Pope and Death Penalty

[Mount_Carmel]

The rules of the church, well according to recent American definitions appear to show that if the miscreant is already in custody, that to then kill him/her is a step too far.

 

[porthos11]

This isn’t difficult.

The death penalty cannot be employed when there is another option which allows the person to live that he might repent and achieve salvation.

That’s all there is to it. Everyone is making it harder than it has to be.

-Tim-

Oh, there are Catholics who lump the death penalty alongside evils such as abortion and euthanasia, explicitly or implicitly stating that it’s inherently immoral. That’s heretical and needs to be corrected.

One is free to oppose the imposition of the death penalty, even unconditionally.

One is not free to call the death penalty itself immoral or intrinsically evil. The Church cannot claim this without completely undermining her teaching office on matters of faith and morals (because she has always taught that the death penalty is not immoral, and continues to do so today).

As for salvation, the death penalty has been shown, in fact, to be an effective instrument towards the salvation of criminals. St. Vincent Pallotti, while assisting the condemned in the Papal States, was edified because he witnessed many holy deaths on the scaffold. The prospect of execution and the knowledge of one’s own death gives the condemned a unique opportunity to prepare his soul and plan for it by confessing and receiving the Sacraments before the big day. Many horrible sinners are in heaven now because, not in spite of, the death penalty.

 

[Brendan]

The rules of the church, well according to recent American definitions appear to show that if the miscreant is already in custody, that to then kill him/her is a step too far.

Not necessarily. What about the safety of other prisoners and guards? That is a factor to consider when evaluating a case for possible use of capital punishment.

 

[Fragile]

Not necessarily. What about the safety of other prisoners and guards? That is a factor to consider when evaluating a case for possible use of capital punishment.

We have a winner!

 

[TimothyH]

Oh, there are Catholics who lump the death penalty alongside evils such as abortion and euthanasia, explicitly or implicitly stating that it’s inherently immoral. That’s heretical and needs to be corrected.

One is free to oppose the imposition of the death penalty, even unconditionally.

One is not free to call the death penalty itself immoral or intrinsically evil. The Church cannot claim this without completely undermining her teaching office on matters of faith and morals (because she has always taught that the death penalty is not immoral, and continues to do so today).

As for salvation, the death penalty has been shown, in fact, to be an effective instrument towards the salvation of criminals. St. Vincent Pallotti, while assisting the condemned in the Papal States, was edified because he witnessed many holy deaths on the scaffold. The prospect of execution and the knowledge of one’s own death gives the condemned a unique opportunity to prepare his soul and plan for it by confessing and receiving the Sacraments before the big day. Many horrible sinners are in heaven now because, not in spite of, the death penalty.

Morality is based on God’s law. The Church teaches God’s law.

The Church has said that execution is against God’s law when there are other alternatives for ensuring public safety.

-Tim-

 

[adawgj]

Oh, there are Catholics who lump the death penalty alongside evils such as abortion and euthanasia, explicitly or implicitly stating that it’s inherently immoral. That’s heretical and needs to be corrected.

One is free to oppose the imposition of the death penalty, even unconditionally.

One is not free to call the death penalty itself immoral or intrinsically evil. The Church cannot claim this without completely undermining her teaching office on matters of faith and morals (because she has always taught that the death penalty is not immoral, and continues to do so today).

As for salvation, the death penalty has been shown, in fact, to be an effective instrument towards the salvation of criminals. St. Vincent Pallotti, while assisting the condemned in the Papal States, was edified because he witnessed many holy deaths on the scaffold. The prospect of execution and the knowledge of one’s own death gives the condemned a unique opportunity to prepare his soul and plan for it by confessing and receiving the Sacraments before the big day. Many horrible sinners are in heaven now because, not in spite of, the death penalty.

First, cool username, wonder where D’artagnan and the other one are.
Anyway, I wouldn’t say comparing the death penalty to abortion and euthanasia is heretical. Murder is murder regardless of who’s doing the killing. It’s breaking a Commandment and going against God; “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.”(Romans 12:19)

 

[Brendan]

First, cool username, wonder where D’artagnan and the other one are.
Anyway, I wouldn’t say comparing the death penalty to abortion and euthanasia is heretical. Murder is murder regardless of who’s doing the killing. It’s breaking a Commandment and going against God; “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.”(Romans 12:19)

No one is talking about personal revenge, but justice by the State.

Also from Romans ( 13:3-5)

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer

 

[Brendan]

Morality is based on God’s law. The Church teaches God’s law.

The Church has said that execution is against God’s law when there are other alternatives for ensuring public safety.

-Tim-

As for clarification, the Church teaches that other means must be effective ones. CCC 2267)

And if there are no other effective means, then the State actually has an obligation to use the death penalty

Catechism of Trent on the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life.

Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

 

[adawgj]

No one is talking about personal revenge, but justice by the State.

Also from Romans ( 13:3-5)

Yes, and that “justice” called the death penalty no longer holds relevance in a modern society. It’s time for a more civilized age where governments no longer execute people.
Virtually all of Europe has abolished the death penalty or capital punishment. Mexico doesn’t have the death penalty.

Why must the United States continue executing people for their committed crimes?

The only difference that the USA has made is altering methods of execution from hanging by the noose to the electric chair to lethal injection.

When does the killing stop?

 

[Brendan]

Yes, and that “justice” called the death penalty no longer holds relevance in a modern society. It’s time for a more civilized age where governments no longer execute people.

I don’t think that the Church has pulled Paul’s Letter to the Romans from the Bible yet, so it is still valid moral teaching

That is the great thing about the Catholic Church, we recognize that Morality is not Relative. It does not change based on time and place.

 

[porthos11]

First, cool username, wonder where D’artagnan and the other one are.
Anyway, I wouldn’t say comparing the death penalty to abortion and euthanasia is heretical. Murder is murder regardless of who’s doing the killing. It’s breaking a Commandment and going against God; “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.”(Romans 12:19)

This is not the teaching of the Church. The Church has always held that capital punishment, as a matter of principle, is a form of “just killing”. When administered justly, it is not murder. Abortion and euthanasia always are, which is why it is not right to lump capital punishment along with them. In fact, the Church has always taught that, contrary to being a violation of the Fifth Commandment, the death penalty is in fact imposed in “paramount obedience” to it.

The current Catechism can mention prudential judgements against its use, but these do not speak against the inherent morality of the death penalty. This is why one CAN support the death penalty and still worthily receive Holy Communion. The Church cannot all of a sudden teach that capital punishment is inherently immoral, otherwise, it will be contradicting itself on a matter of morals. This is not possible.

 

[livingwordunity]

Actually, the Church teaching is that it can only be used if there are no other means of safeguarding others.

(CCC 2267)

In regards to repentance and salvation, there is actually a body of evidence that indicates that the use of the death penalty actually brings about repentance, and thus salvation

Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote

firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment

In a noteable case, we can look at the example of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. He was raised Catholic and (obviously) fell away from the Faith.

While on death row, he had a reversion. He requested, and received, the Sacrament of Reconciliation several times on death row, and then again, immediately prior to his execution, along with Last Rites.

Interestingly enough, the willful acceptance of just punishment for temporal crimes is an indulgence, plenary for capital crimes. So there is a decently likelihood that McVeigh went straight into Heaven.

The last paragraph of what you said is like what Jesus did for one of the criminals who was crucified with Him. And notice that Jesus did not correct the criminal when he said that he was receiving a just punishment for his crimes. The bold emphasis is mine in the following quote from Scripture:

Luke 23 (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)

39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41** And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds**; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

 

[gracepoole]

The current Catechism can mention prudential judgements against its use, but these do not speak against the inherent morality of the death penalty. This is why one CAN support the death penalty and still worthily receive Holy Communion. The Church cannot all of a sudden teach that capital punishment is inherently immoral, otherwise, it will be contradicting itself on a matter of morals. This is not possible.

Are you claiming that one can support the death penalty in all situations and still be acting according to the Church’s teachings?

 

[Brendan]

Are you claiming that one can support the death penalty in all situations and still be acting according to the Church’s teachings?

I would say that, as a Catholic, I would have to reject the death penalty when other effective means of safeguarding others are available.

I would recognize that such conditions are rare, if not practically non-existent.

If such effective means are not possible, then, as a Catholic, I would state that it would be an obligation to use the death penalty.

 

[porthos11]

Are you claiming that one can support the death penalty in all situations and still be acting according to the Church’s teachings?

No. I am claiming that one can support the death penalty, period, and still be in line with Church teaching.

Because prudence is a cardinal virtue, one would have to be extremely cautious; there can be a moral aspect to indiscriminately applying the death penalty and supporting such applications without listening to what the Church says. I would not dismiss the Church’s prudential judgement merely because they are “prudential.” Part of this prudence is erring on the side of life, which is why I don’t clamor for the return of the death penalty, for example, to Canada.

This is not the same as attaching the label of “wrong” or “immoral” to the death penalty as a matter of moral principle, because it isn’t. I object to this characterization because it is contrary to Church teaching. That is the prime reason: not because I like to see people executed, but because the Church herself holds to its inherent justness.

 

[Corki]

I would say that, as a Catholic, I would have to reject the death penalty when other effective means of safeguarding others are available.

I would recognize that such conditions are rare, if not practically non-existent.

If such effective means are not possible, then, as a Catholic, I would state that it would be an obligation to use the death penalty.

I would say it even goes further. The alternate means must not only be effective but also humane. For extremely violent criminals, the only way to keep others safe is solitary confinement or so-called “super max” prisons. There have been several studies showing that prolonged solitary confinement is tantamount to psychological torture. Even without solitary, the Pope himself spoke out against life sentences of imprisonment in one of the same addresses when he called on Christians to oppose the death penalty.

I would say that for some, very violent criminals, we do not have a means that is **both **humane and effective at safeguarding others. That is not to say that the death penalty is intrinsically “wrong” but that we don’t have a solution that is “right”.

 

[Peebo]

This is a non issue in every other country in the western world except the US…still I wonder if those countries held a referendum today that a majority of citizens in some countries would like to see in reinstated…especially with terrorists who want to inflict as much death and destruction of innocent people as they can…terrorism probably wasn’t an issue back when many of those countries abolished the death penalty.

 

[HelenRose]

This isn’t difficult.

The death penalty cannot be employed when there is another option which allows the person to live that he might repent and achieve salvation.

That’s all there is to it. Everyone is making it harder than it has to be.

-Tim-

My thoughts on the Death Penalty.

No matter how fair a trail may be, there is always the possibility of an innocent person being executed. Our precious Lord and Savior was an innocent man. The death sentence of an innocent person is a horrible thought for me.

It is the poor and a destitute who can not afford a good lawyer who stands a better chance of being executed.

Those who are executed may have families and innocent children that will suffer greatly having their loved ones executed.

The individual who administers the execution must face judgment as well. It must be a terrible life for this individual and for their families.

Capital punishment does not bring back those who have been killed. It can only add one more death into the lives of those already dealing with death. A person in prison for life can still bring closure to a family and more important a possibility opening for the healing grace of forgiveness.

Murderers have a better chance of beating the rap because the jurors are reluctant to send a person to death. The burden of proof is instinctively easier to deal with when a juror is not faced with the death of another human being.

There should be no parole for convicted murders. There should be not chance of escape.

 

[Lormar]

Someone asked this question on CAL a few years ago. The answer was that this is one of the things where we are free to hold our own opinion. So, whether you are pro or con the death penalty, you are free to hold that opinion.

 

[godisgood77]

Bill1940 is correct, i.e., no Pope can alter or rewrite or make Sacred Scripture null and void, as in the case of this particular issue, and there is clearly a significant set of Scriptural references, as well as citations from Sacred Tradition and Saints, all of which speak to the contrary of recent comments. When Pope Francis makes such noted statements, he is merely giving his personal opinion, not to be confused with establishing some universal new truth in an infallible declaration. It’s often been the case with this Successor of Peter that his words have given rise to much confusion, especially about this and other long-held traditional issues making the news. I recently read a good article that covers several aspects of this topic:

onepeterfive.com/getting-it-wrong-about-the-death-penalty/

Personally, I’ll continue to hold on to what Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Saints have addressed in regard to capital punishment. I will always respect and listen to Pope Francis, but he has absolutely no authority to trump God’s Word merely because he feels it conflicts with his sentiment. He has a right to personal opinions, but it would be best if he spoke with more prudence in accordance with what is clearly established in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Dei Verbum II 10

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote of the legitimate development of doctrine. He stated that Church teaching can grow as our knowledge of society, human nature and divine revelation mature… paraphrasing of course. The seed of the development must be present in the teaching and it must not contradict the previous teaching. What an earlier poster pointed out, in today’s day and age, there is not an situation where the death penalty would be morally permissible… Do you know how I know that? The Supreme Pontiff has decreed it. I’ll stick with him and the magisterium of the Church.