Is the death penalty really inadmissable?

[blackforest]

“Prudential” is the operative word here. There is no prudential case for the death penalty in our society today.

 

[Ender]

“Prudential” is the operative word here. There is no prudential case for the death penalty in our society today.

A prudential decision is a matter of judgment, and people may legitimately disagree on such questions. That you judge capital punishment unnecessary or inadvisable doesn’t mean it is actually so. That’s an opinion, not a fact. My opinion is different.

 

[sealabeag]

Which society? There are many societies all with different levels of penal sophistication. A wealthy country with advanced security prisons can’t be compared to a third world country’s prison system.

 

[blackforest]

Your opinion needs to be buttressed by facts and have a rational basis to it. Wanting desperately to cling to a belief is not sufficient grounds for holding on to it. Otherwise, the opinion is not a prudential one, which it should indeed be in matters of life and death.

A wealthy country with advanced security prisons can’t be compared to a third world country’s prison system.

The Catholic Church does not make the argument that the death penalty is justifiable “just in case” somebody escapes from prison. And comparing a prison in even the most destitute country to the days of nomads roaming, free to kill at leisure, is comparing apples and oranges.

Church teaching notwithstanding, I’d argue that the blame for that should be placed on systemic incompetence.

 

[Ender]

Your opinion needs to be buttressed by facts and have a rational basis to it. Wanting desperately to cling to a belief is not sufficient grounds for holding on to it. Otherwise, the opinion is not a prudential one, which it should indeed be in matters of life and death.

This is an accusation, not an argument. Do you have an argument you’d care to make?

 

[blackforest]

I’m simply distinguishing between a prudential and non-prudential opinion. I cannot accuse you of anything because I don’t know which approach you take.

I have yet to hear a prudential case for the death penalty. But if you feel you have one, by all means share it.

 

[Ender]

I have yet to hear a prudential case for the death penalty. But if you feel you have one, by all means share it.

The argument depends on a correct understanding of punishment. The church teaches punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence, and the primary objective is retribution - retributive justice.

Since protection is only a secondary objective there is no way any punishment can be justified simply by whether or not it provides protection, nor is it there an obligation that protection must be factored in in meting out punishment. It is an objective to work for; it is not a requirement that must be met. Punishment must first of all be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” (CCC 2266)

There is no argument to be made that capital punishment does not satisfy this obligation (for at least the crime of murder).

Secondly, the punishment must not cause more harm than good. This is the proper area for prudential judgment. The general argument against capital punishment is that it contributes to a “culture of death” by, presumably, making death too casual and common.

I take the position expressed in the Catechism of Trent: “Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder.” In a culture that supports and even applauds abortion, euthanasia, and now infanticide, we are well beyond the point where death became casual and common.

Rather, we have lost all sense of the true “wickedness of murder”. Even where it is used capital punishment is reserved for murder with “special circumstances”, apparently because your every day murder is just not all that special. Given that the nature of the punishment to a great extent reflects our view of the seriousness of the crime, what do we signal when we fail to inflict the most serious punishment on the most serious crime if it is not that the crime is not all that serious?

God said murderers are to die because man is made in God’s image. It is precisely because man’s life is of such value that those who deliberately take innocent life are to forfeit their own. “Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God?” (Innocent I)

 

[EssentialBeing]

A life sentence is a secret death penalty”.[257]

Yes very true & for hardcore criminals, in particular the ones that take life, the death penalty may be far to easy & actually escape the suffering of a life lived behind bars.

It is an objective to work for; it is not a requirement that must be met.

To work towards an objective with no requirement is self defeating with no desired result, does this seem right?

what do we signal when we fail to inflict the most serious punishment

Weakness, however our Catholic nature seems to lean more towards forgiveness & rehabilitation, rather than retribution or vengeance by death, an eye for an eye.

The church teaches punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence,

Can you provide reference of this being official church teachings? There is something missing here because punishment is already a retribution, in the form of a prison sentence. I agree with the other 3 being an objective of punishment but would replace retribution with justice.

God said murderers are to die because man is made in God’s image.

Yes but not at the hands of another human, as far as I know the church has taught, we are to have respect for all life no matter how evil some living souls can be.

Catechism of Trent “ wickedness of murder ” Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God ?

A document published in 1566. I don’t think anyone has lost the ability to weigh the “wickedness of murder” we have a fairly substantial system of punishment that at least tries to rehabilitate whilst providing the minimum level integrity for all human life. The Catechism Of Trent 1566 seems to have been replaced by the Catechism Of The Catholic Church in 1992

God may have permitted this in accordance with humanities interpretation of the scriptures in 1566 but we have changed so much since then. I attribute positive change & the correction of errors to be in line with the growth or evolution of human knowledge, we simply didn’t know any better back then

 

[Diaconia]

The Supreme Pontiff Francis certainly thinks so, but so many Catholics think they know better than the Pope.

Now before replying, think for 60 seconds about whether you know more about moral theology, and doctrinal development than he does.

Then, consider for 30 seconds more what kinds of special graces you have to teach 1 billion Catholics that are greater than the graces given him by Jesus Christ.

Some food for thought,
Deacon Christopher

 

[Anesti33]

The Supreme Pontiff Francis certainly thinks so, but so many Catholics think they know better than the Pope.

Now before replying, think for 60 seconds about whether you know more about moral theology, and doctrinal development than he does.

Then, consider for 30 seconds more what kinds of special graces you have to teach 1 billion Catholics that are greater than the graces given him by Jesus Christ.

Some food for thought,
Deacon Christopher

I have been subject to five Supreme Pontiffs in my life, and I have imbibed teaching from the Magisterium during all that time. I find it difficult to reconcile Francis’ pronouncement with the balance of teachings by all the rest. I appreciate that as a moral theologian he has invented a novel quality of an act, admissibility. I am sure that admissibility and inadmissibility will be more sharply defined in the coming decades.

In the meantime, no politician subject to my vote takes on the abolition of capital punishment as a platform issue. I will continue to vote in good conscience for those who do not. The Holy Father, Francis, himself said that we must follow our consciences after discernment, and so I gladly follow his lead.

 

[Ender]

To work towards an objective with no requirement is self defeating with no desired result, does this seem right?

As I said, there are several objectives, and one is primary. If possible the penalty will attempt to achieve the secondary objectives, but that cannot be done at the expense of the primary objective. It is acceptable that a secondary objective is not met. It is not acceptable if the primary is not. The achievement of the secondary cannot come at the expense of the primary, but the reverse is not true. So yes, the secondary objectives are real and important. They are just not mandatory.

Can you provide reference of this being official church teachings?

The purposes of a criminal justice system are rehabilitation, deterrence, public safety, and the restoration of justice. (Nebraska Bishops, 2015)

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution; defending public order; deterring future wrongdoing; and promoting reform, repentance, and conversion of those who commit evil acts. (USCCB 2005)

Yes but not at the hands of another human, as far as I know the church has taught that, we are to have respect for all life no matter how evil some living souls can be.

Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

The Catechism Of Trent 1566 seems to have been replaced by the Catechism Of The Catholic Church in 1992

Moral truth is eternal, and the church was presumed to be able to discern it. If that is the case then what was expressed 500 years ago should be just as true today as it was then.

we simply didn’t know any better back then

You mean all the way back to the beginning of 2018? because that was when the church still unambiguously recognized that capital punishment could be valid depending on circumstances.

God may have permitted this in accordance with humanities interpretation of the scriptures in 1566…

This was the virtually unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, about which the church holds:

…it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture …contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (1st Vatican Council)

 

[EssentialBeing]

Can you provide reference of this being official church teachings?

No mention of retribution, a much better example for the objective of punishment

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution; defending public order; deterring future wrongdoing; and promoting reform, repentance, and conversion of those who commit evil acts. (USCCB 2005)

And yet there is no mention of a death penalty. I do notice the word “just retribution” but could be in the form of life in prison.

Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?

In self defense & only then, when a serious justifiable threat to your own life & or loved ones, is imminent.

Moral truth is eternal, and the church was presumed to be able to discern it. If that is the case then what was expressed 500 years ago should be just as true today as it was then

Knowledge & practice also change over time with the evolution of human knowledge. Humanity & the church have corrected many errors & have adjusted their doctrine accordingly through out history. We don’t burn heretics at the stake anymore in accordance with church teachings hundreds of years ago.

The correction of errors could be the wrong word, as it may have been appropriate 500 years ago, but this is why there are subtle changes to doctrine over time. When we study such ancient knowledge we are more than likely interpreting it with an eye that is current for our time now. Just as V1 was appropriate for 1870-1964, then we must trust that V2 is appropriate for 1965 to now

A cliche is that “we must learn from the past” i don’t think this necessarily means doing the same as the past. For one moment, can we imagine what our religion was like 500 years ago, what would it have been like? Certainly very different to today…

 

[Ender]

And yet there is no mention of a death penalty. I do notice the word “just retribution” but could be in the form of life in prison.

I was citing the church’s teaching on the objectives of punishment. Retribution - “redressing the disorder caused by the offense” - is the primary objective; the other three are secondary.

In self defense & only then, when a serious justifiable threat to your own life & or loved ones, is imminent.

This is not what the church teaches. She has always identified three occasions when taking a life is legitimate. They are in a just war, in self defense, and capital punishment.

Knowledge & practice also change over time with the evolution of human knowledge. Humanity & the church have corrected many errors & have adjusted their doctrine accordingly through out history.

Is it your position then that the church taught error for 2000 years, and identified an evil as good?

The correction of errors could be the wrong word, as it may have been appropriate 500 years ago, but this is why there are subtle changes to doctrine over time

“Yesterday it was moral, today it is immoral” does not qualify as a “subtle” change. Morality does not change with time or place; it is eternal. Our understanding of it can change, but if you’re going to take the position that virtually all the Fathers, all the Doctors, and all the popes and the Magisterium were wrong on this point for 2000 years then what does that say about whether the Holy Spirit is actually guarding the church from serious error? If a doctrine so unanimously believed for so long, and supported by Scripture, can be wrong what faith should we put in all the other doctrines?

 

[blackforest]

I’ll have to think about this.

You and I are in agreement on the issue of protection. A good argument cannot be made for the death penalty to “protect” society. An argument for deterrence also won’t hold ground. Southern states bear simultaneously the highest murder rate and the the highest execution rate; such a correlation shouldn’t exist if the death penalty worked as a deterrent. Rehabilitation is moot, at least in this lifetime, when the perpetrator is dead.

This would leave us with retribution. Let’s look again at CC2266, this time in full.

**[2266] The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, *has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.*67

Killing somebody isn’t correcting them; they must be alive to experience the condition of being corrected. And something “medicinal” serves to cure somebody, not kill them.
Also, I see the petito principii at play here in the assumption that killing somebody for killing is automatically “commensurate.”

 

[Ender]

Killing somebody isn’t correcting them; they must be alive to experience the condition of being corrected.

If you look at the entire section you cited you will note it ends with “67”. That footnote refers to Lk 23: 40-43 which is the episode of the “good thief” on the cross. That is, the charge in 2266 that punishment must have “a medicinal purpose: as far as possible…” is illustrated by an example of the death penalty fulfilling that charge.

Also, I see the petito principii at play here in the assumption that killing somebody for killing is automatically “commensurate.”

If it was not commensurate then, again, the church would have taught serious error for two millennia, since if it is not commensurate then it is unjust. Worse, however, we would have to charge God with behaving unjustly inasmuch as he commanded the Israelites to apply it to murderers. I really don’t think there is any reasonable argument possible that it is somehow not commensurate in being too severe.

 

[MikeInVA]

The Supreme Pontiff Francis certainly thinks so, but so many Catholics think they know better than the Pope.

Including all previous supreme pontiffs who taught otherwise.

 

[TheAdvocate197]

Well, if ex cathedra is the standard, then that would free up Catholics to disagree with all teachings not pronounced ex cathedra.

 

[TheAdvocate197]

Good point! But then again, can you think of a crime that person could commit which would not require putting them away from others to protect them?

 

[Ender]

Unless you interpret Pope Francis’ comments as prudential judgment then, yes, there is a serious problem. If we assume there is a new doctrine which repudiates the doctrine taught by the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and councils for 2000 years then we would be forced to choose, but if his comments represent his judgment and are not doctrinal, then all of that disappears. That’s the position that seems most defensible.

Your position, however, is not unreasonable:

“When neither the consensus of the whole Church is had, nor clear evidence from the sources is available, an ultimate binding decision is not possible. Were one formally to take place, the conditions for such an act would be lacking, and hence the question would have to be raised concerning its legitimacy,” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 1972)

 

[pnewton]

Including all previous supreme pontiffs who taught otherwise.

That would be zero, as the way the Holy Father is presenting it is within the modern temporal context. He is not say it has never been admissible.