How do I convince someone of the Church's teaching on the death penalty?

[Ender]

The Church has never suggested it is merely ‘unwise’ to use the death penalty these days.

"May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." (Pope John Paul II Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

His personal opposition to its use cannot be confused with the actual doctrine of the church which has always recognized the right of states to employ capital punishment for severe crimes.

You have made a mission to discredit Pope John Paul II…

It hardly does him discredit to explain the nature of his comments.

It is a mistake to believe the death penalty is a sacred cow.

As I’ve said before, if you disagree with something I’ve said then cite it directly. I’m not responsible for your misrepresentations of my comments.

The Catechism is not wrong or deficient in relating the Church position to the faithful.

Are not sections 2260 and 2266 as much church doctrine as 2267? Your interpretation provides no way to incorporate all of them into an intelligible whole; your approach simply discounts them.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

His personal opposition to its use cannot be confused with the actual doctrine of the church which has always recognized the right of states to employ capital punishment for severe crimes.
It hardly does him discredit to explain the nature of his comments.
As I’ve said before, if you disagree with something I’ve said then cite it directly. I’m not responsible for your misrepresentations of my comments.
Are not sections 2260 and 2266 as much church doctrine as 2267? Your interpretation provides no way to incorporate all of them into an intelligible whole; your approach simply discounts them.

Ender

I’m not here disputing or confused about any part of the Catechism or the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. I have no dilemma whatsoever in reconciling any one with another part. You are the one here with confusion and problems reconciling 2267 with the Church doctrine as you perceive it.

Capital punishment equates with the legitimate use of force to defend the common good. This is the right and proper approach to justice for secular governments. Human justice is only symbolic of divine retribution since humans are not God. The State must balance the scales within the confines of its powers to affect the common good.

Capital punishment is doing more harm than good in todays world. It is unnecessary and cruel and contributing to the overall culture of death that we are experiencing in a society that feels that humans have divine rights over the life and death of other humans.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty as a last resort for the safety of the community. In that circumstance it is a good and proper measure. If it is used as a divine right regardless of how it effects the common good, it is a very unworthy sentence.

This is the Catholic Churchs position.

 

[Ender]

I have no dilemma whatsoever in reconciling any one with another part.

Then reconcile this:

1. 2267 asserts that capital punishment should be used only when necessary for protection.
2. 2266 states that the primary objective of punishment (all punishment) is retribution.
3. 2260 cites Gn 9:5-6 and states that this scripture passage is necessary for all time.

Now, if retribution is the primary objective then this is what must be satisfied regardless of whether it is necessary to satisfy a secondary objective. That capital punishment may not be needed for protection (a secondary objective) cannot override its use if it is necessary to satisfy the primary objective, which is retributive justice.

Furthermore, it is God himself in Genesis who declares that the just punishment for murder is death and the catechism notes that this is not subject to cultural differences by stating the teaching is timeless.

Capital punishment is doing more harm than good in todays world.

This may well be true, but this is a prudential objection to its use today. It is not a moral condemnation but a practical one. I have no problem with this approach, which is in fact what I think JPII believed. My objections come not when you raise prudential concerns but when you insist that there is some moral obstacle to its use.

It is unnecessary and cruel and contributing to the overall culture of death that we are experiencing in a society that feels that humans have divine rights over the life and death of other humans.

It may be contributing to the overall culture of death but not because the public feels we have a divine right to execute murderers but because they are coming more and more to deny the existence of the divine anything.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty as a last resort for the safety of the community.

This is a false statement. Nowhere in the entire 2000 year history of the church will you find support for such a claim. Nor is any earlier document cited either in the catechism or Evangelium Vitae.

This is the Catholic Church’s position.

Then provide the citation.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Ender, something that could really help you more fully understand the seamless continuity of Church tradition and the development of doctrine, is to actually study theology through a proper Catholic theology curricula. I took a number of theology (and philosophy) subjects through Uni a number of years ago and an important first principle in treating of the bible and Church tradition, is in understanding how the discipline differs from the social sciences, humanities and sciences. There was a nice Baptist lady who began the year with us who had to leave because she was so distressed by the way the Catholic uni taught theology. She had similar confusion about things to what you are expressing here.

No amount of discussing here is ever going to help you reconcile what you see as irreconcilable, without first letting go of what I see as a common Protestant barrier that was probably erected as a staple of the Protestant schism. ‘Protest’ is not really a feature of Catholic faith growth. That is reserved for the devil and the wicked deceptions that arise in lifes journey … not the Church and her doctrinal developments.

You do see the sheer pointlessness of this dialogue, surely. The Church has made her position clear and the consensus between the Pope and the bishops and through the sensus fidelium, we can accept and trust this wonderful life affirming development.

 

[eschator83]

I count three plus Holly in opposition to the Church Catechism and Doctrine (which supports the death penalty) vs 6 including myself who support the death penalty, at least in all nations which cannot otherwise reliably incarcerate violent criminals.
It’s foolish to argue the death penalty is more expensive–what’s expensive is the absurd legalistic manipulation that we tolerate in the US–in all courts and for all violations. Death sentences should get one review only (essentially a retrial) within five years at discretion of defendant (they should be able to decline). Period. Can anyone reliably estimate that cost saving?
x on death row
y cost of appeals to date
Who are the primary opponents to the Catechism and Doctrine? Can anyone quote them?

 

[Ender]

You do see the sheer pointlessness of this dialogue, surely.

I have no illusions that you will change your position. I comment on your posts only so others have a better context in which to understand what the church has actually said.

The Church has made her position clear…

One of the great problems here is that the church’s position is anything but clear, as this lengthy debate demonstrates. Clarification is sorely needed.*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)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I have no illusions that you will change your position. I comment on your posts only so others have a better context in which to understand what the church has actually said.

There’s more than enough literature that gives the Church’s perspective in the current teaching. Knowing the Church to be a living organism moved by the Holy Spirit to guide men in the will of God, makes it perfectly clear why the death penalty no longer serves the principle it is meant to (promoting the dignity and value of man made in Gods image) and is in fact, doing the opposite.

I suspect that prolonged debating with you looks less like clarity and more like :slapfight: to anyone else. sigh

 

[Ender]

There’s more than enough literature that gives the Church’s perspective in the current teaching.

Actually there is not much at all, unless you want to include expressions of personal opposition, which hardly count as descriptions of church doctrine. What there is a great deal of are discussions of the doctrines over the first 2000 years, literature with which most people are unaware. Your allusion to “current” teaching makes that point.

…the death penalty no longer serves the principle it is meant to (promoting the dignity and value of man made in Gods image)

This seems to be recognition that Gn 9:6 means what it says. Man’s life is sacred and in recognition of that fact the life of a murderer is forfeit for his crime. Your statement is surely in line with the Catechism of Trent which states that capital punishment "is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder." And you thought we’d never agree on anything.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
There’s more than enough literature that gives the Church’s perspective in the current teaching.

Evangelium Vitae is more than a FWIW personal diary extract from some random online blogger FYI, OMG!

It is a milestone encyclical to be seriously received by the Catholic faithful into their relationships and worldview. It is referred to consistently by the subsequent Popes and Bishops in promoting the New Evangelisation to inspire and fortify Catholics and all people with truth against the tide of the culture of death. It’s authority is as significant as any in 2000 years. It’s ridiculous to try to call it ‘someone’s personal opinion’. That’s anti Catholic.

…the death penalty no longer serves the principle it is meant to (promoting the dignity and value of man made in Gods image)

This seems to be recognition that Gn 9:6 means what it says. Man’s life is sacred and in recognition of that fact the life of a murderer is forfeit for his crime. Your statement is surely in line with the Catechism of Trent which states that capital punishment "is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder." And you thought we’d never agree on anything.

Ender

The difference being that you see this line in Genesis as God commanding the death penalty for divine retribution out of the blue. I see it as the Catholic Church sees it, as God permitting what natural law has required of men from his first fall from grace; the defense of human life against inhumane acts. We can know that by the part of the Genesis verse that says… “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.* I will demand an accounting from every animal.** And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.” *Gen 9:5

Since animals are not morally culpable and cannot be subject to Gods retribution, we can know that God’s accounting is to esteem the life of man, not a redress of the moral economy.

Therefore, the death penalty has no inherent moral value. It’s moral quality existes in how it defends or destroys the dignity of human beings.

 

[pnewton]

To the OP:

I can tell you what not to do, having been on the receiving end by many, including priests. Do not talk about forgiveness or the value of life. The first is almost never the issue and the latter may be a false assumption. Perhaps the person values human life more than you and that is his motive for believing in the death penalty.

You can argue the fact of safe incarceration, but that is not really a fact or a moral position. It is an opinion about the state of the penal system, one which I am convinced is wrong, and on this, I do know of what I speak.

The only reason that has held sufficient validity for me is the cultural value of life. I can not help but believe that society suffers when we execute someone. If the person is truly dangerous and incarceration is not feasible, then it is worth the loss. However, even though I know some violent people will commit violent crimes after receiving that life sentence instead of death, I think it is not worth the price we pay culturally, in a time when we throw babies in trash cans and offer death as a prescription to pain.

 

[Ender]

Evangelium Vitae is more than a FWIW personal diary extract from some random online blogger FYI, OMG! … It’s ridiculous to try to call it ‘someone’s personal opinion’. That’s anti Catholic.

I am willing to respond to you but only when you direct your comments to something I’ve actually said. Your breathless misinterpretations of my comments don’t merit a response.

The difference being that you see this line in Genesis as…

You don’t get to say what I think. If you can’t quote me as having actually said something then you should probably assume you have no idea what I believe. I’ve said this before: start by quoting my actual comment and address it directly.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I am willing to respond to you but only when you direct your comments to something I’ve actually said. Your breathless misinterpretations of my comments don’t merit a response.

Is it not true that you have said that the Popes words… those concerning the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism carry no weight beyond his personal opinion?

You don’t get to say what I think. If you can’t quote me as having actually said something then you should probably assume you have no idea what I believe. I’ve said this before: start by quoting my actual comment and address it directly.

Ender

Lol. But you have much to say about what I think even when I say I fully, totally and wholeheartedly agree with everything written in EV and the CCC… you say that there is something skewed in my thinking.

Anyway, updating a previous discussion point. I’ve been to the main Cathedral bookshop today and it’s quite a decent shop since I live in a capital city. I scoured the whole array of most recently reprinted Catechisms and not one resembles the poorly edited one that you link to from the Vatican website. None that I have ever seen in fact, classify 2266 and 2267 by the subheading ‘Capital Punishment’ separated from the Legitimate Defense heading of the section. So I do not accept it as the official. I think someone in the Vatican website office has put up the poorly presented and edited version in error and I don’t accept it.

 

[Ender]

Is it not true that you have said that the Popes words… those concerning the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism carry no weight beyond his personal opinion?

What I’ve said is that I agree with what Cardinal Dulles said:The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

Lol. But you have much to say about what I think even when I say I fully, totally and wholeheartedly agree with everything written in EV and the CCC… you say that there is something skewed in my thinking.

I have attacked the arguments you’ve presented. I have not attacked you.

I’ve been to the main Cathedral bookshop today and it’s quite a decent shop since I live in a capital city. I scoured the whole array of most recently reprinted Catechisms and not one resembles the poorly edited one that you link to from the Vatican website. None that I have ever seen in fact, classify 2266 and 2267 by the subheading ‘Capital Punishment’ separated from the Legitimate Defense heading of the section. So I do not accept it as the official. I think someone in the Vatican website office has put up the poorly presented and edited version in error and I don’t accept it.

Just so everyone is clear: what you reject is the version of the catechism on the Vatican web site that you get to directly from the home page (Home Page: Resource Library → Catechism) without doing a search. A version that has a copyright date of 2003 from the Libreria Editrice Vaticana. You are sticking with a version that has a copyright date of what, 1997?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I’ve been to the main Cathedral bookshop today and it’s quite a decent shop since I live in a capital city. I scoured the whole array of most recently reprinted Catechisms and not one resembles the poorly edited one that you link to from the Vatican website. None that I have ever seen in fact, classify 2266 and 2267 by the subheading ‘Capital Punishment’ separated from the Legitimate Defense heading of the section. So I do not accept it as the official. I think someone in the Vatican website office has put up the poorly presented and edited version in error and I don’t accept it.

That’s right. I reject this as the official version. Not only is it poorly edited and ridden with punctuation, spacing, font and bolding errors (unlike the other translations it stands beside)… it does not include the official Apostolic Letter and Apostolic Constitution that the other online and hard copy prints include.

You are claiming it to be an updated edition dated 2003 to replace the Latin typical second edition, promulgated by Pope JPII in 1997. It is not. The date stamp obviously refers to the date that someone contributed it to the Vatican website. There are no new editions. I asked.

Not only that… The Latin, the official 1997 language second edition from which all other language translations come, doesn’t include the ‘Capital punishment’ heading to separate 2266 and 2267 from the ‘Legitimate Defense’ heading.

vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s2c2a5_lt.htm#ARTICULUS 5* QUINTUM PRAECEPTUM

None of the other translations include that ‘new’ addition either.

vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

I’m not a conspiracy theorist of any sort so I’m not going to speculate as to why it stands there in such a poor and inaccurate state compared to the other language transcripts, but mere common sense shows it is not an official version and doesn’t appear in print anywhere else that I can see. Luckily no one thinks the website is the Pope. The Vatican machine has many secular employees running their ancilliary operations.

 

[vera_dicere]

I really detest the DP, but I accept the Church’s teaching because it makes a lot of sense.

In Western nations we really have no need for it, security and good alert guards can protect other prisoners from exceptionally dangerous folk and there’s always seclusion/isolation - though thhat’s never good for someone’s mental health.

My main strike against it is that we’re likely to nail the wrong person. How many cases do we hear of people being released after x number of years on death row because new tech or evidence came to light proving their guilt?

The DP can also be heavily abused, take Iran and China for example.

However, say there’s a big ole nuclear war tomorrow and once the radiation has decreased to safe levels and we all climb out of our hidey holes then what? Will there be judges and juries and CSI labs? No. There’s one example of where the DP may not just be acceptable, but may be the only recourse we have to protect society.

So trying to convince a person one way or the other on this issue? Its not easy, and people are often swayed by the hard nasty cases of child rapists. I know its not an ideal thing to say, but in the grand scheme of things is this really an argument we want to be having? How many of us are actually ging to be directlly involved in a DP case or decision? I know lots of people who support the DP, but I"m more interested in changing the minds of peopel I know who support abortion and euthanasia, becuase those issues are more likely to result with the individual making that decision themselves or assisting another to make it -and that’s a lot more pressing than trying to win an argument aout the DP.

 

[Ender]

That’s right. I reject this as the official version. …

You are claiming it to be an updated edition dated 2003 to replace the Latin typical second edition, promulgated by Pope JPII in 1997. It is not. The date stamp obviously refers to the date that someone contributed it to the Vatican website.

You are a bit too dismissive of the official Vatican publishing house. The document you reject was not merely “contributed” to the Vatican website, as if such a thing was possible; it is the product of the LEV (Libreria Editrice Vaticana) which is
*"the official publishing of the Holy See with its own statutes approved in 1991 by the Secretary of State where it is stated that the Libreria Editrice Vaticana "has as its fundamental purpose the 'publishing activities concerning the publication of the acts and documents of the Pope and the Holy See " * (Vatican website)

There are no new editions. I asked.

You asked the wrong question. I don’t doubt that there are no new editions, but that assuredly doesn’t mean there haven’t been updates and corrections to the second edition.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist of any sort so I’m not going to speculate as to why it stands there in such a poor and inaccurate state compared to the other language transcripts, but mere common sense shows it is not an official version and doesn’t appear in print anywhere else that I can see. Luckily no one thinks the website is the Pope. The Vatican machine has many secular employees running their ancilliary operations.

It is true that the website isn’t “the pope” but it also true that the LEV has custody of all the documents of the Holy See.

• the Decree of the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who confirmed and formalized custody Editrice all copyright on the texts of the Holy Father and the Holy See.*
  (The document I’m citing is from the Vatican web site, written in Italian, and translated by Google Chrome.) Calling a document put out by the organization that officially controls it “unofficial” doesn’t actually seem all that much like common sense.

Ender

 

[shockerfan]

I believe this subject is rather straight forward, and for whatever reason, some try to make it more difficult that it is.

The death penalty / capital punishment is NOT a “non-negotiable” like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia, or same sex unions.

It is PERMISSIBLE per the Catechism of the Catholic Church. HOWEVER, as the CCC also states, that it should be rare, if non-existent: If the state can effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it.

So your average murderer should not be subject to capital punishment since he can be locked up, even up to solitary confinement, and thus not be able to harm others. But, I can think of a very real example where capital punishment may be the only way of protecting society: A drug lord or the leader of a gang. These people can be put in prison and still have the ability to direct murderous actions against others because of the power structure they control, even in prison. There was a recent show on television about the leader of a white supremacist gang, who while in prison, was able to direct the murders of other people both at other prisons and outside of prison. The problem is that these killers, no matter what level of solitary punishment you put them into, still get access to lawyers, guards, etc. who pass on messages to others.

So the only real reason to implement the death penalty is to protect society. If standard incarceration does this, then there should be no reason to implement the death penalty. Retribution, revenge, punishment, etc., is NOT a reason to implement the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

So the only real reason to implement the death penalty is to protect society. If standard incarceration does this, then there should be no reason to implement the death penalty.

What justifies punishment? What is it that allows us to distinguish between a punishment that is too harsh and one that is too lenient? Clearly the need to protect society does not provide such guidance, but if that is true, then what does?

Retribution, revenge, punishment, etc., is NOT a reason to implement the death penalty.

Does retribution justify any other kind of punishment or is it not justifiable only for capital punishment?

Ender

 

[shockerfan]

What justifies punishment? What is it that allows us to distinguish between a punishment that is too harsh and one that is too lenient? Clearly the need to protect society does not provide such guidance, but if that is true, then what does?

From the CCC:
Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender

In other words, its up to the prudential judgment of legitimate public authority.

Does retribution justify any other kind of punishment or is it not justifiable only for capital punishment?

Ender

The problem with capital punishment, is that it prevents (or shortens the opportunity for) redemption. Other forms of punishment allow for sorrow, forgiveness, expiation.

 

[Ender]

In other words, its up to the prudential judgment of legitimate public authority.

This simply says that it is the public authority alone which has the right to punish. What I asked was what justifies the public authority in its choice of punishment? How does one determine whether a punishment is just, and does it matter if the punishment is just or not?

The problem with capital punishment, is that it prevents (or shortens the opportunity for) redemption. Other forms of punishment allow for sorrow, forgiveness, expiation.

Is expiation then the primary objective? I think until you identify what the primary objective of punishment is it isn’t possible to know whether or not it has been satisfied.

Regarding expiation:
*To go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory

"The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods. This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. * (Romano Amerio)
Ender