Is The Catholic Church against the death penalty?

[Ender]

In a secularised society, where church and state are seperated, has not a government given up its right to state that it operates under devine law, or that its power derives from God?

It doesn’t matter what the State believes about the source of its authority; the Church teaches that States receive their authority from God, and this authority cannot be given up even if its source is not recognized.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I would say that no, one cannot forgive someone and still hope for their death.

This may or may not be true but it is in either case irrelevant. The individual has the obligation to forgive but the State has the obligation to punish and there is no contradiction between these duties.

“Divine justice” is not something human beings need to concern ourselves with.

Divine justice may be beyond our reach but justice itself is not; it is an obligation of the State. It is disappointing to see justice, which is the mother of all virtues, somewhat casually dismissed.

That will be worked out in Purgatory.

Some men are punished here only; others suffer here no ill, but receive the whole punishment hereafter; others are punished both here and hereafter. Which, then, of these three classes do you esteem fortunate? Without doubt, the first; those who are punished and purged from their sins here. *Do you see how the punishment inflicted here frees from the punishment hereafter? *(St. John Chrysostom)
Ender

 

[Ender]

I cannot believe that there are so many Catholics here who call themselves “pro-life” yet believe that the death penalty is perfectly OK.

If you better understood what the Church taught about the death penalty you would understand that there is no conflict between those two positions.

Ender

 

[freerf]

Pro-life is anti-murder. Killing a baby who is innocent is murder. Killing a murder who killed hundreds of babies, raped children, killed fathers and mothers. . . that *is not *murder that is killing. We need to sort out the misuse of terms here. Murder is the killing of the innocent, not simply pre-meditated.

It’s not hard to understand how someone can be pro-death penalty. All you have to do is learn to emphasize with the victims and their families. I am tempted to describe a few of the more disgusting ones, ones involving child-rape and child-murder. . . but I wont. Just read up on one or two, but imagine it’s your child, or your sister.

Now imagine this murderer trying to post bail, year after year after year, and you’re forced to protest against it, or imagine this man being supported by Christians trying to get “mercy” to spare his life, or that this man is being granted interviews on network television, writing a book maybe, being allowed to sit in jail with free health care, 3 square meals, television, reading materials. . .etc.

Another point I’d like to make: when someone murders your child any you ask for clemancy - that is properly defined as mercy. You have a right to ask for it. When someone murders your neighbor’s child any you ask for clemancy - that’s just plain immoral.

 

[koshakoji]

Pro-life is anti-murder. Killing a baby who is innocent is murder. Killing a murder who killed hundreds of babies, raped children, killed fathers and mothers. . . that *is not *murder that is killing. We need to sort out the misuse of terms here. Murder is the killing of the innocent, not simply pre-meditated.

It’s not hard to understand how someone can be pro-death penalty. All you have to do is learn to emphasize with the victims and their families. I am tempted to describe a few of the more disgusting ones, ones involving child-rape and child-murder. . . but I wont. Just read up on one or two, but imagine it’s your child, or your sister.

Now imagine this murderer trying to post bail, year after year after year, and you’re forced to protest against it, or imagine this man being supported by Christians trying to get “mercy” to spare his life, or that this man is being granted interviews on network television, writing a book maybe, being allowed to sit in jail with free health care, 3 square meals, television, reading materials. . .etc.

Another point I’d like to make: when someone murders your child any you ask for clemancy - that is properly defined as mercy. You have a right to ask for it. When someone murders your neighbor’s child any you ask for clemancy - that’s just plain immoral.

Sweetie,
No need to describe any brutal murders here. I have seen and worked on plenty of murder victims’ bodies. How many autopsies have you attended? How many classes in Criminal justice have you taken? How many research articles on the death penalty have you read?
I understand that people will always look at the death penalty from an emotional point of view instead of actually researching it properly and trying to put their feelings aside. Once you educate yourself about the DP and our judicial system you might be able to think about it more rationally.

An to the other poster who said about me not knowing what the Church teaches; that’s all you have for an argument? You see that I am in RCIA and immediately claim that I have no clue. That’s hilarious! I know that Jesus was against the DP and I know that Jesus said to respect secular authority, therefore, the Church’s opinion is obviously the same (someone quoted the catechism regarding this earlier, so you can search this thread for it if you’re interested).

 

[neophyte]

“Give to Ceasar what is Cesar’s?” Seems to me the Church is just following Jesus’ teachings in acknowledging secular authority. He Himself took a pro-life stance by preventing the adulteress from being stoned to death.

I cannot believe that there are so many Catholics here who call themselves “pro-life” yet believe that the death penalty is perfectly OK.
Did you know that incarcerated murderers are the least likely among all inmates to be violent towards other inmates or corrections officers? Did you know that convicted murderers who are paroled have by far the lowest rates of recidivism of all felons? Did you know that the American Veterinary Medical Association has banned the use of pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride (two of the drugs used in human executions) for use in animal euthanasia because those drugs would cause unnecessary pain and suffering to the animals? Have you ever even read the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution? Do you have any idea what the phrase “evolving standards of decency” means in connection with said Amendment?

I suggest some of you do some research and think instead of making up your mind on this issue purely based on emotions.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with the fact that the death penalty is not inherently evil.

You’re yammering about prudential judgements in its application, which is a completely different issue.

 

[freerf]

Sweetie,
No need to describe any brutal murders here. I have seen and worked on plenty of murder victims’ bodies. How many autopsies have you attended? How many classes in Criminal justice have you taken? How many research articles on the death penalty have you read?
I understand that people will always look at the death penalty from an emotional point of view instead of actually researching it properly and trying to put their feelings aside. Once you educate yourself about the DP and our judicial system you might be able to think about it more rationally.

An to the other poster who said about me not knowing what the Church teaches; that’s all you have for an argument? You see that I am in RCIA and immediately claim that I have no clue. That’s hilarious! I know that Jesus was against the DP and I know that Jesus said to respect secular authority, therefore, the Church’s opinion is obviously the same (someone quoted the catechism regarding this earlier, so you can search this thread for it if you’re interested).

You assume everyone who supports the death penalty is basing that belief on emotion and lack of rationality. That assumption is. . . astounding.

It* is * funny though, because if you’re wrong - about everyone who doesn’t agree with you being over-emotional or under-educated - well, the statement kinda starts looking a bit like arrogance.

The rest of your assumptions regarding my profession, experience, etc. . . .does a carpenter not warrant an opinion too?

 

[AcolyteLector]

forgiveness does not necessarily mean limiting punishment….for example Jesus forgave the thief on the cross while still allowing that thief to die on the cross for punishment of his crimes/sin. I could still forgive someone while still hoping for their execution. Not because his execution is in the best interests of me, but in the interests of divine justice. A lot of people mentioned the killer of st. maria goretti being spared the death penalty…this was because he was 17. Yes St. Maria Goretti forgave him, but lets say the state did execute him- her forgivess would still have been valid.

Is this some kind of ridiculous joke?

 

[AcolyteLector]

Can I, a traditional Catholic, admire the use of capital punishment as used in the State of Texas? Didn’t Pope Pius X and other popes of his era strongly defend the practice, as outlawing capital punishment originated in marxism (Hence why most left-wing liberals are against it today)?

If you actually think that objecting to capital punishment originated in Marxism, you need to take a serious look at history.

Let’s start with an historical episode that you probably haven’t heard of: back in the day, an uneducated, obscure itinerant preacher from a backwards town somewhere in the Middle East once had the audacity to obstruct the execution of justice by defending a fallen woman who was… sure enough… accused of a despicable crime by a crowd of honorable and learned men.

With his Jewish impudence, this charlatan prevented the monster from receiving the punishment that she deserved. Much to the chagrin of certain ‘traditional Catholics’.

Ever since then, the sect that took his name has perversely insisted on separating the crime or… as they call it with their sneaky, prevaricating Jewish phraseology… ‘sin’ from the person who commits it. Freeing these monsters from their tremendous guilt, obviously so that they can offend again.

So, as you can see, the origin of this ‘heresy’ lies not in Marx, but in this sect of infidels that no true ‘traditional Catholic’ would find himself in the midst of.

---

Cue reality.

But really, there are two strong arguments against what you’ve said here:
(1) Your only reference is an unsourced opinion by one of our popes (with no qualifications as to its context: i.e., when in his career it was made, with what authority, the broader historical/cultural context &c.). If an unsourced opinion of a pope overrides the ministry and recorded teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ than I suppose it is right to consider blacks enslavable, sodomy with young boys acceptable, Protestants ignitable, and on and on and on until we arrive at the ‘traditional Catholic’ paradise.

(2) At one point, the moral outcry against the death penalty was associated with certain Left-wing social movements. True.
So, you’re honestly suggesting that the Magisterium adjust itself to counter whatever is Left-wing? And you consider yourself a traditional Catholic… why?

This is basically like saying that we should attack the dignity of homosexual persons, because–whenever the dignity of homosexual persons is mentioned–the malicious intrusion of homosexual aspirations to sacramental marriage is right around the corner. Which it typically is, especially with the recent uptick in media reporting (note: not actual occurrence, necessarily) of homosexual youth suicide.

But this still isn’t grounds enough for the Church to reverse its policy on the dignity of all people, including homosexuals. Even fascists. Not that you are one… or that I’m calling you a fascist. Its just sometimes–given your very peculiar use of the term–I think that you are using ‘traditional Catholic’ as a euphemism for ‘fascist’. Just a thought.

In fact, if you go through your post, and then go through my post (and probably the entire thread, and all of your posts), and delete every instance of ‘traditional Catholic’ and replace it with ‘fascist’, you will probably see that when you use ‘traditional Catholic’ you meant to say ‘fascist’.

---

I’m a real traditional Catholic [in the normal sense], and I wrote this message.

 

[Ender]

I know that Jesus was against the DP and I know that Jesus said to respect secular authority, therefore, the Church’s opinion is obviously the same (someone quoted the catechism regarding this earlier, so you can search this thread for it if you’re interested).

First, the Church has never said that Jesus was against the death penalty so it isn’t clear how you can claim to know more about this than the Church. Second, the Church throughout her history has always taught - and does so today - that the State has the moral authority to execute criminals, and third, the Church’s teaching on capital punishment did not suddenly appear in the 1997 version of the catechism, although that is when this novel teaching was first presented.

The current catechism presents a view of capital punishment that is not supported by what the Church teaches and is not built on anything she has taught. It is a prudential opinion about whether or not it is helpful or harmful when used in modern societies.

Ender

 

[TMC]

The current catechism presents a view of capital punishment that is not supported by what the Church teaches and is not built on anything she has taught.

This is a nonsensical sentence. The catechism is what the Church teaches. Rejecting the catechism is rejecting the teaching of the Church.

 

[Ender]

This is a nonsensical sentence. The catechism is what the Church teaches. Rejecting the catechism is rejecting the teaching of the Church.

Not exactly.

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm, against Justice Scalia, that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. … Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue (USCCB, 2005)

To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. (Karl Keating, 2004)

Ender

 

[Rence]

Yes, child molesters, rapists and murders should all be executed.

I couldn’t agree with you more. And, I don’t remember ever saying this before but in this case, I don’t think anyone here can convince me otherwise. However, you’re missing a few IMOHO. I’d add these to the list: criminals who still do crimes from within the walls of prisons (including those who continue to do harm by harming other inmates and guards), and thosee who still run crime operations from within the walls of prisons.

 

[TMC]

Not exactly.

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm, against Justice Scalia, that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. … Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

*The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. *In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue (USCCB, 2005)

To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. (Karl Keating, 2004)

Ender

I know you are fond of dragging out that personal letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger to the USCCB, but even you must admit that it says there can be disagreement “over application of the death penalty” It does not say there can be disagreement over the teaching of the Church as presented in the Catechism. The Church allows the death penalty in very limited circumstances, and does not allow its use as a tool of vengence. You may not like what the Church teaches, but you should just be honest and admit that you disagree with Church teaching in this area. It does no one any good to twist and deny Church teaching - just admit you dissent.

 

[Ender]

I know you are fond of dragging out that personal letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger to the USCCB, but even you must admit that it says there can be disagreement “over application of the death penalty” It does not say there can be disagreement over the teaching of the Church as presented in the Catechism.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter was to Cardinal McCarrick, not to the USCCB and I admit that it is somewhat vague as to what point it is making … which is why I included the other three quotes. Regarding the comment from the USCCB, can you name any Church doctrine about which they might say they “offer neither judgment nor condemnation” should a Catholic choose to ignore it? Cardinal Dulles explicitly states what the others imply: 2267 is prudential opinion that does not rise to the level of doctrine and does not require our assent.

The Church allows the death penalty in very limited circumstances, and does not allow its use as a tool of vengeance.

The issue is not vengeance but justice.

You may not like what the Church teaches, but you should just be honest and admit that you disagree with Church teaching in this area. It does no one any good to twist and deny Church teaching - just admit you dissent.

I am neither twisting nor denying any Church teaching. The Church has always taught that the State has the moral right to execute criminals. The right of the State is based on Rom 13:1-4 and the moral justification is based on Gen 9:5-6. As I said before, the Church’s teaching in this area did not spring up with the publication in 1997 of the new catechism; her teaching goes back to the Early Fathers and has been consistent since the beginning.

Ender

 

[TMC]

Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter was to Cardinal McCarrick, not to the USCCB and I admit that it is somewhat vague as to what point it is making … which is why I included the other three quotes. Regarding the comment from the USCCB, can you name any Church doctrine about which they might say they “offer neither judgment nor condemnation” should a Catholic choose to ignore it? Cardinal Dulles explicitly states what the others imply: 2267 is prudential opinion that does not rise to the level of doctrine and does not require our assent.
The issue is not vengeance but justice.
I am neither twisting nor denying any Church teaching. The Church has always taught that the State has the moral right to execute criminals. The right of the State is based on Rom 13:1-4 and the moral justification is based on Gen 9:5-6. As I said before, the Church’s teaching in this area did not spring up with the publication in 1997 of the new catechism; her teaching goes back to the Early Fathers and has been consistent since the beginning.

Ender

No Church official has ever said that any part of the Catechism is optional. The Catechism is not a collection of ideas tossed out for discussion, and no Church official has ever said it was. The Catechism is the teaching of the Church. You have consistently denied that the Catechism contains the teaching of the Church on the death penalty, and you are absolutely wrong on that point. You are free to say that your conscience dicates that you dissent from the Church on this point, but you are not free to cobble together your own doctrine from snippets cherry picked from thousands of years of history and present that as the doctrine of the Church. I am not asking that you admit that the Church is correct; I am merely asking that admit that the Church teaches as she does and stop denying that the Catechism is the teaching of the Church.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I’ve always been interested in arguments over the deatth penalty. I believe that some crimes are so malacious that the only appropriate penalty for them is death. Throughout this debate and many others over the death penalty, paragraph #2267 of the CCC has been disussed by both sides. According to this paragraph, non-lethal means are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

I’m not sure why this is so because murder is the greatest crime one can commit against another person. Naturally, the punishment for murder should be commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC #2266) According to Webster’s Dictionary, “commensurate” means equal in extent. So the crime of murder demands a punishment equal in extent to it.

The death penalty fits this as perfectly as possible, for the murderer forfeits what he unlawfully stole from his victim, the gift of life. So by excuting a murderer, we punish him justly. By a giving a murderer a completely just punishment, it shows that we treat him as a human being with free will and responsibility for his own actions. This to me seems to be a better way to uphold the dignity of the human person; regarding him as responsible for his own actions.

 

[Ender]

No Church official has ever said that any part of the Catechism is optional.

Umm, did you not read the comment from Cardinal Dulles? Was he not a Church official? He made two points unmistakably clear: (1) prudential opinions do not require our assent, and (2) the teaching on capital punishment in the Catechism is prudential.

You have consistently denied that the Catechism contains the teaching of the Church on the death penalty, and you are absolutely wrong on that point.

You should be more careful in what you claim. If your claim is that Church teachings include prudential opinions then section 2267 is Church teaching … but since it isn’t doctrine it does not oblige our assent.

You are free to say that your conscience dicates that you dissent from the Church on this point

I do not dissent from the Church on this point. What I have done is to point out what the Church in fact teaches. It isn’t my fault that what she teaches doctrinally doesn’t agree with what she teaches prudentially.

but you are not free to cobble together your own doctrine from snippets cherry picked from thousands of years of history and present that as the doctrine of the Church.

Ah, is this how you dismiss everything the Church taught up until 1995? You quote the current catechism so why exactly is it improper for me to quote it as well - and the (at least) four that preceded it? You cite JPII; should I not be allowed to cite from among the 261 popes that preceded him? What you sneeringly discard as cherry picked snippets represent 2000 years of Church doctrine.

I am not asking that you admit that the Church is correct; I am merely asking that admit that the Church teaches as she does and stop denying that the Catechism is the teaching of the Church.

And I would ask you to stop distorting my position. “The Catechism” is the teaching of the Church. Section 2267 may or may not be because it contains prudential opinion and is not Church doctrine.

Ender

 

[TMC]

Umm, did you not read the comment from Cardinal Dulles? Was he not a Church official? He made two points unmistakably clear: (1) prudential opinions do not require our assent, and (2) the teaching on capital punishment in the Catechism is prudential.
You should be more careful in what you claim. If your claim is that Church teachings include prudential opinions then section 2267 is Church teaching … but since it isn’t doctrine it does not oblige our assent.
I do not dissent from the Church on this point. What I have done is to point out what the Church in fact teaches. It isn’t my fault that what she teaches doctrinally doesn’t agree with what she teaches prudentially.
Ah, is this how you dismiss everything the Church taught up until 1995? You quote the current catechism so why exactly is it improper for me to quote it as well - and the (at least) four that preceded it? You cite JPII; should I not be allowed to cite from among the 261 popes that preceded him? What you sneeringly discard as cherry picked snippets represent 2000 years of Church doctrine.
And I would ask you to stop distorting my position. “The Catechism” is the teaching of the Church. Section 2267 may or may not be because it contains prudential opinion and is not Church doctrine.

Ender

You are twisting Cardinal Dulles’ words. He has referred to comments about the death penalty made by Pope John Paul II and by then-Cardinal Ratzinger as their own prudential judgments in the proper application of the Catechism and other teachings of the Church. Cardinal Dulles did not say that the teachings of the Catechism are optional or up for debate.

I am not distorting your position - I am explaining it. You have said you disagee with CCC 2267. I have said that if you disagree with CCC 2267 then you disagree with the teachings of the Church. That is no more than the truth.

This is from the Apostolic Constitution signed by John Paul II upon publishing the Catechism:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

This is a pretty clear statement that the Catechism is the teaching of the Church. If you disagree, please show me where the Church has said that parts of the Catechism are optional and please identify which parts are not truly teachings of the Church.

 

[Ender]

You are twisting Cardinal Dulles’ words. He has referred to comments about the death penalty made by Pope John Paul II and by then-Cardinal Ratzinger as their own prudential judgments in the proper application of the Catechism and other teachings of the Church.

No, he was talking about the teaching on capital punishment.

*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. *(Dulles, 2001)

Cardinal Dulles did not say that the teachings of the Catechism are optional or up for debate.

He said the teaching was prudential. He said prudential opinions are not binding. It isn’t difficult to understand how to apply these simple observations.

You have said you disagee with CCC 2267. I have said that if you disagree with CCC 2267 then you disagree with the teachings of the Church. That is no more than the truth.

You’re trying to win the argument by definition. We know that the teachings of the Church do not include prudential opinions because of this comment from Dulles: "Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching." Therefore, since 2267 is prudential, my disagreement with it is not a disagreement with the teaching of the Church.

This is a pretty clear statement that the Catechism is the teaching of the Church. If you disagree, please show me where the Church has said that parts of the Catechism are optional and please identify which parts are not truly teachings of the Church.

You are contending that Cardinal Dulles didn’t understand this point? I’m merely repeating what he said. I also pointed out that Cardinal Ratzinger implied as much as did the USCCB.

Section 2267 of the Catechism contains opinion, that point doesn’t seem debatable. You may hold that not all of 2267 is opinion but the fact that some of it is rebuts your argument above.

Ender