Pope and Death Penalty

[seaton2005]

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.

Please read the updated position of the Church. In essence, a Catholic can not support the death penalty in Modern times. It is an evil regardless of how you look at it. Killing is wrong period. Pro death penalty Catholics need to get over this and listen to the church. The church is against the death penalty.

 

[seaton2005]

I would caution against taking a personal position that is more strict than the Church’s own position and then attributing it to the Church as a whole. To say that you do no “believe in the death penalty” is fine. It is also fine to say that Church leaders, including Pope Francis, do not believe that in our modern world there is any current situation for which the death penalty would be appropriate. But it is not ok to say that “Catholics don’t believe” in something that the Church has taught for centuries.

This is a very balances presentation of the teaching of the Church.

I’ll try to make this simple then, the church no longer (2015) accepts the death penalty. It is wrong. I hope that make sense.

 

[Brendan]

Please read the updated position of the Church. In essence, a Catholic can not support the death penalty in Modern times.** It is an evil regardless of how you look at it. Killing is wrong period.** Pro death penalty Catholics need to get over this and listen to the church. The church is against the death penalty.

This is where you err. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the Church has infallibly declared that the DP not only can be used (in limited circumstances), but when those circumstances are present, it is actually in fulfillment of a commandment of God.

Stating that is it always evil flies in the face of what the Holy Spirit has revealed, infallibly,
to the Church.

This is what the Holy Spirit revealed to the Church at the Council fo Trent, as Catholics there is not one sentence that we can deny

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.

Now that said, the Church has deemed that it is not prudential for States to use the Death Penalty. I fully accept and embrace that, as a Catholic should.

But likewise, I cannot state what you said, that it is evil. Like anything, it can be used in evil ways, but, as Trent noted, sometimes it fulfills what God has commanded, and that can NEVER be considered an evil.

 

[seaton2005]

Again and again, no it isn’t. The Church prudentially determines limits as to when it may be applied, but the death penalty itself is not against Catholic teaching. It cannot, otherwise, the Catholic Church can throw out all its claims on being infallible on matters of morals. If it once held that the death penalty was moral, then it still holds the same thing today. The Catholic Church cannot change ANY teaching on faith or morals.

Look at the quote I lifted from Cardinal Ratzinger above. Supporting the death penalty does NOT render one unworthy to receive Communion. The Catechism itself states that it does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, while in the same breath, sets strict limits as to its application. If the death penalty were against Catholic teaching, the Catechism WOULD exclude recourse to it, but it doesn’t.

What do you mean! Really! The Church has changed her teaching on many things through years. Most recently Capital Punishment. We can’t say we are pro life on some things and not others. That is hypocrisy. Thou shalt not kill means just that. My Bishop just recently testified before our state house to end capital punishment.

 

[Brendan]

What do you mean! Really! The Church has changed her teaching on many things through years. Most recently Capital Punishment. We can’t say we are pro life on some things and not others. That is hypocrisy.

The Church properly makes a distinction between the death of innocents and the death of the guilty. There is no hypocrisy in that.

Thou shalt not kill means just that. My Bishop just recently testified before our state house to end capital punishment.

The section that I quoted above was the Council of Trent on the 5th Commandment.

I agree with your bishop (and the rest of the Magisterium) that it is not prudent at this time to use Capital Punishment.

But that is a far cry from claiming that it is somehow a violation of the 5th Commandment. The Church does not teach that, and neither should you claim it to be so.

Here is St. Augustine on that very subject.

The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.

His words are no less true today than at any other point in the Church’s history.

Also, here is Pope Pius XII on how Capital Punishment relates to the Pro-Life cause

Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.

 

[Bill1940]

When we say the death penalty is almost never justified, do we consider an exception for a time of war? Might there be circumstances in a theater of war where there is no safe alternative?

 

[Brendan]

When we say the death penalty is almost never justified, do we consider an exception for a time of war? Might there be circumstances in a theater of war where there is no safe alternative?

Are you talking about soldiers in combat with other soliders, or criminals apprehended in a war zone?

 

[porthos11]

Please read the updated position of the Church. In essence, a Catholic can not support the death penalty in Modern times. It is an evil regardless of how you look at it. Killing is wrong period. Pro death penalty Catholics need to get over this and listen to the church. The church is against the death penalty.

Me read the “updated” position of the Church? I just cited CCC 2267 for you!

If you’re right, then the Church has reversed itself on a moral teaching. It cannot “update” moral teachings to suit the times. That’s what Protestants do.

If that’s the case, then it’s not infallible, and no one has any business being Catholic because with all her other claims of being the infallible teacher of faith and morals, if the Church reverses itself on a moral teaching, then not only is the Church wrong, not only is the Church a liar, but the Church would be of the devil himself.

As Archbishop Chaput said, the Church cannot reverse itself on the death penalty (or any other moral teaching) without denying its own identity.

The Church has identified prudential parameters that limit when the death penalty can be applied. She even has strongly advocated against implementing it. All of that is fine. But what she cannot do is undo her teaching that since time immemorial, because moral positions, like faith positions, are immutable. They can never be changed.

 

[porthos11]

What do you mean! Really! The Church has changed her teaching on many things through years. Most recently Capital Punishment. We can’t say we are pro life on some things and not others. That is hypocrisy. Thou shalt not kill means just that. My Bishop just recently testified before our state house to end capital punishment.

And again, if you’re right, then the Church is not only false, it’s diabolical.

The Church is infallible. If she changed this moral teaching, then she’s not infallible. And if she’s not infallible, when why the heck should anyone else listen to anything else she has to say?

Even the current Catechism, the “sure norm for teaching the faith”, according to St. John Paul II, says then when the circumstances demand it, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty. So no matter your protestations, and the limits the Church has identified with regards to its application, the death penalty remains a moral good, even in the time of John Paul II.

You are the one who needs to listen to the Church.

 

[Tomdstone]

And again, if you’re right, then the Church is not only false, it’s diabolical.

The Church is infallible. If she changed this moral teaching, then she’s not infallible. And if she’s not infallible, when why the heck should anyone else listen to anything else she has to say?

Even the current Catechism, the “sure norm for teaching the faith”, according to St. John Paul II, says then when the circumstances demand it, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty. So no matter your protestations, and the limits the Church has identified with regards to its application, the death penalty remains a moral good, even in the time of John Paul II.

You are the one who needs to listen to the Church.

Then how do you explain the change in the teaching on torture, and on slavery?

 

[eamonnroma]

Once again we must listed to the clear words of our recent popes.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/03/23/pope-francis-urges-abolition-of-death-penalty/

ncregister.com/daily-news/papal-message-reaffirms-call-to-abolish-death-penalty/

news.va/en/news/pope-no-to-death-penalty-and-to-inhuman-prison-con

And as to whether the catechism is infallible is also open to debate.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=154174

It contains infallible teachings - yes. But it is not per se infallible.

The Church certainly has changed its teachings in the past, for example in the light of scientific research. Galileo was excommunicated for teaching scientific facts which went against what was then considered infallible. He was considered a heretic. So we can say that the Church was at that time incorrect in its teachings.

Another example is the Creation. We are no longer required to believe in the literal story creation as depicted in the OT. Maybe there is someone out there who still does believe it - they are free to believe as the please. The disavow the literal creation story would have been heretical.

The Church does and has moved on in the light of new scientific evidence, and changes in society and attitudes. Slavery for instance?

 

[Brendan]

The Church certainly has changed its teachings in the past, for example in the light of scientific research. Galileo was excommunicated for teaching scientific facts which went against what was then considered infallible. He was considered a heretic. So we can say that the Church was at that time incorrect in its teachings.

LOL, Galileo was excommunicated for telling the Pope that the Bible needed to be changed to accommodate his discovery.

Cardinal Belarmine told Galileo that the teachings on the Sun going around the world were to be taken as descriptive, not as literal truth, but that was still not good enough for Galileo.

Cardinal Belarmine told Galileo to limit the discussions to hypothetical cases, since Galileo was lacking in scientific proof (still a standard for modern scientific publication, so no error there either)

So no, the Church was right on the excommunication. No lay person, nor cleric for that matter, has the authority to re-write Scripture.

And from an academic sense, no one who had the lack of scientific proof that Galileo did would get their theory published either.

The Church does and has moved on in the light of new scientific evidence, and changes in society and attitudes. Slavery for instance?

Actually no. The Church has always objected to chattle slavery, where the person is no longer considered a person, but as an object.

Labor could (and still can be compelled), but the person must always be granted human dignity.

For examples of modern slavery that the Church permits, look at how courts (including the Vatican State) sentence people to community service. That labor is both compelled and unpaid, so is technically slavery. But it is NOT chattel slavery, the person still retains their rights and human dignity.

 

[seaton2005]

The Church properly makes a distinction between the death of innocents and the death of the guilty. There is no hypocrisy in that.

The section that I quoted above was the Council of Trent on the 5th Commandment.

I agree with your bishop (and the rest of the Magisterium) that it is not prudent at this time to use Capital Punishment.

But that is a far cry from claiming that it is somehow a violation of the 5th Commandment. The Church does not teach that, and neither should you claim it to be so.

Here is St. Augustine on that very subject.

Sorry, but your underlying premise is not correct. Your write in your post reply above, “Guilty Life.” I hear that term much with Pro-Death Penalty crowds. FYI: Did you know that there have been over 150 exonerations in the just the US in recent years. They were found guilty and sentenced to state sponsored murder and then after 20 or 30 years in prison exonerated. Criminologists who study this issue estimate that there have in fact been innocent people put to death in the U.S. The Church has changed on this issue which is so reflected in Pope Francis’ message.

His words are no less true today than at any other point in the Church’s history.

Also, here is Pope Pius XII on how Capital Punishment relates to the Pro-Life cause

 

[Brendan]

Sorry, but your underlying premise is not correct. Your write in your post reply above, “Guilty Life.” I hear that term much with Pro-Death Penalty crowds. FYI: Did you know that there have been over 150 exonerations in the just the US in recent years. They were found guilty and sentenced to state sponsored murder and then after 20 or 30 years in prison exonerated. Criminologists who study this issue estimate that there have in fact been innocent people put to death in the U.S. The Church has changed on this issue which is so reflected in Pope Francis’ message.

I agree that the execution of an innocent person would be an injustice.

Hence why the Church specifies "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… "

But this would not be something new to the Church, Trent recognized that we it permitted the use of Capital Punishment in just situation.

Given that, this is one area that I would claim that modern society is actually BETTER at than at any other point in Church history.

Given DNA evidence, video surveillance, GPS and cell phone tracking and a host of other technologies, the State is has more tools to establish guilt or innocence than ever before.

Would you not agree?

 

[eamonnroma]

And again, if you’re right, then the Church is not only false, it’s diabolical.

The Church is infallible. If she changed this moral teaching, then she’s not infallible. And if she’s not infallible, when why the heck should anyone else listen to anything else she has to say?

Even the current Catechism, the “sure norm for teaching the faith”, according to St. John Paul II, says then when the circumstances demand it, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty. So no matter your protestations, and the limits the Church has identified with regards to its application, the death penalty remains a moral good, even in the time of John Paul II.

You are the one who needs to listen to the Church.

History is full of examples where the Church changed its mind.

The industrial development of the south of Italy was frustrated because at the time of the building of the railroads, Gregory XVI was convinced that modern inventions were the tools of the devil, so he tried to stop railroads going through the papal states.

Many other things, for example photography. Cameras were outlawed in the papal states. Would you consider it an immoral act to take a photograph or travel by train today?

There were times when mistakes were made. The famous ‘saintly’ priest, Marcial Maciel, was a great pedophile and sexual abuser. However he was much praised and love by JPII. If his sexual proclivities had not been discovered, he would likely have been considered for canonization.

Marriage was at one time virtually impossible between a Catholic and non Catholic.

That heretics be tortured and executed was considered morally correct at one time.

We once considered that anyone who did not confess the supremacy of the pope, would go to hell.

When I was a young scout (cub), we had to attend a church service for the scout movment. It took place in an Anglican church - I was not allowed to attend because Catholics were not allowed to participate in ‘heretical’ liturgies. Things have moved on.

The recent emphasis on the Church’s social teaching about CP has shifted. It is now, through the Vicar of Christ, saying that the willful destruction of a human life is abhorrent. While the theoretical possibility of CP remains on the statute book, the spirit and the practice of the Church is firmly against it.

As a theological definition we can say that CP is a moral good. In the real world this is not so, and I am quoting our recent popes as my authority.

 

[Brendan]

History is full of examples where the Church changed its mind.

Interesting philosophy Eamonn,

So you are basically claiming that we cannot trust the moral judgment of the Church, as it might change at any moment?

 

[porthos11]

History is full of examples where the Church changed its mind.

The industrial development of the south of Italy was frustrated because at the time of the building of the railroads, Gregory XVI was convinced that modern inventions were the tools of the devil, so he tried to stop railroads going through the papal states.

Many other things, for example photography. Cameras were outlawed in the papal states. Would you consider it an immoral act to take a photograph or travel by train today?

There were times when mistakes were made. The famous ‘saintly’ priest, Marcial Maciel, was a great pedophile and sexual abuser. However he was much praised and love by JPII. If his sexual proclivities had not been discovered, he would likely have been considered for canonization.

Marriage was at one time virtually impossible between a Catholic and non Catholic.

That heretics be tortured and executed was considered morally correct at one time.

We once considered that anyone who did not confess the supremacy of the pope, would go to hell.

When I was a young scout (cub), we had to attend a church service for the scout movment. It took place in an Anglican church - I was not allowed to attend because Catholics were not allowed to participate in ‘heretical’ liturgies. Things have moved on.

The recent emphasis on the Church’s social teaching about CP has shifted. It is now, through the Vicar of Christ, saying that the willful destruction of a human life is abhorrent. While the theoretical possibility of CP remains on the statute book, the spirit and the practice of the Church is firmly against it.

As a theological definition we can say that CP is a moral good. In the real world this is not so, and I am quoting our recent popes as my authority.

Not a single one of these examples dealt with a magisterial teaching, pronouncement or position of the Church, as expressed in Councils, Papal pronouncements and Catechisms. Those things you mention are either civil law, ecclesiastical discipline or the personal frailties of individual people, including Popes.

So no, none of these count. Show me one instance of the Catholic Church changing a moral TEACHING, DOCTRINE, and I will cease being Catholic on the spot.

 

[seaton2005]

I agree that the execution of an innocent person would be an injustice.

Hence why the Church specifies "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… "

But this would not be something new to the Church, Trent recognized that we it permitted the use of Capital Punishment in just situation.

Given that, this is one area that I would claim that modern society is actually BETTER at than at any other point in Church history.

Given DNA evidence, video surveillance, GPS and cell phone tracking and a host of other technologies, the State is has more tools to establish guilt or innocence than ever before.

Would you not agree?

Actually, I would not agree. You may get a DNA test, for example, if you have the money to pay for it. Most defendants in death penalty cases are poor and indigent and have appointed defenders which have limited budgets. What is also troubling is the fact that many of these defendants are racial minorities which could speak to latent discrimination in our criminal justice system. There have been studies that have shown that racial minorities fair much worse in the criminal justice system (death penalty cases) when compared to whites. With that said, that’s for another discussion.

If they’ve been convicted already, it may be years before DNA can be obtained to exonerate them (we’ve seen that in 150 plus cases). The death penalty is an imperfect punishment that can not be taken back. As Catholics it would be nice if we could all listen to what our Popes and Bishops instruct us in regards to the death penalty as opposed to our politicians trying to get elected. Why do you think so many priest and bishops have written letters and testified before state judiciary committees to repeal the death penalty in their respected states. Why do you think so many priests (I’ve heard them) preach special homilies on ending the death penalty in the U.S.? If we want to really call ourselves pro-life, the answer is simple. Now days, it is never justified. The death penalty is for retribution only. Years and years of empirical data show that it’s not a deterrent for murder. Most criminologists don’t even study it anymore. In the modern prison complex, we have super max prisons that house the worst of the worst.

 

[Brendan]

Actually, I would not agree. You may get a DNA test, for example, if you have the money to pay for it. Most defendants in death penalty cases are poor and indigent and have appointed defenders which have limited budgets. What is also troubling is the fact that many of these defendants are racial minorities which could speak to latent discrimination in our criminal justice system. There have been studies that have shown that racial minorities fair much worse in the criminal justice system (death penalty cases) when compared to whites. With that said, that’s for another discussion.

Actually, in major crimes, it is the State who pays for the DNA tests, they are trying to seek a conviction, so they pay to process the evidence.

My statement was in regards to the trial itself, the ability of the State to correctly determine guilt or innocence.

The death penalty is an imperfect punishment that can not be taken back.

There are very few punishments that can be given back, financial\fines are the only ones that come to mind. If a person unjustly spent time in prison, how is that time given back to them?

As Catholics it would be nice if we could all listen to what our Popes and Bishops instruct us in regards to the death penalty

I do, I recognize that it is a right of the State that should be used only rarely, if at all. I personally am quite proud that my home State of Michigan was the first English speaking government ANYWHERE that chose to forgo capital punishment, and I would work hard to prevent its reinstatement.

That is what the Church teaches.

But what it does NOT teach is that capital punishment is somehow instrincally wrong, or that it can never be an appropriate punishment.

Now days, it is never justified.

That is NOT what the Church teaches. It might be be prudent to use, but its use in certain circumstances can be just.

The death penalty is for retribution only. .

No kidding, the word means to apply a reward or punishment.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retribution

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice

Having to pay a fine for littering is retribution.

So what is your point?

[/QUOTE]

 

[SonOfMan]

So no, none of these count. Show me one instance of the Catholic Church changing a moral TEACHING, DOCTRINE, and I will cease being Catholic on the spot.

The following are all teachings from past popes and the Church regarding Faith and Morals:

• It was once taught and declared by a pope to be heretical, immoral, and sinful to pray with people of other faiths. We can now pray with people of others faiths.
• It was once taught that anyone who committed suicide would definitely go to hell. Now with modern understanding of psychology, that is no longer taught to be the case.
• It was once heretical and punishable to believe that the earth was round. That is no longer the case today. Although this is technically a matter of science, the Church at that time taught that it was a matter of Faith.