Is it licit to support the death penalty

[BigFellaMick]

The Church permits Catholics to disagree with Pope John Paull II on this matter and in good conscience.

Pope John Paul II made a prudential judgment on the application of the death penalty, not a declaration on its morality.

But you can’t really say you speak from good conscience if the result is the termination of life?

 

[porthos11]

Pius XII has been succeeded by other Popes. The current Pope is against the death penalty.

Which Church teaching should we follow? Should we search through history to find that which most closely matches our own opinions and beliefs, or should we follow current teaching which speaks to the world and the context we live in.

If the Church reversed her moral teaching on the death penalty, then she has changed on a matter of morals, and therefore cannot be infallible or indefectable and therefore not the Church Christ founded.

I absolutely refuse to accept that premise. Therefore I must conclude that the Church has not changed her moral teaching, just that her pastors have stated that only under circumstances these days can this punishment be inflicted.

Further, if the Prefect for the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith stated that further, Catholics may in good conscience disagree with the Holy Father on the application of the death penalty, why do you not permit Catholics do just that?

 

[porthos11]

But you can’t really say you speak from good conscience if the result is the termination of life?

Yes, I can. The Church permits it.

 

[porthos11]

I appreciate the stance you are making Porthos: you want people to be able to choose, and not be bulldozed into a belief.

However, Pius XII has been succeeded by other Popes. The current Pope is against the death penalty.

Which Church teaching should we follow? Should we search through history to find that which most closely matches our own opinions and beliefs, or should we follow current teaching which speaks to the world and the context we live in.

I’m not sure that one “can” support the death penalty, based on the reading I’ve done, and the opinions put forward by other posters. I think we may at most “tolerate” the death penalty in extreme cases.

Your opinion is a valid one and one you are permitted to hold, under the same principles I stated.

Yes we should search through history and harmonize, not pick-and-choose. That exactly what allows us to distinguish between moral teaching and prudential judgment.

 

[triumphguy]

So who’s teaching holds more sway today? Pius XII or Benedict XVI?

We don’t live in a time where the Vatican executes people, or where Gods commands the death of those who steal firewood. We live in a different time with a different pope.

 

[someperson555]

Yes, you may disagree with the Pope where allowed. Fact remains that the Pope did not use his infallibility to declare the death penalty immoral (he could not, infallibility would have prevented him from reversing the Church’s moral teaching).

As for not disagreeing with the Pope, I have a Pope that supports the death penalty, and I quoted him above. It’s infallible either, but neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI have ever declared the death penalty immoral. They just differ on how it is to be applied.

Until 1870, the Papal States, over whom the Pope was ruler, executed criminals. It in fact, had a professional headsman in its employ (the method was beheading with the axe). Vatican City, the temporal holding of the Holy See, had the death penalty on its laws until 1969. That’s a strong argument against the Church being “against” the death penalty in principle.

As for the Scriptures, God imposes the death penalty for gathering firewood on the Sabbath.

So no, neither Church no Scriptures prohibit the death penalty.

no, you must realise that those were different times. back then it was a very different world than the one today. back then they could not afford “rehabilitation” of criminals. you know, back then, they also had the death penalty for stealing, so youre telling me you support that too? OH and i KNEW that someone was going to bring up that “eye for an eye” quote from the bible. again, that was merely because of the times. back then they also executed theives and blasphemers, so do you agree with that too? the law of the old testament allows divorce, so should we allow it? you cant cherry pick your ideology to fit your personal beliefs.

 

[porthos11]

So who’s teaching holds more sway today? Pius XII or Benedict XVI?

We don’t live in a time where the Vatican executes people, or where Gods commands the death of those who steal firewood. We live in a different time with a different pope.

Both of them. As you said, you can’t pick-and-choose. You must consider what Pope Benedict said, in light of Pope Pius and all that came before him.

As for the Vatican executing people, that’s just an illustration that the Catholic Church at one time supported the death penalty, pointing to its morality. As with all morals, what was once moral cannot become immoral and vice versa. As I said, the Church, being infallible, cannot change a moral teaching, even if she proposes limits to suit the character of the times. Those proposals are prudential, not moral in nature.

 

[porthos11]

no, you must realise that those were different times. back then it was a very different world than the one today. back then they could not afford “rehabilitation” of criminals. you know, back then, they also had the death penalty for stealing, so youre telling me you support that too? OH and i KNEW that someone was going to bring up that “eye for an eye” quote from the bible. again, that was merely because of the times. back then they also executed theives and blasphemers, so do you agree with that too? the law of the old testament allows divorce, so should we allow it? you cant cherry pick your ideology to fit your personal beliefs.

My beliefs are the beliefs of the Church.

 

[triumphguy]

Both of them. As you said, you can’t pick-and-choose. You must consider what Pope Benedict said, in light of Pope Pius and all that came before him.

As for the Vatican executing people, that’s just an illustration that the Catholic Church at one time supported the death penalty, pointing to its morality. As with all morals, what was once moral cannot become immoral and vice versa. As I said, the Church, being infallible, cannot change a moral teaching, even if she proposes limits to suit the character of the times. Those proposals are prudential, not moral in nature.

OK, you’re saying that morality cannot change: something is either wrong or right, and has been for all time, based on Scripture and Church teaching.

However consider that we must work for:

“the building up of the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children … but speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love (Eph 4:12-16).”

 

[dudleysharp]

Basically the Church teaches that the death penalty is available only when the lives of others are in jeopardy. It is not available as punishment, and it is not available as deterrence. Thus, in the western world it would not be a moral option.

That is incorrect.

There is a 2000 year record of Catholic Saints, Popes, religious leaders, biblical scholars and theologians speaking in favor of the death penalty, a record of scholarship, in breadth and depth, which overwhelms any position to the contrary.

The very recent change in the Catholic position is based upon a wrongly considered prudential judgement which finds that “defense of society”, a utilitarian concern, not a moral one, very rarely, if ever, requires execution.

This change in teaching is much more radical than has, generally, been acknowledged and is based upon the Church’s switch to utilitarianism - defense of society - when the teachings have been and must be based upon justice, biblical and theological teachings and tradition - all of which conflict with the newest teachings based upon utility – as utility and justice have major conflicts.

In addition, the evidence is overwhelming that execution offers much greater defense of society than does a life sentence. Dead murderers are infinitely less likely to harm and murder, again than are living murderers.

Living murderers create death and harm in prison, after escape and after improper release. The cases are well known and are daily occurrences.

It is a mystery why the Church chose a utilitarian prudential judgement over eternal teachings based upon justice and chose to spare more murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, but that is, precisely what She has done.

It is also a mystery why the Church didn’t review the available evidence, that execution offers a greater defense of society.

Thankfully, as the Church’s wrongly considered about face is based upon a utilitarian foundation, which is a prudential judgement, such means that any Catholic can support more executions and remain a Catholic in good standing.

 

[dudleysharp]

From Fr. Michael, at All Experts.com

The teaching of the Church from the earliest centuries, as represented,
e.g., in the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 64, A. 2), and St. Alphonsus Liguori (all
Doctors of the Church), as well as in the Encyclical Casti Conubii of Pope
Pius XI, is that society has the authority to inflict punishments upon its
members, and even to deprive a criminal of his life, for the necessity of the
common good: (1) primarily, to vindicate the moral order and expiate the
crime, (2) secondarily, to defend itself, (3) to deter other would-be
offenders, and (4) to reform the criminal or deter future crime.

   Pope Pius XII, in an address ("Ce Premier Congress") on the moral

limits of medical research and treatment to the First International Congress
of Histopathology of the Nervous System, held in Rome on September 13, 1952,
contrasted the right to life with the benefit of life in the case of a justly
condemned criminal: "Even when there is question of a person condemned to
death, the state does not take away the right of the individual to life.
It is then reserved to the public authority to deprive the condemned person
of the benefit of life in expiation for his guilt, after he himself, by his
crime, has already deprived himself of his right to life. (Acta Apostolicae
Sedis XLIV (1952), p. 787)

   The dogmatic Council of Trent decreed:  "[well founded is] the right

and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of
penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases
of extreme gravity, the death penalty."

   It should be noted that to vindicate the moral order means not the

taking of vengeance upon the criminal, but imposing upon the criminal
some act or loss or suffering as a form of compensation to right the
balance of justice. Of such “vindictive” punishment, Pope Pius XII
stated: “It would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of
principle the function of vindictive punishment. While man is on earth,
such punishment both can and should help toward his eternal salvation,
provided he himself raises no obstacles to its salutary efficacy”
(Discourse of December 5, 1954, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLVI, p. 67).

   Given these purposes, an execution may take place if the following

conditions are met: (a) the guilt of the prisoner is certain; (b) the
crime is of major gravity; (c) the penalty is to be inflicted, after due
process, by state authority, not by private individuals or by lynching,
and (d) the prisoner is given the opportunity to make his peace with
God.

   Given these criteria, Catholics may differ in their prudential

judgments as to whether a particular society needs to employ capital
punishment for its own protection. To say that it is wrong per se or
never justified is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church.
A Catholicm may not add his prudential judgments to the list of Church
doctrines and enjoin them as obligatory. However, the state may always
choose to commute the deserved penalty.

   It should be noted that heinous criminals are not innocent persons

(like unborn children), but are objectively guilty in natural law of
grave crimes against the common weal. As Pope Pius XII explained it:
“Even in the question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the
state does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. It then falls
to the public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life
in expiation of his fault after he, by his crime, has already deprived
himself of his right to life.”

   Our Lord Himself confirms this power of capital punishment in the

interview with Pilate before His crucifixion:

   Pilate therefore saith to him:  Speakest thou not to me?  Knowest
    thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to
    release thee?  Jesus answered:  Thou shouldst not have any power
    against me, UNLESS IT WERE GIVEN THEE FROM ABOVE.... (John 19:10- 
   11/DR)

   He also seems to speak of the appropriateness of capital punishment

in another passage: “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones
that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about
his neck and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew
18:6/DR).

   The principle is also represented in the words of St. Dismas, the

Good Thief on the cross beside Christ, who was being crucified for robbery
(the Rheims and Confraternity versions translate the Greek “kakourgon” in
Luke 23:39 as “robbers,” but it is really more general than that;
“malefactors” would be the literal translation or, more generally,
“criminals”). He says to his fellow criminal on the other side of Christ:

   Dost not even thou fear God, seeing that thou art under the same 
   sentence?  AND WE INDEED JUSTLY, FOR WE ARE RECEIVING WHAT OUR 
   DEEDS DESERVED, but this man has done nothing wrong."
    (Luke 23:40-41).

en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/2010/1/Death-Penalty.htm

 

[Nate13]

But you can’t really say you speak from good conscience if the result is the termination of life?

Could you not argue from the opposite angle that by putting a prisoner in jail for life who you know will kill again, that you are responsible for the people that guy kills/injures in jail? You cannot simply look at the “ends” of your action to make a determination of what is right.

We don’t look at a choice of actions and go “Action 1 will cause X amount of pain/suffering and Action 2 will cause 2X amount of pain/suffering, therefore I will do Action 1”. There is a lot more to the decision than that. In this case it comes down to what is the appropriate just punishment that fits the crime. It could be that in killing the murder we are saving the lives of 3 men he would have killed while in jail, but that has little to do with the punishment chosen.

 

[triumphguy]

That is incorrect.

There is a 2000 year record of Catholic Saints, Popes, religious leaders, biblical scholars and theologians speaking in favor of the death penalty, a record of scholarship, in breadth and depth, which overwhelms any position to the contrary.

The very recent change in the Catholic position is based upon a wrongly considered prudential judgement which finds that “defense of society”, a utilitarian concern, not a moral one, very rarely, if ever, requires execution.

This change in teaching is much more radical than has, generally, been acknowledged and is based upon the Church’s switch to utilitarianism - defense of society - when the teachings have been and must be based upon justice, biblical and theological teachings and tradition - all of which conflict with the newest teachings based upon utility – as utility and justice have major conflicts.

In addition, the evidence is overwhelming that execution offers much greater defense of society than does a life sentence. Dead murderers are infinitely less likely to harm and murder, again than are living murderers.

Living murderers create death and harm in prison, after escape and after improper release. The cases are well known and are daily occurrences.

It is a mystery why the Church chose a utilitarian prudential judgement over eternal teachings based upon justice and chose to spare more murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, but that is, precisely what She has done.

It is also a mystery why the Church didn’t review the available evidence, that execution offers a greater defense of society.

Thankfully, as the Church’s wrongly considered about face is based upon a utilitarian foundation, which is a prudential judgement, such means that any Catholic can support more executions and remain a Catholic in good standing.

Don’t tell me, tell the Pope.

Why would the Vatican plead for clemency for Tariq Aziz (Saddam Hussein’s right hand genocidal maniac?)

zenit.org/article-30768?l=english

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, issued the Vatican statement today after Iraq’s supreme court sentenced Aziz to death by hanging for involvement in the suppression of religious political parties.

“The position of the Catholic Church on the death penality is known,” the statement affirmed. “It is hoped, then, that the sentence against Tarek Aziz is not applied, precisely to promote reconciliation and reconstruction of justice and peace in Iraq, after it has suffered so much.”

 

[triumphguy]

From Fr. Michael, at All Experts.com
…
en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/2010/1/Death-Penalty.htm

And who is Fr. Michael? Is he even a real priest? What’s his expertise? He is described as:

A traditional Catholic priest, who provides forthright answers to questions FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM (not the New Order) on topics pertaining to TRADITIONAL Roman Catholicism, including theology, the Bible, Church history, the Latin language, liturgy (especially the Traditional Latin Mass), and music (especially Gregorian chant), and current events in the Catholic Church.

But how do we know this is true?

I trust sources that I can check… like the Vatican! The hander-on (tradere) of The Tradition - which is the Living Christ.

 

[soccerdad57]

Thank you Portos for your insight on this - it has been something I have struggled with. I know that one of the roles I play as a father is protector, I don’t think God would give me a role that requires from me the defense and even fiercely so if necessary, of my family and ingrain that naturally into my very being and then require me to rise up against those same instincts in a sort of split personality/schizophrenic way and advocate for saving the life of such an evil person who had so cruelly slaughtered my entire family in such a horrific manner. I think it would be wrong - if the last memory you have of your daughter is her screaming daddy to death while she burned alive - don’t tell me its wrong to want the life of the psycho that did that to her - to do anything else is spineless and the strictly intellectual only opines on this matter lack heart and thereby credibility- If that makes me a monster then so be it - don’t murder my family and you won’t have to see that side of me!

 

[triumphguy]

Soccerdad - if someone broke into my house with the intent of killing my family, I would blow them away rather than have one of my children or my wife hurt.

However, if someone broke into my house and injured, or God forbid killed my family, then in all conscience, and despite the fact that I myself would want to tear them limb from limb (and probably would if I could be in the same room), I would have to support the Vatican’s stance on the death penalty.

If we allowed our personal feelings to come into this area of moral debate, then why can’t I follow my feelings with regard to divorce, pornography, abortion, family planning and contraception, euthanasia etc?

And if I can’t follow my feelings on issues like abortion and contraception, why should I be able to follow my feelings in the case of the death penalty.

I think that as men we are instinctively wired to defend the family - and the church says we can. But being anti-death penalty does not make a person soft on crime.

Lock them up. Lock them up for ever. Throw away the key. Put them in solitary. Force them to live a life of penitence. But since we cannot create life, then neither should we take it away, except in exceptional circumstances.

 

[dudleysharp]

that quote proves my point, it says “in defence of the citizens”. thats the justification it uses for the death penalty. but simply putting someone to death because it “serves 'em right” goes againt morality.

Just the opposite is true.

Defense of society is a utilitarian concern.

“Serves 'em right” is a moral judgment based upon justice.

Not to mention, the death penalty offers a better defense of society than does incarceration.

 

[triumphguy]

It doesn’t defend society when:

• more ethnic minorities, poor, mentally disabled people are executed than other segments of the population
• the innocent are executed (as they are, again and again)
• it costs millions and takes decades to execute someone
• when it’s used as a political card to gain support for political parties

In fact you could say it contributes to the “culture of death” in society.

 

[dudleysharp]

*]more ethnic minorities, poor, mentally disabled people are executed than other segments of the population

*]the innocent are executed (as they are, again and again)

*]it costs millions and takes decades to execute someone

*]when it’s used as a political card to gain support for political parties

In fact you could say it contributes to the “culture of death” in society.

Reconsider:

In the US, whites are the most executed group, by far

The poor commit the most capital murders, so it is just they be the most executed.

Mentally disabled people can’t be executed. Defendants have to me mentally capable to contribute to their own defense.

The death penalty as pro life

The “pro life” term was, originally, identified with the anti abortion movement, which still seems the most appropriate context.

In the context of the facts, you can be pro life and pro death penalty. There is no contradiction.

All sanctions are given because we value what is being taken away.

Whether it be fines, freedom or lives, in every case we take things away, as legal sanction, it is because we value that which is taken away.

How can it be a sanction, if we do not value that which is taken away? It can’t.

In addition, more innocent lives are saved when we use the death penalty, thereby a pro life benefit.

Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

28 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

We have great care for innocents

In at least three ways, innocents are more protected with the death penalty, than with lesser sanctions. Another pro life consideration.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx

The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

“A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

The moral and religious arguments, in support of the death penalty, all have a foundation in respecting innocent life, therefore, when it is wrongly taken away, the highest form of sanction is provided.

As in:

Genesis 9:5-6: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

Chapter V:The Sanctity of Life, “Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics” By John Murray, 1991 (first published 1957) by Wm. B. Eerdmans tiny.cc/4SFBY

“Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

“Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty”
homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx

“The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

“Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution–very-distinct-moral-differences–new-mexico.aspx

“The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation”
homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

“Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html

 

[dudleysharp]

And who is Fr. Michael? Is he even a real priest? What’s his expertise? He is described as: But how do we know this is true?I trust sources that I can check… like the Vatican! The hander-on (tradere) of The Tradition - which is the Living Christ.

No, we don’t know if he is a priest.

But, we do not what he “said” was true.

That was the point of the post - the message - not the messenger.

The opposite of what you looked at.

Here is a messenger you may trust.

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

This is a New Testament command, which references several of the same commands from God, in the same circumstance, from the OT.

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important. This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something contrary to support for execution.

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

The power to execute comes directly from God.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit, God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

For murder, there is no mitigation from a death sentence.

God: Genesis 9:5-6, from the 1764 Quaker Bible, the only Quaker bible.

5 And I will certainly require the Blood of your Lives, and that from the Paw of any Beast: from the Hand likewise of Man, even of any one’s Brother, will I require the Life of a Man.

6 He that sheds Man’s Blood, shall have his own shed by Man; because in the Likeness of God he made Mankind.

Of all the versions/translations, this may be the most unequivocal - Murder requires execution of the murderer. It is a command. The Noahic covenant if for all persons and all times.