J
JamesCaruso
Guest
For example, capital punishment for a murderer who continues to murder while incarcerated, or when homicide is so out of hand, capital punishment is used as a deterrent.
- Status
A
Anesti33
Guest
It depends on which Pope you believe.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I think generally the recent Popes and bishops say it shouldn’t be admitted if the same ends can be met other ways or if it would not be conducive to the common good, and so most say here and now it should not be used. This is by its nature a judgment contingent on the circumstances. But in general Scripture and Tradition are clear it can be justly used for the proper ends when conducive to the common good.
Therefore, if in good conscience you understand the circumstances differently than which this contingent judgment of contemporary clergy is based, then there is no sin in coming to a different conclusion.
I’ve posted this before, but I found Archbishop Gomez’s explanation helpful. First, he affirms the Church’s irreformable and revealed doctrine:
He elaborates more on the prudential aspect–“in these times and in this culture”–while acknowledging disagreement of those of good will (there is no condemnation here of those who disagree in good conscience):
Therefore, if in good conscience you understand the circumstances differently than which this contingent judgment of contemporary clergy is based, then there is no sin in coming to a different conclusion.
I’ve posted this before, but I found Archbishop Gomez’s explanation helpful. First, he affirms the Church’s irreformable and revealed doctrine:
In addition, he notes:
He then notes “from a practical standpoint” it should no longer be used.
He elaborates more on the prudential aspect–“in these times and in this culture”–while acknowledging disagreement of those of good will (there is no condemnation here of those who disagree in good conscience):
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
I don’t see how a theological opinion could be sinful.
Now, if you were obstinately grating against the Pope’s pastoral and theological initiatives in favor of a sort of idolization of capital punishment, that might be different.
Talk to your priest if you are worried about a sinful disposition.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
No it’s not.
Holding an opinion isn’t sin.
Holding an opinion isn’t sin.
It is not permissible to claim that the death penalty is instrinsically evil. This would contradict the constant teaching of the Church, and if we were to make this claim today, then the Church was wrong on a matter of morals, and therefore loses all authority. You might as well stop being Catholic.
However, the morality of an action depends on three factors, an this is where many Catholics fail to understand the teaching.
The modification to the Catechism should be understood in the context of this entire framework. Many Catholics, to defend their position on the death penalty often err on #1 (e.g. “the Church changed its teaching on the death penalty”; she has not and she cannot) and #3 (e.g. “the Church cannot change its teaching, so we can still freely impose the death penalty”). Both approaches fall short of the full assessment of the morality of an action. It is only with the consideration of the full framework that the modification to the Catechism makes sense without doing violence to the traditional teaching of the Church.
However, the morality of an action depends on three factors, an this is where many Catholics fail to understand the teaching.
- The object itself. The object can be in and of itself morally good, morally evil, or morally neutral. If the object is itself morally evil, then it cannot be done. Period full stop.
- The death penalty, according to the perennial teaching of the Church, is at least morally neutral. It is not acceptable to call it intrinsically evil.
- The intention: why you want do do this action. The death penalty can be used to punish an offender for his crime (morally good), or silence dissent (morally evil), or satisfy an urge for revenge (morally evil). If the object is itself morally good or neutral, but you do it from the wrong reason, then the act becomes morally evil. By the way, “deterrent” is not a morally licit reason, because you’re killing a person to make an example. If it is to be a deterrent, it should be so only as a secondary effect to a morally good reason (retribution/redress).
- The circumstances. Things that can change the overall morality of an act if both the intentions and object are morally good. Examples here could include a high chance of reform, ability to secure a prisoner, other means to exact retribution for the crime, contrition on the part of the offender, chances of miscarriages of justice, etc.
The modification to the Catechism should be understood in the context of this entire framework. Many Catholics, to defend their position on the death penalty often err on #1 (e.g. “the Church changed its teaching on the death penalty”; she has not and she cannot) and #3 (e.g. “the Church cannot change its teaching, so we can still freely impose the death penalty”). Both approaches fall short of the full assessment of the morality of an action. It is only with the consideration of the full framework that the modification to the Catechism makes sense without doing violence to the traditional teaching of the Church.
Last edited:
N
neophyte
Guest
As in, it’s possible for civil government to legitimately use it? No, it’s not sinful to believe it, that’s the teaching of the Church.
R
redcatholic
Guest
I’m for capital punishment. It feels right to me. But I recognize that the Church is infinitely more wise than I. So I would never sit on a jury that capital punishment was an option. Nor should any Catholic. But that is about as involved with the issue as any of us will be.
I saw the other day the USCCB spoke quite aggressively against capital punishment in the states. The 6 criminals that have been executed federally this year seem to have a voice.
I saw the other day the USCCB spoke quite aggressively against capital punishment in the states. The 6 criminals that have been executed federally this year seem to have a voice.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
That doesn’t help anything. So, let the sentence only be decided by non-Catholics? What is the point of that?
Exactly. That does not make any sense, if one is talking about the American justice system, which does not have mandatory death sentences. A Catholic consistently voting against the death penalty during the penalty phase will result in a hung jury and will usually result in a life sentence.redcatholic:
That doesn’t help anything. So, let the sentence only be decided by non-Catholics? What is the point of that?
If course during jury selection, when you say you’re not going to vote for the death penalty, that will probably get you booted off the jury right away anyway.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Would Dr. Bull be so bold as to ask that outright? Are they even aloud to do that?
If I was asked that during a jury selection I would decline to answer or say something else. I don’t believe a lawyer has a moral right to know the answer to that particular question.
Last edited:
R
redcatholic
Guest
Yes. It’s a law in our country. If your faith makes you unable to follow the law then you shouldn’t be on a jury. A Catholic would have to morally answer if they could find for the death penalty. To say you could would be lying. This is one area where our faith would prohibit our duty to the state.
R
redcatholic
Guest
In a death penalty case that would probably be the single biggest question asked.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
The law is whether the person is guilty or not. The law allows for anyone opposed to the death penalty to not vote for the verdict that results in death. As mentioned earlier, many times death penalty opponents are ruled out of a jury.
You forget also that it is not just Catholics opposed to the death penalty. Should they stay home as well?
You forget also that it is not just Catholics opposed to the death penalty. Should they stay home as well?
Absolutely, and in jurisdictions where peremptory challenges are still legal, they can exercise that challenge on such a potential juror.porthos11:
Would Dr. Bull be so bold as to ask that outright? Are they even aloud to do that?
If I was asked that during a jury selection I would decline to answer or say something else. I don’t believe a lawyer has a moral right to know the answer to that particular question.
Again, if we’re talking about the United States, there is no mandatory death penalty. Usually, a jury has to deliberate on this in a separate penalty phase. A Catholic juror can vote for a conviction and still vote against the death penalty if the same jury is used for the penalty phase. A death penalty vote must be unanimous. If the Catholic juror votes against the death penalty, then a life sentence is imposed.
Your options are unacceptable in a court of law. You say something else, you are lying. You decline, and you could be held in contempt. And quite frankly, such rebellious behaviour in court over the death penalty is hardly something demanded of Catholics. If asked, and you’re against it, say no. And then let the officers of the court determine what they want to do, either accept you or excuse you.
Not verdict. Penalty.
Verdict is guilty vs not guilty. Penalty is death vs. life imprisonment. These are two different deliberations where there is no mandatory death penalty.
This used to be an issue where there was a mandatory death penalty, e.g. UK, Canada. If you were convicted of murder, you hang. The US does not have that. The death penalty must be explicitly sought, and usually is subjected to a jury’s decision, apart from the guilty/not guilty verdict.
A Catholic can vote guilty to convict the defendant, and must do so if convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt. That same Catholic does not have to vote for the death sentence.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
Yes, that is what I meant. In the penalty phase, they can reject the death sentence. You said what I meant more clearly. 
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I don’t believe a lawyer has a moral right to know whether or not I’m for or against the death penalty. And since the change to the teaching on capital punishment I think that something is demanded of Catholics in a situation like that. What that something is I’m not entirely sure, and the Church probably isn’t either.
I don’t think so. I would have no issue with my conscience if I told a court that I wasn’t opposed to the death penalty, but then vote against it in order to save the person from the death penalty.
Last edited:
R
redcatholic
Guest
In a death penalty case a juror would be asked if they could impose all the penalties that apply if the person is found guilty. A Catholic would have to morally answer “no”. And they would be excused from the jury. And that is really the way it should be. I personally would have no moral problem imposing the death penalty on someone morally. The problem I would have is that my obedience to the church and my faith would cause me to answer that I could not be faithful to the Church and the state in this matter.
R
redcatholic
Guest
I do wonder about the importance of this issue at all. Worldwide and even in the US we are not talking about a common manner of death of people. Abortion, drug or sexual lifestyles, murder lack of healthcare open boarder drug trade, are killing more people than the death penalty.
- Status