Does the Church teach that the Death Penalty

[lisahiku]

can be used?

There seems to be a LOT of disagreement on this. I know the quotes from the cathecism.

I just want to know if the church does or does not allow the death penalty to be used.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

can be used?

There seems to be a LOT of disagreement on this.I know the quotes from the cathecism.

I just want to know if the church does or does not allow the death penalty to be used.

If you know the quotes from the catechism, then you know the answer.

IF the legitimate government has determined that **there is no other way **to safeguard its citizens than to administer the death penalty to an individual, then the death penalty in that situation may be legitimately used by that government. However, as the catechism notes, such instances are so rare as to be "almost’ nonexistent. "almost’ however indicates that there MAY indeed be such a situation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If you know the quotes from the catechism, then you know the answer.

IF the legitimate government has determined that **there is no other way **to safeguard its citizens than to administer the death penalty to an individual, then the death penalty in that situation may be legitimately used by that government. However, as the catechism notes, such instances are so rare as to be "almost’ nonexistent. "almost’ however indicates that there MAY indeed be such a situation.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

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 nonexistent."68

 

[Neildown]

If you know the quotes from the catechism, then you know the answer.

IF the legitimate government has determined that **there is no other way **to safeguard its citizens than to administer the death penalty to an individual, then the death penalty in that situation may be legitimately used by that government. However, as the catechism notes, such instances are so rare as to be "almost’ nonexistent. "almost’ however indicates that there MAY indeed be such a situation.

This is what I have learned in my Theology books so I second it.

 

[lisahiku]

I knew that the church allows it.
Why do so many people, on here think you are not pro-life if you support the death penalty.

 

[Abu]

lisahiku
I knew that the church allows it.
Why do so many people, on here think you are not pro-life if you support the death penalty.

Because, Iike every other teaching, they either do not know it, they misinterpret it, or they put their own prejudices above it.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I knew that the church allows it.
Why do so many people, on here think you are not pro-life if you support the death penalty.

Some of us believe that life is sacrosanct from conception to natural death

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I knew that the church allows it.
Why do so many people, on here think you are not pro-life if you support the death penalty.

[INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE
AT THE 62nd SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ADDRESS OF H.E. MSGR. DOMINIQUE MAMBERTI](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s...uments/rc_seg-st_20071001_mamberti-un_en.html)

The most important part of our work in this context is to ensure that the inherent right to life is respected everywhere. This fundamental right must be protected from conception until natural death. Therefore, we must work to stop and reverse the culture of death embraced by some social and legal structures that try to make the suppression of life acceptable by disguising it as a medical or social service.** In this sense, the abolition of the death penalty should also be seen as a consequence of full respect for the right to life.**

[SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM
BULLETIN

II ORDINARY SPECIAL ASSEMBLY FOR AFRICA
OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
4-25 OCTOBER 2009](http://www.vatican.va/news_services...i_speciale-africa-2009/02_inglese/b33_02.html)

“The Church sees as a sign of hope a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as an expression of justice and a kind of legitimate defense on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitely denying them the chance to reform” (“The Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church”, 405).
The dignity of the person requires that his or her fundamental rights be respected even when one does not respect the rights of others. The death penalty frustrates such an aim. At times, the death penalty is used to eliminate political opponents. Moreover, poor people, who cannot defend themselves, are more easily subjected to this final un-appealable punishment.
This Synod calls for the total and universal abolition of the death penalty.

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO HIS EXCELLENCY
Mr. HÉCTOR FEDERICO LING ALTAMIRANO,
NEW AMBASSADOR OF MEXICO
TO THE HOLY SEE

One can never sufficiently insist that the right to life must be recognized in its full breadth. In fact every person deserves respect and solidarity from the moment of his conception to his natural death. This noble cause, in which many men and women are courageously involved, must also be supported by the civil authorities in the promotion of just laws and effective public policies that take into account the very great value that every human being possesses at every moment of his life. In this regard, I would like to acknowledge joyfully the initiative of Mexico which, in 2005, eliminated capital punishment from its legislation, as well as the recent measures that some of its States have adopted to protect human life from its origins. These measures regarding such a fundamental issue must be an emblem of your country, of which you must feel justifiably proud since upon the recognition of right to life “every human community and the political community itself are founded” (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, n. 2).

 

[Hastrman]

Some of us believe that life is sacrosanct from conception to natural death

Yes, but in general those who think so are called Buddhists and Jains, not Catholics.

The thing you’re talking about is “ahimsa”, which (the Sanskrit name might be a clue) is not a Catholic teaching.

Catholics only believe innocent life is sacrosanct.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Yes, but in general those who think so are called Buddhists and Jains, not Catholics.

The thing you’re talking about is “ahimsa”, which (the Sanskrit name might be a clue) is not a Catholic teaching.

Catholics only believe innocent life is sacrosanct.

Pope Benedict XVI: “One can never sufficiently insist that the right to life must be recognized in its full breadth. In fact every person deserves respect and solidarity from the moment of his conception to his natural death.”

Do I really sound like I’m pagan to you? My family is in fact from Goa a part of India where being Catholic is indeed quite common.

 

[Hastrman]

Pope Benedict XVI: “One can never sufficiently insist that the right to life must be recognized in its full breadth. In fact every person deserves respect and solidarity from the moment of his conception to his natural death.”

Do I really sound like I’m pagan to you? My family is in fact from Goa a part of India where being Catholic is indeed quite common.

I am aware of the Catholicity of the Goa region, but the fact remains, the sacredness of all life is not actually a Catholic teaching. And the right to life can—again, Church teaching, not some cherry-picked out of context papal quote but the 2000-year deposit of faith—be forfeited.

The Pope has, in fact, said, that there can be legitimate disagreement over the death penalty. But since people who oppose capital punishment cannot, in general, make any reasoned argument for their position (since crime statistics paint a very different picture of how “harmless” we can render offenders), they try to bully the other side with papal authority—even when that authority itself has said both positions are permitted.

My family, on my mother’s side, is from Bohemia (now the Czech Republic). And my great-grandfather was excommunicated for advocating his country’s independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Forgive my skepticism about anyone who tries to use the authority of the Church as a stick to beat their political opposition, but most of my maternal relatives are atheists because of that scandal.

 

[vz71]

I knew that the church allows it.
Why do so many people, on here think you are not pro-life if you support the death penalty.

Because the proper pro-life position (the only logical one) is one that is pro-(ALL) life.

It is not proper to lend support for the death penalty. It may be proper to support the right of the government to do what is necessary to insure the safety of the citizens.
But that is a seperate thing from support of the death penalty. And it should be noted as such.

It would be our obligation to work towards a system of justice that would make it unnecessary.

 

[Hastrman]

Because the proper pro-life position (the only logical one) is one that is pro-(ALL) life.

It is not proper to lend support for the death penalty. It may be proper to support the right of the government to do what is necessary to insure the safety of the citizens.
But that is a seperate thing from support of the death penalty. And it should be noted as such.

It would be our obligation to work towards a system of justice that would make it unnecessary.

I’m not pro-life, and neither is the Church. You are not required to be “pro-all-life”; not only is that an oversimplification, it borders on idolatry.

The Church is merely anti-murder, and mandates charity and mercy in the social order to the extent that is practicable. If a society cannot maintain order without the death penalty, then it is better for it to have the death penalty (which must still be administered justly, and informed by mercy) than for the safety of the citizenry to be jeopardized.

 

[Ender]

If you know the quotes from the catechism, then you know the answer.

If all you know are the quotes from the current catechism then you know very little and in all probability are mislead. From her earliest days the Church has taught that States have the right to impose the death penalty for serious crimes and she never included the restriction that it be necessary for protection. If you knew the quotes from the five previous catechisms, the positions of the Early Fathers (virtually unanimous in their support), and of popes from Innocent I in 405 to Pius XII in the 1950’s you would know there is a great deal more here than is found in the current catechism.

If, however, you think it is sufficient to know only this catechism, then explain what section 2260 is saying.

Ender

 

[vz71]

I’m not pro-life, and neither is the Church.

You will have a very difficult time convincing the various pro-life groups within the church as well as the many pro-life groups sponsered by and run by the clergy within the church.

You are not required to be “pro-all-life”; not only is that an oversimplification, it borders on idolatry.

It is not idolatry. It is the logical conclusion of the pro-life position.
It is not logical to argue the killing of one human being while arguing for not killing another.
The church outlined very specifically when the death penalty may be used.
And that specification is not a favor towards the death penalty, it is a default position for protecting the other human beings.

The Church is merely anti-murder, and mandates charity and mercy in the social order to the extent that is practicable.

Interesting.
Can you please quote the specific teachings that describe the Catholic church as ‘anti-murder’ or perhaps the specific teachings that argue for protection of life only when it is practical?

If a society cannot maintain order without the death penalty, then it is better for it to have the death penalty (which must still be administered justly, and informed by mercy) than for the safety of the citizenry to be jeopardized.

But that is not what has been stated in the Catechism.
The Catechism specifies that the penalty may be permitted if it is the only way to protect the innocent from an unjust aggresor.
Societal order is not a factor that is listed in the catechism.

 

[Hastrman]

If, however, you think it is sufficient to know only this catechism, then explain what section 2260 is saying.

Another example of how the current catechism is flawed, when it lists the things that don’t justify torture, “gaining intelligence” is not listed.

Oops. Now some have said that is intentional, to leave an opening for “ticking timebomb” scenarios (the thinking being that torture may be permitted in such desperate situations), but I incline to doubt that, given the other statements in there, and that the Church has generally been leery of that argument.

 

[Corki]

I knew that the church allows it.
Why do so many people, on here think you are not pro-life if you support the death penalty.

There is confusion on terminology. Being “pro-life” isn’t binary, its a continuum. Virtually everyone is “pro-life” to some degree, if only to the extent of protecting the lives of themselves and family. The Church teaches that there is a heirarchy to life issues. The protection of the lives of the innocent and vulnerable is given the highest consideration.

All life must be respected but respecting the life of convicted criminals does not **always **mean they shouldn’t be executed. They do not have the same right to life as, for example a child.

Besides the Catechism, I recommend two great writings -

Catholicism and Capital Punishment but Avery Cardinal Dulles

firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

and

Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) by Blessed Pope John Paul II. (my signiture quote comes from this doc)

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[Ender]

It is not logical to argue the killing of one human being while arguing for not killing another.

Of course it is. It would be illogical to argue for such a thing if life per se was the highest good, but that’s not what the Church teaches. I agree that Hastrman probably shouldn’t have claimed the Church isn’t pro-life but I think his point is that the Church isn’t against the taking of life in all situations, and that much is surely true. The Church is pro-innocent life in all circumstances but she is not pro-all life in all things. If she was she could never have said this:

Q. 1276. *Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken? *
A. *Human life may be lawfully taken: *(1)…(2)…(3) (Baltimore Catechism)

There is no law against killing that is universally valid except the deliberate murder of the innocent and we are in fact told under what circumstances life may be taken. In this sense Hastrman is right: the Church is not (universally) pro-life.

Can you please quote the specific teachings that describe the Catholic church as ‘anti-murder’

I can help with this:

2261: The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

Ender

 

[Hastrman]

Of course it is. It would be illogical to argue for such a thing if life per se was the highest good, but that’s not what the Church teaches. I agree that Hastrman probably shouldn’t have claimed the Church isn’t pro-life but I think his point is that the Church isn’t against the taking of life in all situations, and that much is surely true. The Church is pro-innocent life in all circumstances but she is not pro-all life in all things. If she was she could never have said this:

“Pro-life” is the advertising/marketing/faction name for opposition to abortion. It is not, and never was intended to be, an all-encompassing ethical theory.

The theory that being “pro-life” means you must oppose executing murderers and killing enemy combatants, because those are also life (even though the term actually only applies to abortion), is logically identical to the statement “If you say you like Coke, you must approve of the recreational use of blow, 'cause that’s also ‘coke.’” The mere fact that the brand-name has other meanings doesn’t mean anything.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Church Doctrine leaves the door open for both the DP and life (name removed by moderator)risonment to be implemented for all murders.

In the 1990s the divide amongst Catholics was increased. Basicly you have two opposing camps.

1. People like JP II who call for an abolition of the DP due to modern technology making it unnecessary
2. People like Supreme Court Justice Scalia who cling to to church’s long history of supporting the State’s Right to kill pople.

It is a matter of personal discretion as to which camp you want to fall into. As you can tell I lean towards JPII

http://www.bustedhalo.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/jpii_forgiveness-large.jpg