Opinion on the death penalty?

[Mtdobbs]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

That last line is very important. The cases in which the execution is a necessity is very rare if not practically nonexistent.

If you can give me an example of a situation that would make it “necessary” (in the west) to execute a criminal, according to the Catechism, I would more than willing to discuss it.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Solitary confinement. True solitary confinement i.e. they may have space, even outside space, but no contact with anyone, including guards. Meals put through a hatch so no risk. The only thing may be medical care and I’m hoping that someone in a situation to need it isn’t going to be in a position to attack someone.

Forbidden.

ACLU and others.

 

[MonteRCMS]

How can it accept such evil?

Read and study the authoritative writings.

 

[YoungApologist3]

What about a mob boss? That, along with similar situations, is pretty much the only time I could justify using capital punishment. A mob boss has access to people who have money, weapons, and influence.

 

[1john418]

Economics It costs more to kill someone on death row than it does to imprison them for life [1] Most individuals on death row are ooor, and cannot afford adequate lawyers, they are given those who work for the state and oversee multiple cases. [2]

Morality Numerous cases in US history show that innocents have been murdered [3]. Some capital punishment is done for political purposes (i.e. to show a politician is dedicated to his stance on the issue, will not sign an injunction in order to please voters, even if there is doubt an injunction is needed) [4] No human has the right to take a life. The death penalty does not allow for prolonged repentance. Imagine if Paul had been put to death for religious genocide before he died!

Sources
[1] Costs | Death Penalty Information Center

[2] Representation | Death Penalty Information Center

[3] Innocence | Death Penalty Information Center

[4] see movie: Dead Man Walking

 

[Mtdobbs]

Yeah, I can definitely see how a mob/mafia boss could fall under what could be morally acceptable, by the Catholic church in the west. An incarcerated Mob boss would still be allowed to have access to his lawyer, who could also be “working” for him. This could make the mob boss able to carry out hits from prison, even under severe forms of confinement. But there would have to be proof, beyond reasonable doubt that the mob boss was doing this and responsible for the murders from prison.

 

[Mtdobbs]

No contact with anyone is impossible as prisoners are legally entitled to legal counsel for appeals et al.

 

[YoungApologist3]

It might even be possible for the mob to raid the prison and free the mob boss, or even infiltrate the justice system itself. Money, influence, and weapons can convince a lot of people to do a lot of things.

 

[Ender]

Here is the the ‘plain as day’ Church teaching on the matter. Death penalty is not excluded as a potential penalty…only if non-lethal means are not available… Those cases where a Catholic could support the death penalty are practically non-existent… can you agree with that teaching?

No, I do not agree with that judgment.

…the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

To start with, this is not the traditional teaching of the church. In no document I have seen (prior to 1995) has the church ever included this requirement. In fact this caveat is not even included in the 1992 edition of the new catechism.

Regarding the second paragraph concerning the dignity of the human person, that cannot be too great an objection inasmuch as we are allowed to offend his dignity when we decide it is for our own good.

As for the final paragraph, while I have seen assertions that modern prisons provide secure facilities that were not previously available, I have seen nothing to support the claim. Life sentences go back to Roman times.

So no, I do not agree with the judgments in that section, and while we are obligated to assent to doctrines we are not obligated to assent to opinions, which is what I believe this is.

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. (Cardinal Dulles)

 

[Ender]

If you can give me an example of a situation that would make it “necessary” (in the west) to execute a criminal, according to the Catechism, I would more than willing to discuss it.

What is “necessary” in a punishment? In the end it comes down to one thing: that it is just.

What makes a punishment just? Two things are involved here: that its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime, and that it doesn’t have harmful side effects.

2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

But if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed, the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice. (Aquinas ST II-II 43, 7 ad 1)

If we assume for the sake of discussion that there are no harmful side effects to society as a result of executing killers, what is the argument against it? Is the punishment just? That is undeniably so for if it wasn’t the church could not support it even in rare and practically nonexistent circumstances. But if it is a just punishment what other requirement needs to be met?

It seems to me the only objection to its use is not that it is incommensurate with the severity of the crime but that it is in some ways harmful to society, but that determination is a judgment with which we have no obligation to assent.

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)

 

[Ender]

No human has the right to take a life.

This is directly counter to church teaching. She has taught for 2000 years, and does so even today, that the State has the moral right to execute prisoners for serious crimes.

The death penalty does not allow for prolonged repentance.

I have posted two citations refuting this as a concern, but I’ll try one more.

“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” (Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles ch. 147)

 

[Mtdobbs]

I guess the bottom line is, there is no “official teaching” stating unequivocally that the death penalty is Always Wrong, just as there was never an “official teaching” that it was Always Right. The church, in her prudential judgment, has tried to guide the faithful based on reading the signs of the times. I have very much enjoyed reading all of your incredibly well thought out and documented arguments with others here. It has edified me and reminded me of why I like coming to CAF. Thank you!

 

[godisgood77]

To start with, this is not the traditional teaching of the church. In no document I have seen (prior to 1995) has the church ever included this requirement. In fact this caveat is not even included in the 1992 edition of the new catechism.

Thanks for the response and honestly.

The date which a teaching is formulated or reformulated is irrelevant to its authority.

In addition to the previous quote from the CCC here is JPII in his very weighty encyclical Evangelium vitae

“The nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (EV 56).

I believe you disagree with the teachings of St JPII and what is clearly laid out on the CCC on the grounds that it is different than it was previously taught…which of course if your prerogative. The teaching has developed and deepened.

Here is a pretty well written piece on this topic:

http://truthandcharityforum.org/john-paul-ii-on-the-death-penalty-a-development-of-doctrine/

 

[blackforest]

I’m weighing in quite late, but I support an act of violence ONLY to prevent an overt, immediate, tangible threat to life - e.g. the death penalty to stop a murderer from killing someone else, (no excuses with modern prisons), or I’ll take up arms if someone is invading my city. That seems pretty consistent with Catholic teaching.

In the words of Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Jr., (a non-Catholic), “Only God has the authority to end life on this planet. All we have is the power.”

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Has anyone read this book? By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment by Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette, published by Ignatius Press. I have heard mostly good things about it and am interested in reading it sometime in order to understand both sides of the argument.

 

[Ender]

Thank you. While one can never be fully comfortable disagreeing with the opinion of someone like JPII, I am at least comfortable that I can fully defend the position I have taken, which is pretty much this:

It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. And, if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. (Christopher Ferrera)

 

[godisgood77]

Christopher Ferrera

Yikes… Christopher Ferrera vs St John Paul II on Church teaching?

Doesn’t Chris’ affiliation with radical runaway blog The Remnant disqualify him from the conversation? I would think his credibility would be tough stand behind

 

[Ender]

The date which a teaching is formulated or reformulated is irrelevant to its authority.

Yes, I agree with this. One cannot, however, accurately claim that something is a traditional teaching of the church which was not taught before 1995. The claim in the first paragraph of section 2267 in the new catechism is factually incorrect.

In addition to the previous quote from the CCC here is JPII in his very weighty encyclical Evangelium vitae…

Yes, the encyclical cites the catechism…and the catechism cites the encyclical.

I believe you disagree with the teachings of St JPII and what is clearly laid out on the CCC on the grounds that it is different than it was previously taught…which of course if your prerogative. The teaching has developed and deepened.

What I disagree with is the belief that the catechism (and EV) represent new doctrine rather than prudential judgments. Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger said about it in 1995:

“You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear."

Deepening the application of principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances seems pretty much the definition of a prudential judgment. Morality is not dependent on circumstances even as the application of moral principles may well be determined by precisely that.

And “permitting” the death penalty to disappear is a very long way from “its use has become immoral unless necessary for defense.”

 

[Ender]

Yikes… Christopher Ferrera vs St John Paul II on Church teaching?

You keep trying to make this a dispute between me and JPII when in fact the dispute is between me and you. Nor does a comment become false simply because of the nature of the person who expresses it. Ferrara’s statement stands alone; it is either valid or invalid, and it doesn’t become false because of anything to do with him personally.

Inasmuch as it was God who said “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed” why am I not as justified in saying you are disagreeing with God as you are in saying I am disagreeing with JPII?

 

[B3ka]

I support the death penalty from a secular perspective. I am a Baptist, but my support is not based on religious reasons. I support the death penalty for 3 reasons.

First, it is the best way to prevent the perpetrator from acting again. Look up things like Warren vs. District of Colombia. People like that should not be allowed to live.

Second, in this country we have seperation of church and state. I actually support this for reasons similar to John Rawl’s ‘veil of ignorance,’ argument. Suppose that one day Islam or some other religion becomes the dominant religion in this country. Suppose that they tried to implement their beliefs into law. As a Christian, I would chafe at seeing the laws in this country change in support of a religion not everyone follows.

Finally, I favor the death penalty for practical reasons. Keeping someone alive for 20-50 years is expensive. As a taxpayer, I don’t want to support murderers financially.