Is The Catholic Church against the death penalty?

[Warrenton]

. There is a significant difference between the situation of executing individuals in a prison of someone found guilty of a capital offence and war. Plus, you cannot make a bland statement that war is permissible.

I am not certain I see the significant difference between was and capital offense, except that the condemned is theoretically always guilty while the victims in war are not. In either case, homicide takes place under legal sanction.

Further, I did not state war is permissible, I said under your analysis, all war would be impermissible, which you have observed, is not the Church position.

We agree that execution is a serious matter, and raises moral concerns regarding the dignity of life. We disagree that capital punishment, standing alone, is by its nature murder.

It is interesting to me that you appear to have greater faith in the state than I do. I would expect that you would oppose capital punishment in part due to a fear that the state will execute the wrong people. It seems that I am more afraid that the state will execute the wrong people, and fail to save the right people, whilst you are certain that if it were permitted, the state might execute the right people!

 

[Warrenton]

There is a problem with searching the scriptures to support the death penalty. There are quotes that can be found which support the death penalty. There are also quotations which could be used to support the counter argument.

I think there is some degree of misunderstanding about my phrase about God forgiving anything. I clearly did not explain it adequately. I mean that if God is asked for forgiveness and that the request is genuine and the requestor is genuinely contrite then there is nothing that God will not forgive.

I totally agree with your first point - I sent the passage for your review only because you asked for one, and it came to mind. If you look at my previous posts, I have referenced passages that I believe urge the limitation of capital punishment.

Regarding the second point, I appreciate your clarification. In earlier times, prisoners could appeal to the king, or the governor (in the colonies!) for clemency and a commutation of the death sentence. Clemency was frequently given - more often that in modern times. Remorse and contrition were pled in support of the request, then as now. I think it a retrogression that the sovereign, be she HRH QE2 or the prez, feel they do not have the power to exercise this right.

Contrition does have a role to play in the imposition of a penalty, and the state, if it recognizes the divine source of its power, has the right if not the obligation to recognize it and in the proper case, grant mercy in order to stimulate contrition in the people at large.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Then you must be for charging someone who defends their own life by killing the person who was trying to kill them. After all you believe that a human being killing another is murder.

This is not what the Catholic Church Teaches though.

All that you are doing is twisting what I said, again!

If one supports the death penalty for murders then they should be consistent in its application. I am sure that you could not disagree that the Church’s stance on abortion is that it is murder of an unborn child. That makes health care professionals who procure abortions murders. If one supports the death penalty for murder then one also should accept that abortionists should face the death penalty.

If you read posts #’s 39, 43, 83 and 97, you will find I support the self-defence argument. You will fail to find any post where I have said that self-defence is wrong.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am not certain I see the significant difference between was and capital offense, except that the condemned is theoretically always guilty while the victims in war are not. In either case, homicide takes place under legal sanction.

War and death penalty are significantly different - the whole context is different.

Further, I did not state war is permissible, I said under your analysis, all war would be impermissible, which you have observed, is not the Church position.

No, you did not say war was permissible. By saying I excluded all permissibility of war it implied that you believe it can be permissible. However, I fail to see how you could reach the conclusion that I see it as impermissible. I have never made such claims. I do not like war and as I’m sure any sane person would I abhor war. I do accept that the Church has defined certain circumstances in which war is seen as the lesser of two evils and may therefore be justified. As I said in the previous post many wars do not meet the requirements to be classed as a just war.

We agree that execution is a serious matter, and raises moral concerns regarding the dignity of life. We disagree that capital punishment, standing alone, is by its nature murder.

It is interesting to me that you appear to have greater faith in the state than I do. I would expect that you would oppose capital punishment in part due to a fear that the state will execute the wrong people. It seems that I am more afraid that the state will execute the wrong people, and fail to save the right people, whilst you are certain that if it were permitted, the state might execute the right people!

I do not support the death penalty at all. I do not rely on the state to execute the right people. In fact, now that you have introduced that point it is one of the reasons why I am opposed to the death penalty. Innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed. I have no doubt that this will continue to happen.

I do not place an unreserved trust in the state but there has to be a certain trust in the state. What I find interesting is that the situation in US prisons is significantly different from the situation in the UK. So perhaps the state can get it right.

 

[mick321]

AMEN! I support your position; I’m so tired of hearing Catholics compare innocent babies with people convicted of heinous crimes.

If your ship were about to sink and there was but one life raft (big enough for only one person) would you let your baby/young child die to save the convicted rapist/murderer?

Yes. I agree that comparisons like that are not useful. Some sinners are capable of repentance and redemption. Some young children are indeed innocent.

I often hear Catholics speak of innocent unborn children. In the past the Church taught that the human soul inherits and retains the grave burden of original sin until it is absolved by sacramental Baptism. How does that work these days?

 

[Spirithound]

We have made some progress in the US recently. It is now impermissible to execute the mentally retarded.

Interesting point here. If the death penalty is only permissible (under Catholic moral theology) when it is not possible to protect society otherwise, shouldn’t the mentally retarded still be eligible for execution?

 

[Spirithound]

There is a significant difference between the situation of executing individuals in a prison of someone found guilty of a capital offence and war.

Would you elaborate on the significant difference please?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

… I think it would be difficult to find many wars in the world that meet the requirements of a just war.

Its easy. While the Imperial Japanese were waging an unjust war in the Pacific, the Allies - Chinese, British, Americans, Australians, Dutch, New Zealanders, Filipinos, Canadians, Indians - waged a just war of self defense. Similar argument in Europe. Every time you claim a war is “unjust” who ever is opposing the unjust is justified.

 

[Warrenton]

Interesting point here. If the death penalty is only permissible (under Catholic moral theology) when it is not possible to protect society otherwise, shouldn’t the mentally retarded still be eligible for execution?

This question made me pause. Catholic theology would draw a distinction between a punishment and a justified killing. In order to punish, the accused must understand the crime and its wrongfulness. Otherwise, the punishment is cruel because the accused cannot conform his behavior to the law. This understanding is a prerequisite for any punishment, including imprisonment, corporal or capital. Punishing the mentally retarded who cannot understand the nature of the crime is equivilent to executing a wounded soldier for not participating in a charge.

In some rare instances, it might be necessary, and therefore justified, to kill a retarded individual in order to save future victims. But because the law owes a much higher duty to a mentally retarded person than to a healthy individual, just as it has a higher duty to the wounded soldier than to the healthy soldier, the circumstance would have to rise to the level of an immediate danger.

 

[agent_grey]

Capital punishment is the proper form of punishment for murder and sex crimes including adultery. And a few other things are to be met with death which aren’t coming to mind at the moment. Read the old testament. Or do a google for put to death and the bible and you will find all the things that a just nation will execute a guilty individual for.

 

[mick321]

…
In some rare instances, it might be necessary, and therefore justified, to kill a retarded individual in order to save future victims. But because the law owes a much higher duty to a mentally retarded person than to a healthy individual, just as it has a higher duty to the wounded soldier than to the healthy soldier, the circumstance would have to rise to the level of an immediate danger.

Exactly. If either [or any] person is conducting himself in a way that presents a clear and immediate physical threat to others, the state may use reasonable and necessary force to halt the attack and apprehend the suspect. Deadly force may be required under some circumstances. No sin here.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Would you elaborate on the significant difference please?

If you are unable to discern the difference I do not believe that anything I say will be of assistance to you.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Its easy. While the Imperial Japanese were waging an unjust war in the Pacific, the Allies - Chinese, British, Americans, Australians, Dutch, New Zealanders, Filipinos, Canadians, Indians - waged a just war of self defense. Similar argument in Europe. Every time you claim a war is “unjust” who ever is opposing the unjust is justified.

Then could you please explain to me who are the unjust aggressors in Iraq and which parties are justified in defending against the unjust aggressor.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Capital punishment is the proper form of punishment for murder and sex crimes including adultery. And a few other things are to be met with death which aren’t coming to mind at the moment. Read the old testament. Or do a google for put to death and the bible and you will find all the things that a just nation will execute a guilty individual for.

If I recall correctly, without going to check, there are provisions in the Old Testament for capital punishment for murder, slavery, idolatry, blasphemy, incest, grave sins against parents, sodomy and bestiality.

 

[Modelsim]

Maybe this quote from St. Thomas Aquinas can help you out:

St. Thomas Aquinas is not doctrine.

If you want a defense of the traditionalist view of death penalty, read Cardinal Dulles’ article.
firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

 

[GEddie]

If I recall correctly, without going to check, there are provisions in the Old Testament for capital punishment for murder, slavery, idolatry, blasphemy, incest, grave sins against parents, sodomy and bestiality.

No; slavery was perfectly OK throughout the approx. 1500 years of Biblical history.

In any case, this is somewhat beside the point, as neither the Catholic Church nor any non-Islamic civil state is seeking to uphold execution for the entire gamut of Mosaic capital crimes. Like it or not, social ideas of justice and punishment do change.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Califman831]

It only takes one individual to show God’s love…these criminals are victims themselves in so many ways as well. As a Christian it is up to us to better the world as Jesus Christ taught us to do. It’s through him that others will be able to see the truth and realize the importance of their own lives as well as their fellow man.

Its that bleeding heart mentality that gives criminals the opportunity to commit crimes from within prison walls. Sure we must forgive the truly repentant but not at the expense of innocent lives. Jesus saved the good thief but not from the hands of the Romans, that thief still had to die on the cross. If we are to be merciful to criminals then let their deaths be fast so they may come before the judgment of the lord long before they die of old age.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I strongly disagree with the death penalty as it is presently constituted. Too much time elapses between conviction and punishment. Convicts languish for years at great expense, and only the lawyers profit. If a convict IS finally executed, only the judicial system and the family of the murdered remember what the execution is all about. A modest proposal: After conviction, a Super Appeal, where all resources are turned to ensuring the rightness of the death penalty verdict. If, after one year, no evidence is found to the contrary, the sentence is carried out. The mechanism of death, the guillotine. Fast, sure and painless. If we get busy, we could clean out the human garbage in our death rows in a couple of years. THEN, you have a deterent. Certainty of punishment is a deterent, dying of old age on death row, at taxpayer expense, is not.

I’m fairly sure that Holy Mother Church would vigorously deny that there is any such a thing as “human garbage.” Such a concept runs contrary to all that She stands for.

 

[Spirithound]

If you are unable to discern the difference I do not believe that anything I say will be of assistance to you.

If you are unable to clearly articulate your premises, I find it very difficult to respect you as a philosopher.

 

[kenofken]

I strongly disagree with the death penalty as it is presently constituted. Too much time elapses between conviction and punishment. Convicts languish for years at great expense, and only the lawyers profit. If a convict IS finally executed, only the judicial system and the family of the murdered remember what the execution is all about. A modest proposal: After conviction, a Super Appeal, where all resources are turned to ensuring the rightness of the death penalty verdict. If, after one year, no evidence is found to the contrary, the sentence is carried out. The mechanism of death, the guillotine. Fast, sure and painless. If we get busy, we could clean out the human garbage in our death rows in a couple of years. THEN, you have a deterent. Certainty of punishment is a deterent, dying of old age on death row, at taxpayer expense, is not.

If dispatching people with speed is the main priority, why even bother with a trial? If we “know” someone is guilty, surely the word of an anonymous witness or two should suffice, and the whole business could be handled with a squad of rifles and the nearest hard wall. If you want deterrent value, why stop where you did? Why not impale the heads on pikes like the Romans and others used to do?

There’s still plenty of countries which do business this way, and yet I don’t see American conservatives migrating to them in any great numbers. Maybe speedy capital punishment has a downside?

I have no moral issue with the existence of a death penalty, but our record in carrying it out justly is abysmal. It is almost as random as firing shots into a crowd. The record of shortcuts and prosecutorial misconduct is apalling. The standard of guilt in some of these cases was that “the defendant was a black guy/hillbilly who COULD have been in the area at the time of the murder.” I speak from direct knowledge when I say that a well to do person has more due process in a zoning board hearing for fence height permits than most death row defendants have when their life is at stake. There have been many many death row inmates who were found innocent on appeal, and it usually happened after decades, not one year. In many cases it took that long for the science of evidence to advance enough to prove them innocent.

As a final thought, I would leave you with this: any society which thinks it can stoke a bloodlust for executions and still teach it’s populace “pro-life” values for fetuses and old people is deluding itself.