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

[shockerfan]

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?

Not sure where you are going with this…help me out. Seems to me that a legitimately elected public authority utilizing prudential judgment that is not in conflict with moral law would be justified in its choice of punishment.

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

Wouldn’t this subject fall under the heading of “development of doctrine”? The CCC references the most current teaching of the Church (including a quote from the last Vicar of Christ to speak on the topic). The CCC does not contradict St. Thomas (from my very brief look at his comments on the topic), as it does allow for capital punishment, its just limits its application. Am I wrong?

 

[Ender]

Not sure where you are going with this…help me out. Seems to me that a legitimately elected public authority utilizing prudential judgment that is not in conflict with moral law would be justified in its choice of punishment.

I’m focusing on the nature of punishment and what the church teaches about it. We know, for example, that in Dickensian England people were hanged for stealing bread, and we have no problem condemning such sentences. We can also surely find examples where punishments have been too lenient, and we rightly condemn those as well. My questions are: (1) what guideline does the church provide regarding the proper severity of a punishment, and (2) what does she identify as the primary objective of punishment?

Ender

 

[shockerfan]

I’m focusing on the nature of punishment and what the church teaches about it. We know, for example, that in Dickensian England people were hanged for stealing bread, and we have no problem condemning such sentences. We can also surely find examples where punishments have been too lenient, and we rightly condemn those as well. My questions are: (1) what guideline does the church provide regarding the proper severity of a punishment, and (2) what does she identify as the primary objective of punishment?

Ender

From the CCC

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. **Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.**67

The Church, on a number of subjects, does not spell out everything. Much would have to fall back on a “well formed” conscience and moral law. I know that doesn’t specifically answer your question, but its the best I have.

 

[Cimachol]

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

I don’t know that this is true. Imminent death could very well be a motive for redemption, perhaps more so than life imprisonment. (Think of the thief who asked Christ to remember him as he died.) A near-death experience in my own life has led me to conversion.

 

[Ender]

The Church, on a number of subjects, does not spell out everything. Much would have to fall back on a “well formed” conscience and moral law. I know that doesn’t specifically answer your question, but its the best I have.

Well you cited the passage that answers those questions but it needs to be made a little more obvious.
(Q1) How do we determine the proper severity of a punishment?
(A1) Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. (CCC 2266)

That is, the severity of the punishment not only may, but must, be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. It is the nature of the crime that determines the nature of the punishment.

(Q2) What is the primary objective of punishment?
(A2) Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. (CCC 2266)

This is unfortunately not worded so that most people recognize what is actually being said here, but the short answer to Q2 is this: the primary objective of punishment is retribution.

In thinking about both questions one thing should stand out: the answer to neither question is "the protection of society" so the obvious question here is, if protection does not determine the severity of the punishment and is not the primary objective, then on what basis can it be said to determine whether or not capital punishment is to be used?

Ender

 

[Cimachol]

Personally, I have mixed feelings on the death penalty. I’m skeptical of the state’s ability to render “one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.” In the U.S., it seems to me that organized crime does in many cases allow for criminals to continue to commit crimes while in prison in some cases, and that corruption in our judiciary – for example, defense lawyers and misguided judges who believe that career criminals should be let go if they seem really sorry and behave themselves in prison, or if the slightest technicality can be shown in the prosecution of their cases – has led to the release of people who ought never be allowed to go free.

That said, the number of appeals and the time it takes for an execution to occur in the U.S. pretty much render the actual application of the death penalty “very rare, if not practically non-existent” as it is. (According to the National Safety Council, the odds of dying from legal execution in 2010 was 1 in 96,203.) I have a hard time believing that such an impotent threat to criminals is much of a deterrent, nor does it seem like much justice is being implemented in that respect.

What actually concerns me far more than the death penalty is allegations of prison violence, if it truly is as widespread as sometimes claimed. (A Bureau of Justice report found that nearly 1 in 10 state prisoners was sexually victimized during imprisonment.) I’ve even heard politicians joke about prison rape like it’s some form of justice, but the truth is, no one should be sentenced to suffer rape or other abuse.

While I don’t believe prisoners should enjoy the accommodations of a luxury hotel, conditions should be humane.

 

[LongingSoul]

My questions are: (1) what guideline does the church provide regarding the proper severity of a punishment, and (2) what does she identify as the primary objective of punishment?

Ender

The Church does not dictate what punishment should be. She leaves it to public authority to determine what punishments best redress the disorder disturbing the common good of the citizens it serves.

The Church guidance has to do with the morality of the works of the public authority and brotherly correction, not tell the public authorities what God wants them to do. The authority given to public authority is god given and the Church in her capacity is limited to brotherly correction and moral guidance. This is demonstrated in the Church teaching that if no candidate running for election holds the strictly Catholic line, it is best to vote for the lesser of two evils in bringing about the common good of the citizens.

Around the developed world, public authorities have been abolishing the death penalty for the last century as not in keeping with the common good. The Church is not making this a rule. She is commenting on the public authorities right to make this move and affirming that it is in keeping with the sacred dignity of the human being as per biblical revelation.

 

[Ender]

I’m skeptical of the state’s ability to render "one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm…

The assertion that a state can accomplish this is a prudential judgment; it is not church doctrine and we may justifiably disagree.
*[The Magisterium’s] prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.

• (Cardinal Dulles)

…- without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself."

Rehabilitation is one of the valid objectives of punishment, but it is a secondary objective about which there are two points:

1. The fact that the criminal may not repent does not invalidate the use of the death penalty.
   "Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” (Aquinas)
2. The death penalty is itself expiatory if the prisoner accepts his punishment.

According to the National Safety Council, the odds of dying from legal execution in 2010 was 1 in 96,203.

) I have a hard time believing that such an impotent threat to criminals is much of a deterrent…
Deterrence is another (secondary) objective of punishment, and while an argument can be made that it rarely deters it is unreasonable to assert that no one is ever deterred. Since deterrence provides protection to society, if it could be shown that the use of capital punishment was effective that would argue for its increased use. Clearly the moral nature of its application cannot depend on what social sciences discover about it, which is just another argument against its use being determined by whether or not it is necessary for protection.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Church does not dictate what punishment should be. She leaves it to public authority to determine what punishments best redress the disorder disturbing the common good of the citizens it serves.

Since I never suggested the church dictates what punishment must be used this objection is not relevant. Your comment about public authority mixes two separate issues, one moral and one prudential. The moral issue deals with determining what punishment is just, and the church provides guidelines for that (“commensurate with the severity of the crime”). She also recognizes that there may be valid prudential reasons why a just punishment should not be used in a particular case and recognizes that public authorities are called upon to make that determination. These are very distinct issues and it does not diminish the nature of the moral argument by appealing to prudential exceptions.

The Church guidance has to do with the morality of the works of the public authority and brotherly correction, not tell the public authorities what God wants them to do.

What is moral guidance other than telling someone what God would have him do?

Around the developed world, public authorities have been abolishing the death penalty for the last century as not in keeping with the common good.

This is a prudential objection, not a moral one.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Since I never suggested the church dictates what punishment must be used this objection is not relevant. Your comment about public authority mixes two separate issues, one moral and one prudential. The moral issue deals with determining what punishment is just, and the church provides guidelines for that (“commensurate with the severity of the crime”). She also recognizes that there may be valid prudential reasons why a just punishment should not be used in a particular case and recognizes that public authorities are called upon to make that determination. These are very distinct issues and it does not diminish the nature of the moral argument by appealing to prudential exceptions.

What is moral guidance other than telling someone what God would have him do?

This is a prudential objection, not a moral one.

Ender

Do you not think that a public authority choosing to take recourse to the death penalty is a prudential judgement also? Aren’t public authorities exclusively concerned with the common good of the people they serve? What makes something just or unjust other than how it contributes or detracts from the common good? To my understanding that is why the Church says that supporting abortion is inherently immoral, but when voting, a Catholic may morally vote for a candidate promoting a lesser evil. Otherwise she would say that a Catholic must never vote for anyone but a strictly pro life candidate. By this, I believe we are seeing a demonstration of how the Church regards the god given mandate of public authorities. Every decision of the public authorities is essentially a prudential one.

 

[Ender]

Do you not think that a public authority choosing to take recourse to the death penalty is a prudential judgement also? Aren’t public authorities exclusively concerned with the common good of the people they serve? What makes something just or unjust other than how it contributes or detracts from the common good? To my understanding that is why the Church says that supporting abortion is inherently immoral, but when voting, a Catholic may morally vote for a candidate promoting a lesser evil. Otherwise she would say that a Catholic must never vote for anyone but a strictly pro life candidate. By this, I believe we are seeing a demonstration of how the Church regards the god given mandate of public authorities. Every decision of the public authorities is essentially a prudential one.

This is an argument that there are only prudential objections to capital punishment. If that is indeed your position then we are agreed but if that is not your position then you should recognize that raising prudential objections, which is all you’ve addressed here, says nothing whatever about the moral issues involved.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This is an argument that there are only prudential objections to capital punishment. If that is indeed your position then we are agreed but if that is not your position then you should recognize that raising prudential objections, which is all you’ve addressed here, says nothing whatever about the moral issues involved.

Ender

Do you mean objections based on prudential judgement? Prudential objections would make everything relative.

The decision of the state to introduce or abolish the death penalty is based on the needs of the common good of those it serves. Punishment is a principle of justice and punishment must fit the crime and we can know that through reason as it is compelled by natural law. When a death sentence is outlawed, the Church will stand up and say although the death penalty is not inherently evil, it is not serving the common good by promoting a culture of death.

When the state in the past decided that for the common good the death penalty needed to be employed… the Church would stand up and say although the death penalty is not inherently holy and commanded, (as demonstrated by the Churchs appeals for clemency for the convicted) the state has the right to use it in promoting the common good.

Objections to the death penalty are based on the civil duty to the common good. The Church with her duty to charity above all and the dignity of humankind, contributes moral weight to the issue where she can and must.

 

[Ender]

Punishment is a principle of justice and punishment must fit the crime and we can know that through reason as it is compelled by natural law.

We are agreed on this.

When a death sentence is outlawed, the Church will stand up and say although the death penalty is not inherently evil, it is not serving the common good by promoting a culture of death. When the state in the past decided that for the common good the death penalty needed to be employed… the Church would stand up and say although the death penalty is not inherently holy and commanded, (as demonstrated by the Churchs appeals for clemency for the convicted) the state has the right to use it in promoting the common good.

You might want to rethink this. What you’ve said is that the church responds to the actions of states by justifying their actions, whether they employ or outlaw capital punishment.

The Church with her duty to charity above all and the dignity of humankind, contributes moral weight to the issue where she can and must.

If, as you claim above, the church supports the state regardless of which action the state chooses, what moral weight is being contributed?

But this isn’t all that relevant as I don’t believe you quite meant it the way you wrote it.

In any event I’ll make my position as clear as I can:

• We are justified in opposing the use of capital punishment if we believe it causes more problems than it resolves. This is a prudential judgment which, like all judgments, may be correct or incorrect.
• We are not justified in opposing the use of capital punishment if we believe its use is immoral (e.g. is a violation of man’s inherent dignity).

That is, we may oppose it if we believe it is a mistake but we may not oppose it in the belief that it is a sin.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

When a death sentence is outlawed, the Church will stand up and say although the death penalty is not inherently evil, it is not serving the common good by promoting a culture of death. When the state in the past decided that for the common good the death penalty needed to be employed… the Church would stand up and say although the death penalty is not inherently holy and commanded, (as demonstrated by the Churchs appeals for clemency for the convicted) the state has the right to use it in promoting the common good.

But isn’t that the nature of the Church? She is servant to the faithful in her mission. I’m thinking that when you read the writings of the Fathers and Doctors and Popes from the past, that they appear to you as prophecies/proclamations in the way the Jews heard the word of God. Everything the Church addresses, is in response to the needs of the world at the time. It’s always been that way. Unlike the Jewish relationship with God where the prophets were told to build arks and take flight and settle in particular places… the Church serves the Christian relationship with God, where we regard our neighbour and his needs with charity, respect the public authorities role in promoting neighbourly charity and being the godly guide to tame and convert the godlessness of the natural world which tends towards survival of the fittest and the like… the opposite of godly neighbourliness.

So when you are stressing this idea of prudential judgement as being something new and different, I don’t think you are taking into account that this is what the Church has always done by her letters and encyclicals since the beginning. Doctrine is necessarily more sacred and deep than any one particular writing from the Church that addresses it. All the writings collectively contribute to the understanding that we have of them.

The Church with her duty to charity above all and the dignity of humankind, contributes moral weight to the issue where she can and must.

If, as you claim above, the church supports the state regardless of which action the state chooses, what moral weight is being contributed?

But this isn’t all that relevant as I don’t believe you quite meant it the way you wrote it.

The position I have is very tangible to me as it permeates every corner of my life so no, I’m not confused.

In any event I’ll make my position as clear as I can:

• We are justified in opposing the use of capital punishment if we believe it causes more problems than it resolves. This is a prudential judgment which, like all judgments, may be correct or incorrect.

• We are not justified in opposing the use of capital punishment if we believe its use is immoral (e.g. is a violation of man’s inherent dignity).

That is, we may oppose it if we believe it is a mistake but we may not oppose it in the belief that it is a sin.

Ender

I really can’t fathom how you integrate your distinctions into the fabric of your faith life? If something is doing more harm than good to people but you choose by another principle to keep doing it, doesn’t that make it immoral? Not inherently evil of course because like any tool of service, it is the use of it that determines the morality. Say if mass vaccinations one day begin doing more harm than good but we keep doing it anyway on principle, doesn’t it make that action immoral? Considering Matthew 22:36-40 …

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If we are doing something that is bad for our neighbour because we deem it good for God, we are in serious conflict with Truth.

 

[Ender]

So when you are stressing this idea of prudential judgement as being something new and different…

Stop inventing my position. I’ve said this before, if you can’t cite what I’ve said and comment on my actual position you really shouldn’t comment at all. If you think I’ve claimed prudential judgments are something new, and especially that I have stressed this idea, you should be able to quote where I said it. You can’t because I haven’t.

I really can’t fathom how you integrate your distinctions into the fabric of your faith life?

Clearly.

If something is doing more harm than good to people but you choose by another principle to keep doing it, doesn’t that make it immoral?

You seem incapable of recognizing the points being discussed and since you won’t cite my actual comments let me do it:
We are justified in opposing the use of capital punishment if we believe it causes more problems than it resolves.
What part of that suggests we should continue doing something that causes harm? How can I make this any clearer? This is what I said in the post you were responding to. How can you possibly reach the conclusion you just did after reading that statement?

If we are doing something that is bad for our neighbour because we deem it good for God, we are in serious conflict with Truth.

I think the most serious conflict with the truth lies between what I actually say and what you interpret those comments to mean.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

What actually concerns me far more than the death penalty is allegations of prison violence, if it truly is as widespread as sometimes claimed. (A Bureau of Justice report found that nearly 1 in 10 state prisoners was sexually victimized during imprisonment.) I’ve even heard politicians joke about prison rape like it’s some form of justice, but the truth is, no one should be sentenced to suffer rape or other abuse.

The law below was ill-conceived which delayed its implementation, yet it does address this problem. Hopefully the regulations will become more stream-lined and realistic, as many of the provisions of this bill are really good.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Rape_Elimination_Act_of_2003

 

[estesbob]

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

Your problem s that the Church does now and always has allowed for the Death Penalty. Pope Benedict made it clear that support of the Death penalty was a matter of prudential judgement for Catholics.