Is it licit to support the death penalty

[soccerdad57]

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.

Morality as taught by the church is definitive in the matters you have mentioned above and I accept those as you do. The church has not in the same way as abortion spoken on the DP as being inherently evil as it does abortion. To that end we are required to use our own judgement as the church herself says :“Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act…In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgement of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescription of the divine law” -ccc1778. Far from feelings - the church says our conscience is a matter of reason. Your attempt to dismiss what our heart can tell us on this as just following feelings and all feelings just take us down the road to hell is opposed to what the church herself says when put into the light of its teachings on conscience. Indeed in my own life when my marriage was going through a very difficult period it was precisely those “feelings” that led me to the conclusion that kept my family together. So before you dismiss feelings as of little or no worth keep in mind that we are human beings, made by God in his image and that we have His law written on our hearts. You can intellectualize this all you want but you are trying to convince people against their hearts.

 

[Nate13]

@triumphguy

Aside from all other concerns answer this very simple question. Is the death penalty a just punishment for 1st degree murder?

 

[triumphguy]

The Church says No.

Doesn’t matter what I think.

Having worked IN prison full-time for years there were times when I felt like taking certain inmates out and putting a .22 through their heads. And I was the Chaplain!!! We have to put away those feelings and follow the teachings of the Church, our Pope, and our Bishops.

 

[Nate13]

The Church says No.

uh the Church actually says yes it is just. Certain popes have questioned whether the punishment is the best solution to fix the problems society faces though. No one has ever said the punishment does not fit the crime. The question is whether there are other alternatives that better serve societies interests at large. Some pope’s said in their opinions there were, but that good people good disagree on this subject.

If your going to object to the death penalty do so for the right reasons. Do so because you believe there are better methods of achieving justice that better serves society. In all honesty I do not know enough to have a firm opinion either way. However, I do recognize that supporting the death penalty as the punishment for 1st degree murder is not immoral.

Doesn’t matter what I think.

Having worked IN prison full-time for years there were times when I felt like taking certain inmates out and putting a .22 through their heads. And I was the Chaplain!!! We have to put away those feelings and follow the teachings of the Church, our Pope, and our Bishops.

And you would have been prosecuted had you done so. This is not about feelings at all. Its about putting out a just punishment that fits the crime that was committed and finding solutions that meet the best interests of society.

 

[triumphguy]

uh the Church actually says yes it is just. Certain popes have questioned whether the punishment is the best solution to fix the problems society faces though. No one has ever said the punishment does not fit the crime. The question is whether there are other alternatives that better serve societies interests at large. Some pope’s said in their opinions there were, but that good people good disagree on this subject.

If your going to object to the death penalty do so for the right reasons. Do so because you believe there are better methods of achieving justice that better serves society. In all honesty I do not know enough to have a firm opinion either way. However, I do recognize that supporting the death penalty as the punishment for 1st degree murder is not immoral.

And you would have been prosecuted had you done so. ** This is not about feelings at all. Its about putting out a just punishment that fits the crime that was committed and finding solutions that meet the best interests of society.**

I agree, and in concert with the Church today I don’t think that Capital punishment is the answer.

California, since 1970’s has spent $4,000,000,000 in Capital Punishment. 17 people have been executed. That’s $235,000,000 per execution.

Perhaps that money would have been better spent on education? Or crime prevention, such as more policemen? Or fighting poverty?

 

[Nate13]

I agree, and in concert with the Church today I don’t think that Capital punishment is the answer.

California, since 1970’s has spent $4,000,000,000 in Capital Punishment. 17 people have been executed. That’s $235,000,000 per execution.

Perhaps that money would have been better spent on education? Or crime prevention, such as more policemen? Or fighting poverty?

Alright awesome, because once this is understood a reasonable discussion can be had. I don’t live in California though, and already don’t have a high opinion of it anyways for a lot of other reasons. California has all sorts of problems with their justice system, and the death penalty pales in relation to some of the others problems they are facing.

I do believe this answers the op’s question though. No, you are not sinning if you believe the death penalty has some merit.

 

[Ender]

Morality as taught by the church is definitive in the matters you have mentioned above and I accept those as you do.

The Church has always taught that the State has a right to employ capital punishment so it is certainly not immoral to believe it should be applied in particular cases.

The church has not in the same way as abortion spoken on the DP as being inherently evil as it does abortion.

Nor will the Church ever make such a claim.

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

To that end we are required to use our own judgement as the church herself says …

We are required to use our own judgment but we cannot claim that our judgment is valid when in contradicts the doctrines of the Church. We are not allowed to do whatever we choose simply because we believe deeply that it is right. In the case of crimes against ourselves we are obligated to forgive anyone who repents of his sin and asks our forgiveness. The State, however, has an obligation to punish and there is no contradiction between forgiveness and punishment, so a person could in fact forgive someone who murdered his family and still believe that the just punishment for such a crime was death.

Ender

 

[Joe_Hill]

We are required to use our own judgment but we cannot claim that our judgment is valid when in contradicts the doctrines of the Church.

Such as the encyclical of Pope John Paul II that is entitled Gospel of Life.

The doctrine which describes the need for execution in today’s world as to be rare to non-existent?

From Para. 56 of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical letter on various threats to human life which Pope John Paul II issued on March 25, 1995.

"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.”(46) 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 fulfills 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.(47)

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.’"

(46) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2266

(47) Cf. ibid.

 

[Ender]

The doctrine which describes the need for execution in today’s world as to be rare to non-existent?

If it was doctrine I would need to accept it, but since it seems to be a prudential judgment there is no such obligation. One thing is sure, the claim that modern societies have the means to “effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it” cannot possibly be anything other than an opinion. Given that this section unquestionably contains opinion it cannot be argued that everything in the catechism is doctrine merely because it is found there.

Ender

 

[porthos11]

The Church says No.

Doesn’t matter what I think.

Having worked IN prison full-time for years there were times when I felt like taking certain inmates out and putting a .22 through their heads. And I was the Chaplain!!! We have to put away those feelings and follow the teachings of the Church, our Pope, and our Bishops.

Actually, the Church says Yes, that is, it is a just punishment.

What the Catechism currently says, is that she prefers that such criminals’ lives be spared instead, preferring rehabilitation. That’s fair.

But the Church has never said that the execution of a 1st degree murderer is unjust. Just the opposite, in fact, the Magisterium has explicitly said that it is a form of lawful slaying and is in paramount obedience to the commandment to not murder.

 

[porthos11]

I agree, and in concert with the Church today I don’t think that Capital punishment is the answer.

California, since 1970’s has spent $4,000,000,000 in Capital Punishment. 17 people have been executed. That’s $235,000,000 per execution.

Perhaps that money would have been better spent on education? Or crime prevention, such as more policemen? Or fighting poverty?

You are free to agree that capital punishment is not the answer.

We, that is, all of us are not free to agree that capital punishment is unjust or immoral (as a principle, not in individual cases where miscarriages do happen).

That the circumstances requiring capital punishment is a doctrine is incorrect; it is not a doctrine (which is permanent and never changes with the times) but a prudential judgment (which can and does change with the times). Doctrine is binding, prudential judgments are not.

 

[Joe_Hill]

Doctrine is binding, prudential judgments are not.

But when the Holy Father’s words that you deem are prudential judgement directly contradict what youe deem as doctrine, then are you suggesting that we ignore the former for the latter.

I am sorry but that would risk suggesting that the Holy Father himself is heterdocxical.

I pray that I am mistaken,

Because that sounds like protestantism (no disrespect to ther faiths).

Please releive me of this misapprehension.

 

[porthos11]

But when the Holy Father’s words that you deem are prudential judgement directly contradict what youe deem as doctrine, then are you suggesting that we ignore the former for the latter.

I am sorry but that would risk suggesting that the Holy Father himself is heterdocxical.

I pray that I am mistaken,

Because that sounds like protestantism (no disrespect to ther faiths).

Please releive me of this misapprehension.

What’s the difficulty really? To say what’s moral and what’s not is doctrine. To say whether or not civil circumstances are one thing or another is not. Doctrine is always about faith and morals.

The Holy Father said that the modern state of penal facilities render the need to execute criminals rare or non-existent. That on its face is a commentary on the capabilities of states for rehabilitate criminals, and that’s not covered by doctrine or Papal infallibility. Cardinal Dulles confirms this, as does Cardinal Ratzinger (when he stated that Catholics may be at odds with the Holy Father on this matter). And it makes sense, as the determination of whether or not a criminal should be executed does not belong to the Church; it belongs to the State (by divine decree).

When the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith says that Catholics may disagree with the Holy Father on this matter, then Catholics may disagree with the Holy Father, and it is therefore not Protestantism.

That’s why I can easily say without sin that the Catechism, as a norm for teaching the faith, should not have included that piece from Evangelium Vitae. But it’s there so I accept that as the mind of the Church (despite the Catechism itself not being infallible).

But at the same time, I cannot say that the death penalty is itself evil or immoral, because the Church cannot say that without denying its identity or losing its moral authority (never has the Church reversed itself on a moral teaching).

 

[Joe_Hill]

The church would lose its moral authority by claiming that the death penalty is no longer morally justifyable?

No.

Sorry.

If you are saying that at that at another time it was justified, then you follow the church’s teaching

However you cannot claim that one must support capital punishment NOW and AT THIS TIME while in full knowledge of the current efforts of Pope Benedict

At this time when the Church is under siege from all political, social, religious and economic spheres, cannot you lend your support to this effort and the effort of John Paul II?

Several times you suggested that to support the Holy Father and his predecessor’s intentions are merely prudence and therefore secondary to what you deem as doctrine.

In this endeavour I believe you are setting your own judgement as a true interpretation of the church’s teaching in spite of the efforts of these two great popes.

On your conscience be it.

May the Lord lead you to obedience and humility.

 

[porthos11]

The church would lose its moral authority by claiming that the death penalty is no longer morally justifyable?

No.

Sorry.

If you are saying that at that at another time it was justified, then you follow the church’s teaching

However you cannot claim that one must support capital punishment NOW and AT THIS TIME while in full knowledge of the current efforts of Pope Benedict

At this time when the Church is under siege from all political, social, religious and economic spheres, cannot you lend your support to this effort and the effort of John Paul II?

Several times you suggested that to support the Holy Father and his predecessor’s intentions are merely prudence and therefore secondary to what you deem as doctrine.

In this endeavour I believe you are setting your own judgement as a true interpretation of the church’s teaching in spite of the efforts of these two great popes.

On your conscience be it.

May the Lord lead you to obedience and humility.

I am not saying one MUST. I am saying one MAY, and without sin.

Pope Benedict himself allows Catholics to disagree with the late Holy Father on the death penalty. He doesn’t call me a heretic or disobedient or unfaithful. Cardinal Dulles calls the statement from the late Holy Father a non-binding prudential judgment. I’m not imposing this disagreement on you or anyone else. Several times I have said that those who wish to oppose the death penalty are free to do so.

If the Holy Father permits Catholics to disagree on this matter, why do you not permit us to do so? Why threaten us with conscience and imply that we need “humility” (the implication, of course, being that we do not have it) or “obedience” (the implication that I am disobedient). The Holy Father permits us to disagree with Pope John Paul II without sin on this matter. I let you hold your opinion on that basis. Why can you not do the same? Why imply that we are “proud” and “disobedient”?

I am no heretic or cafeteria Catholic.

Why would you deny us what the Holy Father permits?

 

[Joe_Hill]

I am not saying one MUST. I am saying one MAY, and without sin.

That is perfectly acceptable.

Cardinal Dulles:

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.

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

However, there is a difference between privately disagreeing with the Holy Father and publicly campaigning against his cause.

Even if you are permitted by rules to do both, the latter seems an odd way to show ones support for the Pope and the intentions of his predecessor.

 

[Ender]

The church would lose its moral authority by claiming that the death penalty is no longer morally justifyable? No.

Yes.

*Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

If you are saying that at that at another time it was justified, then you follow the church’s teaching.

Morality does not change with time or place so if capital punishment was justifiable in the past it is justifiable today, and the reason for this is that the severity of the punishment is determined by the severity of the crime. Since the severity of the crime of murder cannot change, a penalty that is just in one time will be just in every time.
*
**Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” *(Fr. John Hardon, 1998)

Ender

 

[Joe_Hill]

“In this context, I joyfully welcome the initiative by which Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005, and the recent measures adopted by some Mexican states to protect human life from its beginnings." Pope John Paul II 2005

• “that there no longer be recourse to capital punishment, given that states today have the means to efficaciously control crime, without definitively taking away an offender’s possibility to redeem himself.”* Pope John Paul II. 2002

“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will acclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.” Pope John Paul II Jan 27, 1999

• “We should reach the point in which the death penalty is abolished throughout the entire world, because it is a sign of incivility, as one crime cannot be punished with another crime.” *president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace Cardinal Martino

*“The death penalty does not fit into the concept of justice,because the defense of life - which goes from conception to natural death - is preferred in every way by the Holy See.” *president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace Cardinal Martino, March 28, 2008

[Death Penalty is] “a sign of desperation,” [abolition of which is]“an integral part of the defense of human life at every stage of its development… The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.” Vatican declaration to the first World Congress on the Death Penalty
“Our voice must be heard not only in the fight against abortion, but in the fight against euthanasia and capital punishment as well. We can never condone the deliberate taking of human life created in love by God and redeemed in Jesus Christ.” *Archbishop Martino, serving as the Holy See’s ambassador to the United Nations, June 20, 2001

• “Among the individuals and groups against legalized abortion in the United States, there are some who support the continuation of capital punishment. This is an inconsistency and an unacceptable contradiction.”* Cardinal Fiorenzo Angelini 1992

 

[A_G]

In light of what Blessed JPII said regarding the death penalty - is it licit to support the death penalty or was his writting on the matter final and “ex cathedra”. Is there any ‘wiggle room’ or foreseeable circumstance in which the death penalty is fitting? I’m thinking of a recent case in which 2 men in a home invasion robbery, beat the father into submission with a baseball bat, tied up the family, raped and killed the mother and set the 2 girls on fire in their beds, killing them horribly of course. They killed his whole family in front of him and in the worst way and the father has to live out the rest of his life with that. I can’t find fault with the state for executing these 2 men, especially if it helps in any way for the father to find some relief from what happened even if knowing that in some sense, if only in a very human way at least, that justice was served. I have small children and a wife whom I love immensely myself - my family through my God is my entire world and defines the reason for my existence - if you took that away - especially in the fashion that happened to the man above, I could not bear it. Why is the death penalty wrong in this example - I gotta be honest , I’m not sure there is anything anyone can say that would make me feel differently about this particular situation. I guess I think that though the DP is greatly overused - there are some pretty rock solid cases of conviction by some people preoccupied with evil who take pleasure at coldly murdering others in the worst fashion - not your liquor store robbery/holdup that went wrong and someone’s dead - but like the case above or like Richard Ramirez the nightstalker in the eighties who snuck into peoples houses at night raping and murdering women and couples sleeping together in bed because people’s pain brought him pleasure.

In the example you have given, Yes, the death penalty is what the two robbers deserve. In such extreme cases where life is taken, I support capital punishment. The Catechism does allow for it also.

 

[Rence]

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!

While some are content to let the criminal go, and go on to kill someone else’s family members, either in prison or out, I am all for executing him to protect another one’s family from being killed. The State has the right to protect its citizens. It’s irresponsible to allow criminals to continue to hurt people, and especially when they can’t even be controlled within the walls of prison. While some people might try to bully others into their belief that the death penalty is never warranted, “especially in today’s world” where cartels are operated within and outside of jails, where murders are still being committed, while other prisoners are being raped or beated, where prison guards are at constant risk because “the death penalty is no longer necessary today”, I OTOH will not be fooled by them. The Church supports the State’s right to protect its citizens and so do I.