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

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. How do I convince someone who is already a practicing Catholic of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty which is that it should not be used unless it is the only way of protecting society from a violent criminal? Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church for reference:

**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 are 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 non-existent.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm

I know that historically the Church has not strictly condemned the death penalty but I think that is partly, at least, due to the fact that in times past, it was not always as easy to protect society from a violent criminal. This is shown in the fact of the Prison of Alcatraz. In order to protect society from the most violent criminals, they had to put the prison on an isolated island which was in shark infested waters.

 

[Holly3278]

I also wanted to mention that previously this guy was strictly for the death penalty but now he is on the fence about it so I think I have convinced him somewhat.

 

[DaveBj]

But…if a “violent criminal” is in a maximum-security jail for their entire life…doesn’t that protect society?

When or why or at what point would one actually need to take this person’s life away?
To methodically kill them?

(I assume the person you are trying to convince may be asking this same question…?)

.

Not if the criminal has the opportunity to kill other prisoners (which has happened), to kill guards (which has also happened), or to escape and kill people outside the prison (which has also happened).

 

[Aelred_Minor]

In some countries it is still far from certain that people given life sentences will not be released or broken out in the future, particularly terrorists, organized crime bosses, overthrown dictators, that sort of criminal that may have organized support. Of course overthrown dictators might best be handled at the international level and imprisoned outside the country they had ruled, but that still leaves terrorists and crime bosses.

But in relatively rich, stable regions like the US and Western Europe, which until recently at least has been the primary cultural context of the most prominent Church leaders, the practical need for execution has more or less disappeared.

If you have trouble making reasoned arguments for discontinuing the death penalty or this person won’t accept those arguments, you might want to talk about a healthy, holistic approach to accepting Church guidance. While this is technically an issue in which some degree of disagreement with modern Church guidance is possible without true heresy, those who do express such disagreement are generally taking a highly limiting, legalistic approach to Church authority in order to justify their dissent. They tend to selectively adopt the attitude that only the most formal, binding Church teachings need be accepted and that everything else is optional.

This is wrong in itself and also almost always hypocritical, as such dissidents on both the political right and left usually only adopt it in regard to Church statements they dislike while maintaining an authoritarian attitude regarding statements they do like. I suppose that both the legalistic minimalism and the authoritarianism stem from a distorted view of ecclesial authority itself. They must view Church authority not as motherly guidance within a family but as an external, almost violent force imposed upon the human intellect.

 

[JimG]

Note that the first paragraph of #2267 contains the word “if.”

The second paragraph begins with the word “IF.”

The third paragraph begins with “Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has…”

Possibilities. If. The catechism statement is not as clear cut as one might think, because in actual practice the “possibilities” for providing societal protection are limited and remain only possibilities. Nevertheless, I oppose the death penalty because of the cost.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Society has an absolute right to separate itself from the violent criminals in its midst. Have to begin any discussion with that point in mind. I’ve been against the death penalty as I take a reverence toward life position, the same position that supports the right of the unborn to be born. That said, I’ve come to realize that in some places around the world, separation from society via imprisonment isn’t guaranteed to hold the criminal(s) there. So I’ve moderated my stance somewhat: I’m still anti-death penalty in general, but would accept it in those places if there was a judicial process of determination for it.

 

[LongingSoul]

Hi everyone. How do I convince someone who is already a practicing Catholic of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty which is that it should not be used unless it is the only way of protecting society from a violent criminal? Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church for reference:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm

I know that historically the Church has not strictly condemned the death penalty but I think that is partly, at least, due to the fact that in times past, it was not always as easy to protect society from a violent criminal. This is shown in the fact of the Prison of Alcatraz. In order to protect society from the most violent criminals, they had to put the prison on an isolated island which was in shark infested waters.

It depends on why your friend rejects the Churchs teaching. If he really thinks that society will be less safe and protected without the death penalty being on the law books, he is entitled to argue that position without being at odds with the Church.

But if he thinks that the death penalty is the only just penalty for a crime regardless of whether it serves the wellbeing of the community or not, he has mistaken the nature of the death penalty and is at odds with Church teaching.

Remind him that the US is the only Christian country in the world that retains the death penalty on its law books. Over the last century, every other Christian country has abandoned it as unnecessary and cruel in todays world.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It depends on why your friend rejects the Churchs teaching. If he really thinks that society will be less safe and protected without the death penalty being on the law books, he is entitled to argue that position without being at odds with the Church.

But if he thinks that the death penalty is the only just penalty for a crime regardless of whether it serves the wellbeing of the community or not, he has mistaken the nature of the death penalty and is at odds with Church teaching.

Remind him that the US is the only Christian country in the world that retains the death penalty on its law books. Over the last century, every other Christian country has abandoned it as unnecessary and cruel in todays world.

I think you’re factually mistaken about Christian countries. Looking it up real quick on a map showing the status across the world I noticed Belarus and Ethiopia, both historically Christian countries, still have the death penalty. Edit: Botswana and South Sudan too.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think you’re factually mistaken about Christian countries. Looking it up real quick on a map showing the status across the world I noticed Belarus and Ethiopia, both historically Christian countries, still have the death penalty. Edit: Botswana and South Sudan too.

Oh yes. You’re right. Make that first world Christian countries have all abolished it.

 

[Holly3278]

I would like to have some more apologetics help. How do I defend the Church’s teaching on this matter?

 

[Ender]

I know that historically the Church has not strictly condemned the death penalty…

The facts are a bit different than you realize:
*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)

… but I think that is partly, at least, due to the fact that in times past, it was not always as easy to protect society from a violent criminal.

This is a common assertion but doesn’t seem to be all that accurate; earlier societies surely did have that capability.*…if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to **permanent imprisonment *or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. (Fifth Lateran Council 1512-1517)
Ender

 

[Ender]

But in relatively rich, stable regions like the US and Western Europe, which until recently at least has been the primary cultural context of the most prominent Church leaders, the practical need for execution has more or less disappeared.

The primary objective of punishment is not protection but retributive justice. That capital punishment may not be necessary as a means of securing public safety says nothing whatever about whether it is a just punishment for certain crimes.

While this is technically an issue in which some degree of disagreement with modern Church guidance is possible without true heresy…

Actually, the church has considered the heresy to be rejecting the belief that societies have the right to use capital punishment.
One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. (St. Bellarmine)

… those who do express such disagreement are generally taking a highly limiting, legalistic approach to Church authority in order to justify their dissent. They tend to selectively adopt the attitude that only the most formal, binding Church teachings need be accepted and that everything else is optional.

Again, you have almost reversed the truth of the matter.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)
That said, there is no need to raise this argument. The real point is that the church does not teach what you think she does.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’ve been against the death penalty as I take a reverence toward life position…

Perhaps you are not familiar with the basis for the church’s acknowledgment of the validity of capital punishment. It is precisely that reverence for life that demands the death of the person who wantonly kills.Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
Genesis 9:6 is part of God’s covenant with Noah; it is not part of the Mosaic Law, and it remains in effect for all time. What it says is that the life of the murderer is forfeit because the life of the victim was sacred. What it does not say is that the life of the murderer is protected because his life is sacred, nor has the church ever understood it that way.*“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” *(Pius XII)
There are two points here that are often overlooked. The first is that capital punishment is a just penalty and that there are crimes for which a man may in fact forfeit his right to live. The second point is the matter of expiation. Sin incurs a debt that must be paid, punishment alone can pay it, and we can only expiate our sins by accepting our punishments. Merely preventing a killer from killing again does nothing to pay that debt.

Ender

 

[tominrichmondva]

There are some misconceptions in your post. First, the Church did not merely tolerate capital punishment; the traditional teaching of the Church is that the just use of the death penalty is an exercise of the virtue of justice and a vindication of the Fifth Commandment.

St. Thomas summarizes:

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.

Second, you assume, citing the CCC, that the Church’s new teaching is that we can incarcerate people and thereby protect society so we don’t need the death penalty.
But this passage glaringly fails to identify precisely which “possibilities” exist for a modern state to render offenders incapable of doing harm (it certainly can’t be suggesting solitary confinement for life, which would surely be viewed as cruel). And I’ve cataloged at some length here( seeking4justice.blogspot.com/search/label/Rendering%20Offenders%20Harmless) that, in the US at any rate, even life without parole does not render offenders harmless.

Bottom line: the Fifth Commandment and the virtue of Justice sometimes require imposition of death; we have no reliable means of rendering some offenders harmless, short of death. Therefore, the already “rare” use of the death penalty in this country (less than one-tenth of one percent of homicides are punished by the death penalty) is entirely just, reasonable, and moral.

 

[LongingSoul]

There are some misconceptions in your post. First, the Church did not merely tolerate capital punishment; the traditional teaching of the Church is that the just use of the death penalty is an exercise of the virtue of justice and a vindication of the Fifth Commandment.

What is your position on the Catechism paragraph 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.” ?

Are you able to accept it into your Catholic worldview?

 

[tominrichmondva]

What is your position on the Catechism paragraph 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.” ?

Are you able to accept it into your Catholic worldview?

Yes, because the “problem” if you call it that, with the CCC is ***not ***the prudential observation that society has the right to defend itself when necessary with capital punishment, which is a true and valid reason for capital punishment.

The problem is that the CCC simply ignores the traditional teaching on the virtue of Justice and the vindication of the Fifth Commandment as the primary justifications for the state having recourse to capital punishment.

So yes, the CCC is correct as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough in explicating the traditional teaching on capital punishment.

 

[Ender]

So yes, the CCC is correct as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough in explicating the traditional teaching on capital punishment.

It seems to me that the catechism’s description of the traditional teaching on capital punishment is in fact incorrect; the church has never limited the use of the death penalty to only those cases where it was necessary for the protection of society. It has in many instances recognized such protection as a benefit but it has never conditioned its use on protection. In the six earlier catechisms I have found not a one includes that restriction, including the first edition (1992 version) of the current catechism. Nor have I found it in the documents of the half dozen popes who addressed this issue prior to JPII, nor in the writings of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church.

If this was only my opinion you might well discount it in spite of the extensive documentation, but I am not alone in noting this problem.The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.
(Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome)Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, because the “problem” if you call it that, with the CCC is ***not ***the prudential observation that society has the right to defend itself when necessary with capital punishment, which is a true and valid reason for capital punishment.

The problem is that the CCC simply ignores the traditional teaching on the virtue of Justice and the vindication of the Fifth Commandment as the primary justifications for the state having recourse to capital punishment.

So yes, the CCC is correct as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough in explicating the traditional teaching on capital punishment.

This is a uniquely American difficulty. The Church doesn’t say that the primary justification for the *death penalty *is vindication… but it does say that the primary justification for *punishment *is to redress the disorder caused by sin or crime.

It’s like saying that the primary justification for medicine is to heal the body, but the primary justification for amputation of a diseased limb is to halt the spread of the disease and damage to the rest of the body. So while the amputation is of course done to heal the body, it is primarily justified by defense of the body. The default is to save the limb if there is a chance that the disease can be halted by other means because the wholeness of body must remain the highest principle. Thomas Aquinas famously used the example of amputating a diseased limb to demonstrate the nature of the death penalty.

It seems to many Americans that this is a new perspective however St Augustine himself in the 5th century BC took it upon himself to influence the State to withdraw the sentence of death in numerous criminal convictions.

The Australian state that I live in scrapped the death penalty in 1922 and in searching records for the Catholic feeling of that time I found this article. It is from a Catholic journal, The Freemans Journal, which is still in production today as The Catholic Weekly. It is written by Catholics for Catholics and is a sanctioned Catholic paper.

"**Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?

This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system. Since it was difficult to arrest highway robbers, firebugs, etc., those that were actually caught were punished the more drastically. Whether fewer, such criminals now escape arrest and full punishment than formerly, especially if they are rich, may be questioned. But the fact remains that what we now call the police system was extremely primitive in the days of old. Robbery on a grand scale, formerly conducted by a liberal use of physical violence, is now carried on in a more refined manner, though the effect is the same. It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether. So much seems to be sure, that the number of those has not died out who will be deterred from committing great crimes by nothing short of death**."

Freeman’s Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932) (Later to become the Catholic Weekly still being printed today)
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/123253640

This is a 90 year old article.

Most developed countries that have abolished the death penalty, understand it to be a sentence that is justified by the needs of the common good. As the State is not a religion, it deals with the requirements of the common good. In the ways the Church serves the good of souls, the State serves the common good of the relationship between men. Justice needs to be seen to be being done in order to serve the common good. The death penalty has long been perceived as cruel and unnecessary and therefore unjust in many jurisdictions and the Church supports this duty of the State to abandon it.

The long and short is that it is a mistake to think of the death penalty as inherently holy. It is also a mistake to think of it as inherently evil. In the light of the times, what was implicit in the teachings of the Church in the past, has become explicit and is a natural development in attending to Gods will to guard as sacred, the life of men. As the Catechism teaches, this truth must be upheld for all time.

 

[Ender]

This is a uniquely American difficulty. The Church doesn’t say that the primary justification for the *death penalty *is vindication… but it does say that the primary justification for *punishment *is to redress the disorder caused by sin or crime.

The ability to believe that the doctrines on punishment don’t apply to capital … um … punishment must be a uniquely Australian difficulty.

It seems to many Americans that this is a new perspective however St Augustine himself in the 5th century BC took it upon himself to influence the State to withdraw the sentence of death in numerous criminal convictions.

Yes he did, but he did not oppose its use universally, only specifically. That is, he objected to its use against those who had assaulted Christians, but he did not object to its use in other instances. His objection was motivated solely by prudential concerns.

Justice needs to be seen to be being done in order to serve the common good. The death penalty has long been perceived as cruel and unnecessary and therefore unjust in many jurisdictions and the Church supports this duty of the State to abandon it.

If you wish to argue that societies no longer recognize the just nature of capital punishment and therefore misunderstand its use, go ahead. That it may be perceived as cruel and unnecessary does not in fact make it unjust, merely unwise in such circumstances. There is no argument to be made that it is any crueler now than when the church herself employed it.

In the light of the times, what was implicit in the teachings of the Church in the past, has become explicit …

It is somewhat incomprehensible to understand how it could have been implicit in the teachings of the past when its use was defended in the past even as it is opposed today.

…and is a natural development …

A reversal of doctrine cannot be considered to be development.*It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. *(Christopher Ferrara)

…in attending to Gods will to guard as sacred, the life of men. As the Catechism teaches, this truth must be upheld for all time.

Actually, what the catechism says is that the teaching of Gn 9:5-6 remains necessary for all time.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

If you wish to argue that societies no longer recognize the just nature of capital punishment and therefore misunderstand its use, go ahead. That it may be perceived as cruel and unnecessary does not in fact make it unjust, merely unwise in such circumstances. There is no argument to be made that it is any crueler now than when the church herself employed it.

It is somewhat incomprehensible to understand how it could have been implicit in the teachings of the past when its use was defended in the past even as it is opposed today.
A reversal of doctrine cannot be considered to be development.*It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. *(Christopher Ferrara)
Actually, what the catechism says is that the teaching of Gn 9:5-6 remains necessary for all time.

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).

You have made a mission to discredit Pope John Paul II in guiding the Catholics of the world but he is not just a holy intelligent, selfless example of a man… he is very nearly canonised a saint. In so many ways he was a perfect channel of Gods merciful love for us all.

The Catholic Church is a faithful guide of souls. We trust in her authority to lead us in greater humanity and holiness in our relationship with our neighbour. It is a mistake to believe the death penalty is a sacred cow. The secular governments are required to determine what penalties serve the common good of the community. The Church strongly appeals to governments who are using it in a godlike manner as a divine right regardless of the wellbeing of the community it serves. The Catechism is not wrong or deficient in relating the Church position to the faithful. It should be received with due humility and gratitude and not defiant pridefulness.