) and Genesis 9:6.

While the first sections of this chapter (through 2266) detail the importance of retribution, the later section (2267) provides little time for justice, which must dominate the utilitarian aspect of protection. The Church miscalculates in 2267 and fails to realize the rational reality that innocents are more protected when murderers are executed, even though the Church enforces that reality within 2265.

“While punishment does serve the purpose of protecting society, it also and “primarily” serves the function of manifesting the transcendent, divine order of justice–an order which the state executes by divine delegation.” " . . . it may be argued that such a conception of punishment, rooted in the restoration of moral balance, always presupposes an awareness of the superordinate dignity of the common good as defined by transcendent moral truths." (5)

“Yet the presence of two purposes–retributive and medicinal justice–ought not obscure the priority of assigning punishment proportionate to the crime (just retribution) insofar as the limited jurisdiction of human justice allows. The end is not punishment, but rather the manifestation of a divine norm of retributive justice, which entails proportionate equality vis-à-vis the crime.” “The medicinal goal is not tantamount merely to stopping future evildoing, but rather entails manifesting the truth of the divine order of justice both to the criminal and to society at large. This means that mere stopping of further disorder is insufficient to constitute the full medicinal character of justice, which purpose alike and primarily entails the manifestation of the truth. Thus this foundational sense of the medicinality of penalty is retained even when others drop away.” (6)

Justice is the soul of sanction.

All other results - protection, safety and deterrence - although beneficial and desired, are a result of sanction, not the reasons for it.

Rehabilitation/redress/correction/redemption/expiation have a foundation in just retribution, but depend upon the free will choice of the criminal who we hope will, by grace, avail themselves of those choices.

1. “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Death Penalty”, p 519, Steven A. Long, The Thomist, 63 (1999): 511-552
2. ibid, p 522

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.