Pope calls for end to death penalty out of respect for human dignity

[Ender]

In fact, I think it is nearly impossible for our country to apply the death penalty justly, at least not as long as we have alternatives other than death.

Forget about the death penalty for a moment and address this: how do you determine whether a punishment is just? For a particular crime, what makes X just but Y unjust? Church doctrine is that the state is obligated to apply a penalty with a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime (absent extenuating circumstances). That is, it is the nature of the crime itself that determines the severity of the punishment.

So, is the death penalty a just punishment for (at least) murder? We would have to answer yes since the church has always recognized it as a legitimate right of states. Either it is just or the church has for two millennia preached and practiced that which is unjust.

Given that death was a just punishment in the past, does that mean it is still just today? Yes, it does since the justness of the punishment is based on the severity of the sin, and since the severity of the sin of murder cannot change from one age to the next, if death was a just punishment in the past it is equally just today.

What, then, of the restriction that it be used only when necessary for protection? It is certainly true that a punishment may be unjust if it causes more problems than it solves, and this is surely the only sense in which capital punishment could be said to be unjust today.*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)
It should be apparent, however, that the determination of whether the use of capital punishment will actually be harmful is a judgment, and it is a judgment about which reasonable people may disagree, so, assuming its use actually is harmful, it would be more accurate to term it mistaken rather than unjust.

Ender

 

[boar2roar]

Completely anti abortion and completley pro death penalty. Also against euthanasia. I’m not sure how human trafficking should be grouped with these things and I’m not in favor of diluting pro life to mean anything. It should be a focused movement.

 

[Ender]

How can you promote a culture of life while supporting the death penalty? Vengence is never good.

• Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. *(Aquinas)
  Vengeance is typically misunderstood. While it is forbidden to the individual it is the obligation of the state, and if it was never good then not only would capital punishment be banned but all punishment of any kind.

It is not punishment (or vengeance) that is wrong, but how it is applied.*“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” *(Innocent III)
Ender

 

[Ender]

I don’t know if you noticed, but I modified my opinion in a second post a bit later on grounds very similar to what you listed as “first”.

I did notice that, but not until after I had posted my remarks. I should have deleted my comment but I got involved with another response and simply didn’t get to it in time.

Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I appreciate all the good discussion on this thread. I was kind of trying to stay out of it thus far because I was more interested in hearing others’ opinions at this point than in pushing my own. And you’re welcome to ignore my opinions and go on with your discussion; I offer them FWIW to anybody and am not trying to control the thread in some way.

Personally I do see them all as “pro-life” issues, but like you and others I may group them differently or in terms of importance. And like I see “human trafficking” as probably worse than “euthanasia” if I had to rank them, but since I have no experience with either nor have really studied it my opinion doesn’t come with credentials.

But there are many things I consider “pro-life” that don’t have labels and political movements popularly attached to them. And they truly are “pro-life” issues in terms of what they can do to our hearts and souls. Like for example every time I speak in anger to a brother in Christ, it is a “pro-life” issue. So you can see right now why my opinion probably isn’t worth anything to too many Catholics. But really it only means that I take Jesus at His word in Matt 5:21-26 in His teachings about anger and killing.

But what I don’t understand, and is partly what inspired me to start this thread, was the part about “diluting” the term. It seems to me that whether something it “pro-life” doesn’t necessarily mean it shares some degree of “importance” or “priority” with other pro-life issues.

Maybe by “pro-life” there is a connotation of it being politically connected? I don’t know why that would be, as the entirety of Christianity is based on Life v. Death. Plus, again reviewing Matt 5:21-26 I do question why we give so much special status to settling our disputes through the government being the “defining feature” of the term “pro-life.”

To me, to say that being “pro-life” means I vote a certain way on certain political issues, that says nothing at all about my heart or soul. So if anyone thinks that being “pro-life” can be completely defined by whether I vote a certain way on political issues, then I have no concern whatsoever whether they consider me “pro-life” or not because I would not value their opinion. Unless I’m running for office in which case I’d have to say what people want to hear or “pro-lifers” wouldn’t vote for me.

Because to vote a certain way and still have anger in my heart, cannot possibly be “pro-life” in the eyes of Jesus. Even if my anger is directed toward “pro-aborts.” This is the level of purity I believe Jesus is calling us to. To get the specks and planks or whatever our of our own eyes – and clearly “anger toward a brother” is one Jesus considers important enough to address in the Sermon on the Mount.

So in short, here is what I consider the “ultimate” teaching on “pro-life” that Jesus calls us to. It raises the question, if we are angry at another person for taking a life – are we guilty of the sin “thou shalt not kill,” if taking Jesus’s words to heart?

Matt 5:21-26
“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.

Oh and I’m not talking about politics here; I realize that we’re talking about protecting other people’s lives and not our own. But the teaching still applies. We can do “pro-life” activities, but if we even harbor anger toward those we oppose, are we truly “pro-life” in the manner Jesus would have us? What if we really did harbor no anger but just resolve – wouldn’t that take away a lot of the weaponry of the opposition? OK back to politicla.

OK I’m rambled enough so … as you were.

 

[pnewton]

But what I don’t understand, and is partly what inspired me to start this thread, was the part about “diluting” the term. It seems to me that whether something it “pro-life” doesn’t necessarily mean it shares some degree of “importance” or “priority” with other pro-life issues.

I think you point out a real problem with language, especially rhetoric. Everyone is pro-life and pro-choice, in that, life has intrinsic value (or else one would commit suicide) and every on is pro-choice, in that liberty too has value.

It is okay to use the term like you did in the poll, to consider whether or not the value of life weighs in on each issue, and it is okay to use it as Pope Francis has a lot, reminding us to look to the value of life in more ways than just abortion. I, however, rarely use the term. I never use it in reference to abortion. I am adamantly anti-abortion. The other side is pro-abortion. Pro-choice is a stupid term, as no one is pro-choice for slavery, or rape. The verb “choose” must have an object and I will not let the object go unspoken.

 

[LongingSoul]

I chose all the options as important pro-life issues but without trying to strictly rank them.

I know myself that abortion is the sign of the most grave and disordered state of society and the human species in general, but I also know that once people have lost sensitivity to the miracle and meaning of conception, its not going to suddenly and magically come back to them. I fully understand the Church’s strong position against the death penalty as being impossible to apply today without adding to the culture of death. So even though the death penalty, something normally applied to serious criminals, doesn’t have the same destructive effect on the meaning of life as abortion… it represents a significant stumbling block to re-sensitising us to the value of life in the eyes of God.

As a believer in God and a believer that there is a natural law to which all humans are beholden, I perceive that the revulsion at the death penalty that has emerged in the world over the last century, is the immune system of society striving to bring health back to the body of mankind. It seems like a natural force and that the Church affirms that this is indeed a force for good that should be heeded, makes my stance to abolish the death penalty one of the highest pro-life priorities today. As Aquinas says of the death penalty… . “Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it.”

That Our Lord forbids it when there is risk to the faith of people, is a strong call to get this right and there will be severe consequences for getting it wrong.

 

[dmar198]

Forget about the death penalty for a moment and address this: how do you determine whether a punishment is just? For a particular crime, what makes X just but Y unjust?

I think the summary you gave is a pretty good answer to this question, at least a partial answer: “the state is obligated to apply a penalty with a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime (absent extenuating circumstances).”

I think it would help if I placed the paragraphs after your initial one in the form of a syllogism. Of course, I might get something wrong through misunderstanding, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but based on your post, this is what I think your argument is: Premise 1. A penalty is ordinarily just whenever it is commensurate with the severity of a crime.
Premise 2. A penalty of death is commensurate with the severity of a crime of murder.
Conclusion. Therefore, a penalty of death is ordinarily just whenever there is a crime of murder. I don’t know how you feel about syllogisms. Some people think they complicate things by repetition. I think they simplify things. The big danger here is that I misstate your argument. I’m sorry if I’ve done so and I welcome correction.

With the syllogism above, assuming I’ve rendered your position accurately, I think there is a problem with premise 1, and I wonder how you would answer the following syllogism:

Premise 1. A penalty is unjust whenever it is served without authority to serve it.
Premise 2. A commensurate penalty can be served without authority to serve it.
Conclusions. Therefore, a commensurate penalty can be unjust.

Do you think that is a valid argument? Because I think it makes room for my view: I think that being commensurate with a crime is only one of several conditions that must be met in order for a penalty to be just, and I wonder if conditions can vary depending on the penalty. For example, if a man’s crime involved causing a victim’s family to suffer, I think the State could administer an unjust commensurate penalty by making the criminal’s family suffer.

So, is the death penalty a just punishment for (at least) murder? We would have to answer yes since the church has always recognized it as a legitimate right of states. Either it is just or the church has for two millennia preached and practiced that which is unjust.

I think there is a third alternative, which I’ll illustrate using this syllogism:

Premise 1. The death penalty is a just punishment for murder only when there is no other way to stop the criminal from murdering again.
Premise 2. In America, there is ordinarily at least one other way to stop that from happening.
Conclusion: If those two statements are correct, it seems to follow that the death penalty is ordinarily not a just punishment for murder, at least not in America.

Note: I think that syllogism is correct, but I do not think anyone is obligated to agree with me. I imagine that Premise 1 is the more controversial one. I think it can be defended, and I like sharing my point of view and the evidence that I think is there for it, but I don’t want to appear as if I think everybody must agree with me.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Honestly I do too. After the Boston bombing for instance I was 100% for the death penalty for that kid (I can’t spell his name). Try and imagine where the desire for the death penalty is coming from and more than likely it’s purly on the intellectual and emotional level (i.e. the material level) that it seems like a good idea. If you look at it with your heart the answer will be very different.

Yeah, it’s totally on an emotional level. Something I have to work on. I’m super emotional. Lol.

 

[Ender]

Premise 1. A penalty is ordinarily just whenever it is commensurate with the severity of a crime.
Premise 2. A penalty of death is commensurate with the severity of a crime of murder.
Conclusion. Therefore, a penalty of death is ordinarily just whenever there is a crime of murder.

This is good; I think it is an excellent approach. Assuming by “ordinarily” you mean having no unusual extenuating circumstances, then I agree with both premises and the conclusion.

With the syllogism above, assuming I’ve rendered your position accurately, I think there is a problem with premise 1, and I wonder how you would answer the following syllogism:

Premise 1. A penalty is unjust whenever it is served without authority to serve it.
Premise 2. A commensurate penalty can be served without authority to serve it.
Conclusions. Therefore, a commensurate penalty can be unjust.

The very fact that the penalty is imposed by one who lacks authority is one of the unusual extenuating circumstances that was explicitly excepted in the first syllogism. Beyond that, although the conclusion does follow from the premises, I object to premise 1. That a penalty can be unjustly served does not make the penalty unjust. You are conflating the unjust serving of the penalty with the penalty itself, but these are different concepts.

I think that being commensurate with a crime is only one of several conditions that must be met in order for a penalty to be just, and I wonder if conditions can vary depending on the penalty.

Offhand I can think of two questions: is the severity of the punishment appropriate for the severity of the crime, and are the anticipated side effects of applying such a punishment acceptable? Note that for the first we are guided by divine law (for at least the crime of murder) while the second is purely a practical judgment.

Premise 1. The death penalty is a just punishment for murder only when there is no other way to stop the criminal from murdering again.
Premise 2. In America, there is ordinarily at least one other way to stop that from happening.
Conclusion: If those two statements are correct, it seems to follow that the death penalty is ordinarily not a just punishment for murder, at least not in America.

I disagree with both of these premises. Haven’t we already established that what makes a punishment (ordinarily) just is whether its severity is commensurate with the crime? The concern with preventing future murders is no part of the calculation of how someone should be punished for already committing one. It should strike you as just a bit odd that under Premise 1 we are justified in executing someone for threatening to kill while we are prevented from executing him after he kills. How does the threat of murder justify a more severe punishment than an actual murder?

Note: I think that syllogism is correct…

The syllogism is logically accurate, but is only truly correct if both premises are true. That’s where I believe it fails.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I disagree with both of these premises. Haven’t we already established that what makes a punishment (ordinarily) just is whether its severity is commensurate with the crime?

Quick question. From what does the human beings measure of a just punishment for particular crimes originate?

 

[pnewton]

Since the penalty of death is commensurate with the crime of murder,…

…is a penalty of torture commensurate with the crime of torture?
…is a penalty of being raped commensurate with the crime of rape?

…an eye for an eye, a life for a life, is naturally just. Likewise, Hell is a just penalty for our sin. Yet God remains merciful and grants mercy to people in accord to the capacity for mercy they develop. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Justice is not the sole arbiter of morality. Justice must always be applied with mercy. As we decide what the law should be throughout the land, we must also use prudence and wisdom.

 

[Ender]

Quick question. From what does the human beings measure of a just punishment for particular crimes originate?

His sense of justice? A lot of that determination is simply the collective judgment of each individual society. In some cases, however, “these punishments are fixed by divine law.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

…an eye for an eye, a life for a life, is naturally just. Likewise, Hell is a just penalty for our sin. Yet God remains merciful and grants mercy to people in accord to the capacity for mercy they develop. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Justice is not the sole arbiter of morality. Justice must always be applied with mercy. As we decide what the law should be throughout the land, we must also use prudence and wisdom.

Are you arguing that mercy should always be applied in every case or not? If not, then there will be cases where as a simple matter of justice a particular murderer should be executed. Take one position or the other.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

His sense of justice? A lot of that determination is simply the collective judgment of each individual society.

Exactly. The state of the society is a critical element in determining just punishment. The punishment of death has served a certain just purpose in communities from the beginning of our knowledge of mankind. Punishments did not begin upon Gods revelation of Himself to the biblical people. They were evident by virtue of natural law and the common good of mans relationship to each other in community. The Australian Aboriginals used a punishment of exile/death and in some remote isolated communities, were permitted by law to continue with it after it was abolished in mainstream Australia. That was a recognition of the right of the legitimate authority of the tribe to determine the best forms of punishment for that tribe.

In some cases, however, “these punishments are fixed by divine law.”

Ender

How could that possible mean that these punishments are commanded for crimes when the rest of the list has vanished from modern society without a wimper from anyone let alone the Church?..

"These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, 105, 2)…

Wherefore, according to Augustine’s reckoning (De Civ. Dei xxi), “Tully writes that the laws recognize eight kinds of punishment”: namely, “death,” whereby man is deprived of life; “stripes,” “retaliation,” or the loss of eye for eye, whereby man forfeits his bodily safety; “slavery,” and “imprisonment,” whereby he is deprived of freedom; “exile” whereby he is banished from his country; “fines,” whereby he is mulcted in his riches; “ignominy,” whereby he loses his good name."

If we were meant to retain all punishments “fixed by divine law”, why don’t we retain flogging, exile, slavery, ignominy? Surely we can’t pick and choose from within the one sentence which ones are actually* commanded* by divine law and which ones are merely *permitted *by divine law?

 

[EnglishTeacher]

The death penalty is the only issue in the poll that does not involve the life of innocent human beings. Therefore, I don’t consider it a pro-life issue, per se. Human trafficking is a terrible thing and a serious issue, but I would consider it more of a social justice issue than a “pro-life” issue.

Unlike the other three items in the poll, the death penalty is not inherently immoral. Having said that, I think there are problems with how it is currently applied in the US, the biggest one being the possibility of executing an innocent person, so I am not pro-death penalty all the time.

But I am all for the execution of terrorists such as those who behead and burn alive innocent people.

 

[pnewton]

The death penalty is the only issue in the poll that does not involve the life of innocent human beings.

Euthanasia and human trafficking also involve the lives of sinners.

 

[Ender]

How could that possible mean that these punishments are commanded for crimes when the rest of the list has vanished from modern society without a wimper from anyone let alone the Church?..

"These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, 105, 2)…

Wherefore, according to Augustine’s reckoning (De Civ. Dei xxi), “Tully writes that the laws recognize eight kinds of punishment”: namely, “death,” whereby man is deprived of life; “stripes,” “retaliation,” or the loss of eye for eye, whereby man forfeits his bodily safety; “slavery,” and “imprisonment,” whereby he is deprived of freedom; “exile” whereby he is banished from his country; “fines,” whereby he is mulcted in his riches; “ignominy,” whereby he loses his good name."

If we were meant to retain all punishments “fixed by divine law”, why don’t we retain flogging, exile, slavery, ignominy? Surely we can’t pick and choose from within the one sentence which ones are actually* commanded* by divine law and which ones are merely *permitted *by divine law?

Let’s start with the fact that Tully (Cicero) was discussing the punishments recognized by Roman law. Given that he was born a hundred years before Christ, and was not himself a Jew, we can be sure he wasn’t discussing anything we would recognize as divine law. Those punishments form an interesting list, but they were certainly never fixed by divine law.

Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

The death penalty is the only issue in the poll that does not involve the life of innocent human beings. Therefore, I don’t consider it a pro-life issue, per se. Human trafficking is a terrible thing and a serious issue, but I would consider it more of a social justice issue than a “pro-life” issue.

OK, that makes sense to me and I don’t think it is unreasonable. I don’t know enough about human trafficking to address your distinction; I actually voted for all four but I can see how you are making this division. I’ll leave it at that because like I said I don’t know enough about it and I was asking for opinions not trying to “dictate” them.

But on this part of “innocent” human beings, may I “step outside” the Catechism for a moment and ask one question? As a human being, do you think that being found by a jury of peers to be guilty of a capital crime, which of course means it had to have been done in a country with death penalty and successfully prosecuted, is equivalent to “being a sinner” in the eyes of God?

That’s why I say it gets back to protecting society. How are we to know that the sins of those on death row make them any more “worthy” of death than anybody else in the eyes of God?

And if they are not more “worthy of death” in the eyes of God, then I don’t see how we can “wish them dead” ourselves, for any reason other than community self-defense.

Unlike the other three items in the poll, the death penalty is not inherently immoral. Having said that, I think there are problems with how it is currently applied in the US, the biggest one being the possibility of executing an innocent person, so I am not pro-death penalty all the time.

Yes, I think that’s been shown to be quite a risk, because on high profile cases, I think these false convictions may even be more likely than normal cases because of the pressure of the police and DA to “show people they are safe.” That’s why the lying prosecutors, withholding evidence that they knew would get them off, yada yada.

Your comments remind me that when we’re discussing it, we may feel “theoretically” one way, but “practically given what we currently have to work with,” the other.

But I am all for the execution of terrorists such as those who behead and burn alive innocent people.

I’d by lying if I said I don’t have those same desires. I have to work on the “problem” I have, that I wish God’s world didn’t have anybody who believed that killing other people was the way to salvation. It’s like Wild Kingdom or something – kill or be killed. :bigyikes:

That said you know, even though I’d like to see them dead, I don’t really wish for them to suffer. I don’t want to see them suffer; I just want them stopped and killing them seems to be one of very few ways of doing that.

 

[chaunceygardner]

All four and more, such as war and related atrocities, and the denial of the essentials (clean water, food, shelter, basic health care) needed for survival, resulting in millions of deaths. Most people unfortunately limit pro-life initiatives to one or two marquee issues, such as abortion, neglecting the rest. It is one thing to have a pregnancy come to full term, and another to give that newborn a fighting chance to survive and thrive. Life is not one dimensional. There seems to be a lack of true pro-lifers who follow the Gospel. Not sure why that is, when Jesus made the commandment clear and concise.