Korean Church calls for death penalty abolishment

[JimG]

It seems to me that the Church’s position on capital punishment has not changed. The only thing different is the inclusion in the current catechism of a general prudential judgement as to the capability of modern societies to protect themselves without having recourse to it’s use.

And a prudential judgment, is of course, not doctrine. Because of the varied nature of societies existing in the world, it can not be universally applied.

A Karl Keating e-letter on the matter, gave the matter some further discussion here.

 

[1holycatholic]

It seems to me that the Church’s position on capital punishment has not changed. The only thing different is the inclusion in the current catechism of a general prudential judgement as to the capability of modern societies to protect themselves without having recourse to it’s use.

And a prudential judgment, is of course, not doctrine. Because of the varied nature of societies existing in the world, it can not be universally applied.

A Karl Keating e-letter on the matter, gave the matter some further discussion here.

Exactly!

 

[Ender]

The Church has not given carte blache to execute for any crime.

Good, then we are agreed that your comment about the Church acknowledging the right of States to execute people for any crime was … incorrect.

Traditional calling for the death penalty? Some tradition!

You need to read more about the concepts of punishment, justice, expiation, etc; that would give you a better understanding of why the Church takes the positions she does. It would also help you understand the problems with 2267.

I, however, am convinced that the Church will never return to the “tradition” of callling for death in all capital crimes.

This is an intriguing way to phrase things. Do you know what a “capital” crime is? It is a “crime punishable by death.” I think what you mean is that the Church will never define any crime as a capital crime, but, unless she is willing to repudiate Gen 9:6 (and CCC 2260) I’m not sure she has any choice in the matter.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It seems to me that the Church’s position on capital punishment has not changed. The only thing different is the inclusion in the current catechism of a general prudential judgement as to the capability of modern societies to protect themselves without having recourse to it’s use.

That’s not the only difference, or even the main difference. There is no doubt that the judgment about the capability of modern penal systems is a prudential opinion, but the bigger problem is that 2267 ties capital punishment solely to protection without regard for justice. That’s not even consistent with 2266 let alone her historical teaching.

A Karl Keating e-letter on the matter, gave the matter some further discussion here.

This comment by Keating caught my attention:

Dulles believes that section 2267 and “Evangelium Vitae” are not Church teaching, in the proper meaning of the term, but reflect the “prudential judgment” of John Paul II.

Those who go ballistic when someone questions this part of the Catechism should reread that sentence slowly: section 2267 is not Church teaching.

Ender

 

[JimG]

That’s not the only difference, or even the main difference. There is no doubt that the judgment about the capability of modern penal systems is a prudential opinion, but the bigger problem is that 2267 ties capital punishment solely to protection without regard for justice. That’s not even consistent with 2266 let alone her historical teaching.

This comment by Keating caught my attention:

Dulles believes that section 2267 and “Evangelium Vitae” are not Church teaching, in the proper meaning of the term, but reflect the “prudential judgment” of John Paul II.

Those who go ballistic when someone questions this part of the Catechism should reread that sentence slowly: section 2267 is not Church teaching.

Ender

I didn’t read the article referenced by the Keating e-letter, but the gist of it seems to support the qualms you have with the presentation given in the current catechism. From the e-letter:

"Section 2266 acknowledges the traditional three-fold purpose of punishment and lists retribution as the first purpose . . .

Section 2267 does not flow smoothly from section 2266. It does not analyze the death penalty in terms of punishment but in terms of legitimate defense, taking a cue here from “Evangelium Vitae.”"

Link

 

[CMatt25]

There would be a better cause for jubilation if the bishops could provide a sensible reason for opposing the death penalty.

Ender

One possible reason I would say is it’s not a giant leap to go from “very rare if not practically non existent” cases to opposition and abolishment. However seeing you have stated CCC 2267 is in error, my question is why then hasn’t CCC been amended so it is not in error?

I only ask because it seems confusing to me. CCC says only in “very rare if not non existent” cases. Some politically conservative Catholics it seems to me support the use of the death penalty in greater numbers than “very rare if not practically non existent”. Poster 1holycatholic says “the Catechism of the Catholic Church is without error in it’s entirety”. You’re saying in posts CCC is in error. Who or what is right? It makes it very confusing.

 

[Ender]

One possible reason I would say is it’s not a giant leap to go from “very rare if not practically non existent” cases to opposition and abolishment.

It does perhaps seem that way, but that appearance is deceiving. That step would be monumental.

*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Dulles)

However seeing you have stated CCC 2267 is in error, my question is why then hasn’t CCC been amended so it is not in error?

I wish I had an answer to this, but I suspect that it won’t be an easy thing to do, starting with the problem that it would involve recognizing the error in the first place. Understand, though, what error I’m referring to, which is the claim in the first sentence about the traditional teaching of the Church allowing capital punishment “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives …” This is incorrect: the Church never had such a restriction. I believe that the second sentence is actually worse but the first one is demonstrably wrong so that is the one I refer to when talking about actual errors.

I only ask because it seems confusing to me. CCC says only in “very rare if not non existent” cases. Some politically conservative Catholics it seems to me support the use of the death penalty in greater numbers than “very rare if not practically non existent”.

Yes, that would include me, but I have never made an argument in support of the death penalty with any political consideration. I don’t normally even discuss its practical aspects; I address it solely from a moral perspective based on what the Church has actually said on the subject and I consider the part you quoted to be a prudential opinion and not Church doctrine.

Ender

 

[CMatt25]

I wish I had an answer to this, but I suspect that it won’t be an easy thing to do, starting with the problem that it would involve recognizing the error in the first place. Understand, though, what error I’m referring to, which is the claim in the first sentence about the traditional teaching of the Church allowing capital punishment “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives …” This is incorrect: the Church never had such a restriction. I believe that the second sentence is actually worse but the first one is demonstrably wrong so that is the one I refer to when talking about actual errors.

Yes, that would include me, but I have never made an argument in support of the death penalty with any political consideration. I don’t normally even discuss its practical aspects; I address it solely from a moral perspective based on what the Church has actually said on the subject and I consider the part you quoted to be a prudential opinion and not Church doctrine.

Ender

Ok thanks. So as I understand it, correct me if I’m misinterpreting. You are saying CCC 2267 is a combination of error and opinion. And you’re saying the Church may have a problem in the first place recognizing when something in the catechism is in error.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

National Bishops’ Conferences around the world have called for the end of the death penalty in their respective countries and, as far as I know, the CDF is yet to correct any of them.

The Holy Father praised Mexico’s abolition of the death penalty: “The right to life must be recognized in all its fullness. In this context, I joyfully greet the initiative by which Mexico, abolished the death penalty in 2005.”

 

[Ender]

Ok thanks. So as I understand it, correct me if I’m misinterpreting. You are saying CCC 2267 is a combination of error and opinion.

The first sentence is 2267 is historically incorrect; the Church has never had the restriction it refers to. The last sentence, which is an evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems, is undeniably an opinion, so … yes, 2267 is a combination of error and opinion.

And you’re saying the Church may have a problem in the first place recognizing when something in the catechism is in error.

There is a real difficulty here in that, as NewEnglandPriest just pointed out, the pope and any number of bishops are celebrating the abolishment of capital punishment wherever it occurs, but that position would be undercut by having to rework the basis on which capital punishment is opposed. I think we’re in a bit of a box here and I don’t see any easy way out.

Ender

 

[JimG]

At least where I live, a death penalty conviction means that the convict is not going to die for quite a long time, if at all. It’s going to be 10 to 20 years before execution. Or the verdict or the sentence will be overturned or reduced on appeal.

And we know that the whole thing is going to be very expensive for the taxpayers, who will generally pay for both the prosecution and the defense, the costs of which will continue for all those years. It’s the most expensive type of prosecution.

The only upside is that we know that the defendant convicted with a death penalty imposed, will not be back on the streets. He won’t be out on parole while all those appeals are going on, and if the verdict is overturned, the prosecution has the option to re-try the case as less than ‘capital murder.’ That will keep him in prison.

It is only slightly less expensive to seek a sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole. That’s also quite costly, and the chances of successful prosecution are more difficult than with a simple first degree murder case.

But a conviction of first degree murder always carries with it the possibility of parole, and that is always at the discretion of the parole board, not the judge, not the jury, or the prosecutors, or the victims’ families. In that case, the victims’ families often make repeated visits to the prison for parole hearings to speak against the parole, in order to preserve public safety.

The preservation of public safety is not nearly so simple as par 2267 of the catechism would seem to conclude.