How should I understand the CC's view on capital punishment?

[LongingSoul]

"In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. 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. I personally support this position…

I would like to see proof for this position on it doing more harm than good. How can man’s respect for life be any worse than it is now? The small amount of times CP is carried out, it can’t hardly contribute to this decay.

If you read the encyclical Evangelium Vitae you can see really clearly the Church’s reasoning for its stance.

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

Where I live, bush fire season is cranking up and it brought to my mind the principle of fighting fire with fire being somewhat similar to this issue. Backburning is necessary at times where a healthy flourishing undergrowth has meant abundant fuel for potential bush fires. It’s risky and highly controlled since it can easily get away and become the dreaded bush fire itself. Seasons that haven’t been as healthy mean less potential fodder for fire season and backburning is unnecessary and damaging. Now if someone decides to go ahead and backburn on his property from a false sense of its purpose, only concerned that it his ‘right’ to do it without conforming to the strict local conditions that prevent it from being more damaging than good, he becomes a criminal and his act, meant for healthy purposes becomes the crime. Backburning can actually be a crime here and it’s the environment essentially that makes it a crime. In that way, the use of CP in an environment that has a long seasonal dearth of foliage, is unnecessary and damaging in the big scheme.

If CP was carried out without just reason, than justice would suffer and more harm than good would come about. There are always exceptions to the rule and I do not think it should be used in EVERY situation. However, if a life is purposefully taken and proven beyond all doubt, then the person playing God without his authority should go to meet Him for judgment.

I think it is very wrong to think we have the right or authority to ‘send someone to meet God for judgement.’ This is exactly what makes the death penalty a vindictive and immoral act. We aren’t permitted to make that degree of judgement.

This is justice and mercy since the person loosing their life knows exactly when it is going to be taken and can prepare for it. No surprises for him if the Master comes at a time unknown. What a great gift it is to know exactly when you are going to die.

To take the opportunity to repent is one of the options open to the sentenced person if he chooses to take it. It is not the States duty to provide that ‘gift’ to him. This makes me more sure than ever that the US has the wrong attitude with regards to CP.

So you agree a government can use CP and not be morally wrong, regardless of the times we live in and regardless of who says they would prefer them not to?

No I don’t. Thomas Aquinas taught thus… *“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.” *

That’s the true Catholic position. The times make it a healthy or a toxic solution.

In explaining the Popes position of abolition, Cardinal Dulles explains that *“The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.” *

By that we can know that there are times and environments that the purposes of punishment can be achieved equally or better than capital punishment, by secure imprisonment. There is no room there to imagine that specifically avoiding the death penalty compromises any of the ends of punishment including redressing the disorder.

It’s all very clear that you are holding an erroneous position.

 

[shocktrooper]

If you read the encyclical Evangelium Vitae you can see really clearly the Church’s reasoning for its stance.

Where in the encyclical does it give evidence for CP causing more disrespect towards human life? Where does it say that less murders happen now because CP is rarely used as opposed to when it was used?

I think it is very wrong to think we have the right or authority to ‘send someone to meet God for judgement.’ This is exactly what makes the death penalty a vindictive and immoral act. We aren’t permitted to make that degree of judgement.

God gave those that hold legitimate authority within government the duty to carry out justice and this includes CP when necessary and just. Do you realize how many people within the Church over the past 2000 years you have just accused of being immoral or allowing such immoral acts to be carried out?

To take the opportunity to repent is one of the options open to the sentenced person if he chooses to take it. It is not the States duty to provide that ‘gift’ to him. This makes me more sure than ever that the US has the wrong attitude with regards to CP.

The “gift” of knowing when one is to die is a perk, not an obligation or duty of the state. Justice is.

No I don’t. Thomas Aquinas taught thus… *“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.” *

This has no bearing on our discussion since the chance of “uprooting” the wheat is not at play when executing a murderer when all doubt has been removed, unless of course, you wanted to napalm the poor guy.

In explaining the Popes position of abolition, Cardinal Dulles explains that *“The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.” *

Was Cardinal Dulles saying this with a murderer in mind or with an offense other than murder? I suspect he may not have been since only the “blood” of the murderer can redress the life he took. There is no other punishment that is equal or better, when considering justice, which has the primary purpose of redressing the crime, not preventing another.

It’s all very clear that you are holding an erroneous position.

As you mentioned before, you are not in a position to make that determination. I do not agree with you when you condemn those in the Church that accept CP as a valid option for governments merely on the lines for providing justice. You say CP is immoral (intrinsically evil) and I think that is a more dangerous position than what you accuse me of.

Read this for accounts of the Church ordering and carrying out CP.

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/02/the-death-penalty-being-vindictive-in-the-churchs-magisterium/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wdtprs%2FDhFa+%28Fr.+Z%27s+Blog±+What+Does+The+Prayer+Really+Say%3F%29

From the article posted just above…

When Blessed Pius IX was asked to grant a stay of execution for those condemned in 1868, the Pope firmly replied, “I cannot, and I do not want to.” He certainly could have by law, which he embodied as state sovereign with ”plenitudo potestatis,” but by enigmatically saying that he could not, he probably was declaring this a high matter of conscience in the interest of Augustinian tranquility of order as explained by such as Bellarmine, Liguori, Thomas More and Suarez.

The grandson of St. Elizabeth Anne Seton, Archbishop Robert Seton, long-lived but less loved, wrote that during the course of a holiday in France as a boy, the ceremonious spectacle of a man being beheaded inspired him greatly to think of the dignity of life. He was especially close to Leo XIII and St. Pius X who in 1905 reiterated the Roman Catechism of St. Pius V with reference to capital punishment: “Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment (to do no murder) such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life.” [This is part of the the Magisterium.]

continued below…

 

[shocktrooper]

All other considerations of the machinery of death aside, this paramount regard for the human soul is quaint only if belief in eternal life is vague. Pope Pius XII was so eager for vindictive penalties that he lent the help of a Jesuit archivist to assist the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials. He personally told the chief United States prosecutor, Robert Jackson: “Not only do we approve of the trial, but we desire that the guilty be punished as quickly as possible.” This was not in spite of, but issuing from, his understanding of the dual role of healing and vindication. This is essential doctrine on the subject and, in the “development of doctrine” on its application, it is the Type,” as Newman would say, that is to be preserved. All this should not be remaindered as historical curiosities, for, as [Venerable] Pope Pius XII said, “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” has its roots in “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine” and so it must not be said “that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances” for they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolica Sedis, 1955, pp.81-82).

 

[shocktrooper]

files.audiosancto.org/20121006-Capital-Punishment-is-Consistent-with-Dignity-for-Life.mp3

 

[shocktrooper]

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

So again, we are free to disagree. The Church’s current teaching on CP being done away with is merely prudential judgement and like private revelations, can be respectfully rejected. Ratzinger has clearly made that point since he would have, in no way, suggested that someone that has committed or supported a moral evil should be given the Body and Blood of Christ as if that right relationship between King and communicant was present.

On the flip side though, it would seem you are not free to dismiss the Church’s teaching on CP being primarily about expiation or redressing the crime by saying those that carry out or support CP are supporting an act that is immoral. The 1995 CCC did not address this point very clearly, and it surely did not reverse previous catechisms and teachings. Put simply, the catechism of the Council of Trent is still valid in every single way. Nothing in it concerning faith and morals has been abrogated.

 

[Ender]

Ender’s only position, as I see it, and it seems you agree with him, is that CP is not morally wrong and will always be an option for governments, since God himself has given us this option that is never to be done away with completely.

Not quite. Capital punishment is clearly not morally wrong and it will always be a right of governments to employ; that’s kind of a neutral position. My position actually is that for certain crimes including capital murder it ought to be used

the popes think CP should be shelved due to our culture of death, and that it would be best not to feed the monster by using CP at this moment in time.

This is my understanding.

So instead of those in the Church acting as teachers and explain the Church’s position and understanding on justice to the modern world, those inside her decide, once again, to conform to modern thinking and put aside traditional teachings so the Church may look “up to speed” or appealing to the lukewarm.

Whatever the reasons behind the position taken in opposition to capital punishment it does not seem to have had the hoped for effect and I think a lot of that is because the very dignity of life which the church hoped to appeal to is forgotten in the focus on the murderer instead of his victim.

Ender

 

[Ender]

That’s where Enders whole understanding is first compromised. He sees CP as something akin to a ‘sacrament’ instituted by God, rather than a practicle precept whose morality depends on how it serves the great goal of Gods law and human law… promoting the dignity of the human person. That was the whole point of Gen 9:6. Authority must conform to this goal above all things and recognise that the death penalty is cruel and unnecessary.

You really shouldn’t try to explain my position to someone else as it is apparent you have a poor grasp of what it is. You are welcome to respond to anything I’ve actually written but characterizing it as something and then objecting to the characterization you invented is not appropriate. Others can read and judge for themselves what I have written.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Where in the encyclical does it give evidence for CP causing more disrespect towards human life? Where does it say that less murders happen now because CP is rarely used as opposed to when it was used?

I’ll post the relevant paragraphs here but it is really good to read them in the context of the whole encyclical. This is from Chapter 3, paragraphs 55-57.

“*Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment “You shall not kill” has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person. And all the more so in the case of weak and defenceless human beings, who find their ultimate defence against the arrogance and caprice of others only in the absolute binding force of God’s commandment.

In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the Church’s Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium. This consistent teaching is the evident result of that “supernatural sense of the faith” which, inspired and sustained by the Holy Spirit, safeguards the People of God from error when “it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals”.

Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church’s Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defence of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief but incisive passage.”*

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

So what it says is by focusing even more strongly on the moral truth of the absolute inviolability of human life, we are situated to undermine the current ‘culture of death’ that pervades the mentality of man. If such care and respect for life is demonstrated in dealing with the guilty, how much more the meaning of life’s dignity relates to the innocent. That does make sense and has been displayed in the “supernatural sense of faith” of the people since before the encyclical was written. Where I live, the death penalty was abolished 100 years ago and has never been resurrected for anyone. It had lost its validity within a society struggling to establish true equality and justness in a really diverse community of disenfranchised peoples. It’s even more globally, an urgent issue because of the concepts of State sanctioned abortion and euthanasia, which derive from a sense that humans have the right of the life and death of others in circumstances that they deem fit. That is how the Church is approaching its campaign to end the death penalty in civilisation today. It no longer promotes human life’s dignity, it adds to the already wild destruction of life. Like an example of backburning when the bush fire is already upon us. It makes it worse. It can’t make it better.

 

[LongingSoul]

God gave those that hold legitimate authority within government the duty to carry out justice and this includes CP when necessary and just. Do you realize how many people within the Church over the past 2000 years you have just accused of being immoral or allowing such immoral acts to be carried out?

You are imagining that conclusion from a false sense of nature of CP. It’s not a ‘sacred’ institution, like Church or family where it would never be the case that they became ‘cruel and unnecessary’. It’s more of a judicial ‘precept’ which is something that serves the sacred Truths about God amongst the people of each age. CP has always been addressed by the Church as defensible within the context of the Fifth Commandment. Even the Catechism of Trent words it in that way…

“The end of the Commandment (fifth) 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.”

Some in the Church used it immorally at times for which the Church has now apologised, but when permitted by circumstance that require the “repressing of outrage and violence", CP is served a just purpose.

“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.”

This has no bearing on our discussion since the chance of “uprooting” the wheat is not at play when executing a murderer when all doubt has been removed, unless of course, you wanted to napalm the poor guy.

The quote is actually in the context of Aquinas treatise on Murder under article 2. ‘Whether it is lawful to kill sinners.’ It relates specifically to the case of murderers.

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm

In explaining the Popes position of abolition, Cardinal Dulles explains that “The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.”

Was Cardinal Dulles saying this with a murderer in mind or with an offense other than murder? I suspect he may not have been since only the “blood” of the murderer can redress the life he took. There is no other punishment that is equal or better, when considering justice, which has the primary purpose of redressing the crime, not preventing another.

Dulles was speaking of the position of the Church regarding Capital Punishment. He makes no distinction between crimes but really, has anyone been executed in contemporary society for anything other than murder that would make that a relevant point?

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

 

[LongingSoul]

As you mentioned before, you are not in a position to make that determination. I do not agree with you when you condemn those in the Church that accept CP as a valid option for governments merely on the lines for providing justice. You say CP is immoral (intrinsically evil) and I think that is a more dangerous position than what you accuse me of.

No, I didn’t say that CP is intrinsically evil. The Church has specifically said it is not and I conform to the Church teaching on everything. I’m not condemning anyone. You had asked “So you agree a government can use CP and not be morally wrong, regardless of the times we live in and regardless of who says they would prefer them not to?” My contemporaries and I are 2 or 3 generations distant from a culture that used the death penalty. It’s never been our thought that the US are being immoral in retaining it, since the Church taught its legitimacy as a tool of justice and frankly common sense tells us that the death penalty may be the only way to protect others in some scenarios. However, the Church in dealing with the horrid contemporary problems of the ‘right to kill’ mentality of a godless culture, discerns that the death penalty no longer serves a legitimate purpose in promoting the dignity of man and the eternal nature of his soul. That is fairly evident to me I must say even if it were only individual commentators suggesting such a thing. But for me, the reality is that the Church, my Mother in Christ and my teacher and guide and home in the wilderness of this life… is courageously taking the faithful into the midst of this culture of death with a light that can be trusted and followed by everyone, as stewards of humanity. The death penalty is feeding into a culture of death. It wroughts more damage to that end than good.

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

When I read then Card. Ratzingers statement, his words clearly show the way in which the death penalty and just war serve humanity. They are ‘permissable’ and the State can legally ‘have recourse’ to them. These words define those options as a solution which can be resorted to and that clearly shows they are not a general rule. When the then Card. says that there can be legitimate diversity among Catholics regarding applying those options, it is the context of last resorts. He is not saying that we can behold either as a ‘general rule’ without civil qualifications the way we behold other institutions that have the divine ‘imprimatur’ like family or Church. Do you agree with that? We can disagree on its application, not regarding its very nature.

 

[catholictiger]

You really shouldn’t try to explain my position to someone else as it is apparent you have a poor grasp of what it is. You are welcome to respond to anything I’ve actually written but characterizing it as something and then objecting to the characterization you invented is not appropriate. Others can read and judge for themselves what I have written.

Ender

still going at this ender

glad to see you put a full effort into this.

God bless

 

[Ender]

So what it says is by focusing even more strongly on the moral truth of the absolute inviolability of human life, we are situated to undermine the current ‘culture of death’ that pervades the mentality of man.

That isn’t what it says for the simple reason that the church does not see human life as “absolutely inviolable”. There are now and always have been valid circumstances where human life may be taken. JPII was opposed to the culture of death but he never invalidated church teaching on when one is justified in taking a life.

Ender

 

[Ender]

[Capital punishment is] more of a judicial ‘precept’ which is something that serves the sacred Truths about God amongst the people of each age.

Yes, it is a precept, which is exactly what Bellarmine said and who I have several times cited. As for truths among “people of each age” I would point out that truth does not change between different cultures or times; it is unchangeable, thus it is a precept for all times … which explains the comment in 2260 that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

CP has always been addressed by the Church as defensible within the context of the Fifth Commandment.

Since the fifth commandment is the prohibition against murder, all instances where life is taken are explained within that context, with capital punishment described as an exception to that prohibition.

The quote is actually in the context of Aquinas treatise on Murder under article 2. ‘Whether it is lawful to kill sinners.’ It relates specifically to the case of murderers.

Arguments can be made for and against using capital punishment for crimes other than murder but for that crime, as Aquinas said, the punishment is “fixed by divine law.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

still going at this ender

glad to see you put a full effort into this.

Yes, well it is the topic I have most fully investigated and therefore the one I feel most competent to comment on.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

That isn’t what it says for the simple reason that the church does not see human life as “absolutely inviolable”. There are now and always have been valid circumstances where human life may be taken. JPII was opposed to the culture of death but he never invalidated church teaching on when one is justified in taking a life.

Ender

This is how John Paul II has worded it for the benefit of anyone who still reads the thread.

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

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God’, and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being”.41 With these words the Instruction Donum Vitae sets forth the central content of God’s revelation on the sacredness and inviolability of human life.

Sacred Scripture in fact presents the precept “You shall not kill” as a divine commandment (Ex 20:13; Dt 5:17). As I have already emphasized, this commandment is found in the Decalogue, at the heart of the Covenant which the Lord makes with his chosen people; but it was already contained in the original covenant between God and humanity after the purifying punishment of the Flood, caused by the spread of sin and violence (cf. Gen 9:5-6).

God proclaims that he is absolute Lord of the life of man, who is formed in his image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-28). Human life is thus given a sacred and inviolable character, which reflects the inviolability of the Creator himself. Precisely for this reason God will severely judge every violation of the commandment “You shall not kill”, the commandment which is at the basis of all life together in society……

This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. 43 There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, it is a precept, which is exactly what Bellarmine said and who I have several times cited. As for truths among “people of each age” I would point out that truth does not change between different cultures or times; it is unchangeable, thus it is a precept for all times … which explains the comment in 2260 that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

To anyone still reading, Aquinas speaks of judicial precepts here…

newadvent.org/summa/2104.htm

On the question of ‘Whether the judicial precepts of the Old Law bind for ever?’ Aquinas replies…

"On the contrary, The Apostle says (Hebrews 7:12) that “the priesthood being translated it is necessary that a translation also be made of the Law.” But the priesthood was transferred from Aaron to Christ. Therefore the entire Law was also transferred. Therefore the judicial precepts are no longer in force.

The judicial precepts did not bind for ever, but were annulled by the coming of Christ: yet not in the same way as the ceremonial precepts. For the ceremonial precepts were annulled so far as to be not only “dead,” but also deadly to those who observe them since the coming of Christ, especially since the promulgation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the judicial precepts are dead indeed, because they have no binding force: but they are not deadly. For if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin: unless perchance they were observed, or ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force through being institutions of the Old Law: for it would be a deadly sin to intend to observe them thus.

The reason for this difference may be gathered from what has been said above (Article 2). For it has been stated that the ceremonial precepts are figurative primarily and in themselves, as being instituted chiefly for the purpose of foreshadowing the mysteries of Christ to come. On the other hand, the judicial precepts were not instituted that they might be figures, but that they might shape the state of that people who were directed to Christ. Consequently, when the state of that people changed with the coming of Christ, the judicial precepts lost their binding force: for the Law was a pedagogue, leading men to Christ, as stated in Galatians 3:24. Since, however, these judicial precepts are instituted, not for the purpose of being figures, but for the performance of certain deeds, the observance thereof is not prejudicial to the truth of faith. **But the intention of observing them, as though one were bound by the Law, is prejudicial to the truth of faith: because it would follow that the former state of the people still lasts, and that Christ has not yet come. **

The obligation of observing justice is indeed perpetual. But the determination of those things that are just, according to human or Divine institution, must needs be different, according to the different states of mankind."

To the specific objection ‘Further, Divine institutions are more enduring than human institutions. But the judicial precepts of human laws bind for ever. Therefore much more do the judicial precepts of the Divine Law.’ His reply…

"The judicial precepts established by men retain their binding force for ever, so long as the state of government remains the same. But if the state or nation pass to another form of government, the laws must needs be changed. For democracy, which is government by the people, demands different laws from those of oligarchy, which is government by the rich, as the Philosopher shows (Polit. iv, 1). Consequently when the state of that people changed, the judicial precepts had to be changed also.

Reply to Objection 3. Those judicial precepts directed the people to justice and equity, in keeping with the demands of that state. But after the coming of Christ, there had to be a change in the state of that people, so that in Christ there was no distinction between Gentile and Jew, as there had been before. For this reason the judicial precepts needed to be changed also."

 

[Ender]

Aquinas speaks of judicial precepts here…
" But the priesthood was transferred from Aaron to Christ. Therefore the entire Law was also transferred. Therefore the judicial precepts are no longer in force.

Unlike Aquinas’ topic, the issue we’re dealing with has nothing to do with Mosaic Law but rather is about the covenant with Noah (viz Gn 9:6), which is eternal. Citing Aquinas on the judicial precepts relating to the Law of Moses is not relevant.

To the specific objection ‘Further, Divine institutions are more enduring than human institutions. But the judicial precepts of human laws bind for ever. Therefore much more do the judicial precepts of the Divine Law.’ His reply…

"The judicial precepts established by men retain their binding force for ever, so long as the state of government remains the same. … Consequently when the state of that people changed, the judicial precepts had to be changed also.

If Aquinas believed that man made laws were binding forever - as long as the government remained the same - he surely believed that divine laws endured forever. Inasmuch as he observed that the penalty for murder was set by divine law it seems clear he accepted that it would never change.

Ender

 

[shocktrooper]

I’ll post the relevant paragraphs here but it is really good to read them in the context of the whole encyclical. This is from Chapter 3, paragraphs 55-57.

So what it says is by focusing even more strongly on the moral truth of the absolute inviolability of human life, we are situated to undermine the current ‘culture of death’ that pervades the mentality of man. If such care and respect for life is demonstrated in dealing with the guilty, how much more the meaning of life’s dignity relates to the innocent. That does make sense and has been displayed in the “supernatural sense of faith” of the people since before the encyclical was written. Where I live, the death penalty was abolished 100 years ago and has never been resurrected for anyone. It had lost its validity within a society struggling to establish true equality and justness in a really diverse community of disenfranchised peoples. It’s even more globally, an urgent issue because of the concepts of State sanctioned abortion and euthanasia, which derive from a sense that humans have the right of the life and death of others in circumstances that they deem fit. That is how the Church is approaching its campaign to end the death penalty in civilisation today. It no longer promotes human life’s dignity, it adds to the already wild destruction of life. Like an example of backburning when the bush fire is already upon us. It makes it worse. It can’t make it better.

Since their reasoning is based on practical and concrete things and not an immoral or intrinsically evil act, then empirical evidence must be provided to support their conclusions. I am looking for stats that suggest a more violent and murderous population when CP is used often as opposed to when it is not. From what I can see, they provided no such information and did not offer a footnote directing us to such information. Do you know where I can obtain this information?

 

[shocktrooper]

No, I didn’t say that CP is intrinsically evil. The Church has specifically said it is not and I conform to the Church teaching on everything. I’m not condemning anyone. …

You said this in comment #140.

I think it is very wrong to think we have the right or authority to ‘send someone to meet God for judgement.’ This is exactly what makes the death penalty a vindictive and immoral act. We aren’t permitted to make that degree of judgement.

My understanding of an immoral act is that it is an act that has no moral good in it, even if done with good intentions, which makes it intrinsically evil. Maybe you meant to say that a morally neutral act (CP) done with vindictive motives or ill intentions is immoral. The link below is to an article I read the other day. It basically concludes that CP should be done away with in America because of the immorality of the people that carry it out. I would tend to agree with this premise and support it, as long as the act of CP does not become, as some would say, “a vindictive and immoral act” and banned for all time. It is quite clear that those in positions of authority, here in America, are no longer abiding by the moral teachings of God. However, the argument that CP should be done away with because it breeds a disrespect for life is unsubstantiated and quite frankly, a poor argument.

mises.org/daily/6571/The-Government-Cant-be-Trusted-With-the-Death-Penalty