Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[Tomdstone]

The church has not banned capital punishment because she can not ban it. *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). *(Cardinal Dulles)

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput)
Ender

The Roman Catholic Church has overthrown other traditions such as limbo, women wearing headcovering in Church, no meat on Fridays, women giving Holy Communion, no profane music or musical instruments in Church rituals, use of puppets during Mass, use of clowns at Mass, paying honor to dragons in Church (during Chinese New Year holidays). In the past the dragon was a symbol of Satan, and there are paintings of St. Michael defeating the dragon. However, at a Roman Catholic Mass celebrating Chinese New Years, a dragon or people dressed inside a dragon’s outfit, was snaking through the Church and people were told that if you touch the dragon, it would bring you good luck. So although capital punishment is a tradition, we have seen that traditions can change.

 

[Ender]

So although capital punishment is a tradition, we have seen that traditions can change.

There are traditions and there are Traditional teachings, there are disciplines and there are doctrines. The development of a doctrine cannot include its reversal. The church is free to change her disciplines but she has no authority to reverse her doctrines.
*“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” *(Cardinal Dulles)

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I have made it quiet clear that I interpret the remarks of the last few popes to be their personal opinions about the advisability of using capital punishment. Therefore it is inaccurate to suggest that “the church” has spoken out in a doctrinal sense. The church has, for example, always condemned abortion even as she has always recognized a states right to use capital punishment.*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

Cardinal Dulles writes that is the *right *of the State to impose the death penalty. He doesn’t say that it is the obligation of the State in order to serve justice. You seem to be insisting though, that it is the obligation because that is the only way to serve justice for some crimes. In your view, what happens to justice when mercy is shown in penal law? What were Augustine and other saints thinking would happen with justice when they petitioned for prisoners to be spared their death sentences? Does the order remain unredressed when mercy is shown a criminal?

 

[John_Lazarus]

I agree with the Holy Pontiff, abolish the death penalty, give people life imprisonment for the most heinous of crimes and let’s remember, in the US, to get the death penalty, your crime has to be pretty awful.

Yes, but in some states, to get life in prison, all you need is “three strikes”.

 

[CrossofChrist]

There are a number of comments in church history that acknowledge that security is a desirable effect of capital punishment, but I am unaware of a single statement in all that has been written that directly supports what 2267 claims.

There are many statements that say the death penalty must (or must not) be used to defend the common good.

Not only that, but the 1997 version of the traditional teaching differs from what was defined as the traditional teaching in the 1992 version. That caveat simply did not exist in the 1992 version.

Ok, but the versions aren’t in opposition to each other. The same people were involved in both versions, and the message is the same.

 

[porthos11]

The Roman Catholic Church has overthrown other traditions such as limbo,

Not a doctrine.

women wearing headcovering in Church,

Discipline, not doctrine.

no meat on Fridays,
women giving Holy Communion, no profane music or musical instruments in Church rituals,

Disciplines, not doctrines.

use of puppets during Mass, use of clowns at Mass

Illicit and shouldn’t be done. The Church still doesn’t permit this.

paying honor to dragons in Church (during Chinese New Year holidays). In the past the dragon was a symbol of Satan, and there are paintings of St. Michael defeating the dragon. However, at a Roman Catholic Mass celebrating Chinese New Years, a dragon or people dressed inside a dragon’s outfit, was snaking through the Church and people were told that if you touch the dragon, it would bring you good luck.

Cultural tradition, not doctrinal. The good luck part is superstitious and is forbidden, so if people do this for good luck, it is contrary to Church teaching.

So although capital punishment is a tradition, we have seen that traditions can change.

The morality of capital punishment is a doctrinal teaching. It therefore cannot change and the Church has not done so. Catholics are not free to deem capital punishment inerently immoral.

Whether it ought to be applied is a prudential question, and on this, people are free to disagree.

 

[Tomdstone]

The morality of capital punishment is a doctrinal teaching.

Where is this written down that the morality of capital punishment is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Brendan]

Where is this written down that the morality of capital punishment is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church?

First of all, because, at various points, God commanded it. Therefore, the act itself cannot be immoral. God cannot commit an evil act.

That was codified, among other places via the Council 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

 

[Tomdstone]

First of all, because, at various points, God commanded it. Therefore, the act itself cannot be immoral. God cannot commit an evil act.

That was codified, among other places via the Council of Trent on the 5th Commandment

Where does it say it is a doctrine and not a prudential decision to be applied according to the cultural norms in effect at the time in question.

 

[Ender]

Cardinal Dulles writes that is the *right *of the State to impose the death penalty.

Yes, and this recognition ought to be sufficient to put an end to the assertions and implications that capital punishment is somehow immoral.

He doesn’t say that it is the obligation of the State in order to serve justice.

Again, this is true. It is also meaningless. No conclusion can be drawn from something someone doesn’t say.

You seem to be insisting though…

I don’t ever “seem” anything. I say what I mean, and if I haven’t said something then, like with Dulles above, no valid conclusion can be drawn. No assumption is useful based on what hasn’t been stated.

In your view, what happens to justice when mercy is shown in penal law?

Nothing. I have never suggested that mercy and justice are incompatible. They are both virtues; they do not vie with one another for supremacy.

What were Augustine and other saints thinking would happen with justice when they petitioned for prisoners to be spared their death sentences?

Augustine opposed the use of capital punishment even against those who murdered Christians, but he did not oppose its use in other cases. That is, he saw very practical reasons why it should not be used in specific instances. How is this any different than what Christ said about not pulling up the weeds for fear of uprooting the wheat?

Does the order remain unredressed when mercy is shown a criminal?

It may, but it is not necessarily the case. There are times when mercy is inappropriate.

Ender

 

[Ender]

There are many statements that say the death penalty must (or must not) be used to defend the common good.

Do you have examples of any? Beyond that, 2267 uses the term “common good” but not in the same context. It’s emphasis is on how “to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons.”

Ok, but the versions aren’t in opposition to each other. The same people were involved in both versions, and the message is the same.

No, the message is not the same as the descriptions of what constituted traditional church teaching is different.1997: *The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

*1992:*The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.
*These are very different descriptions of what is supposed to be the same thing. The 1992 version accords with what virtually every previous catechism said about capital punishment. The 1997 version makes an assertion that is not supported by anything I have found in any previous statement from a pope, catechism, Doctor, or Father of the church.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Where is this written down that the morality of capital punishment is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church?

• There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)
  Ender

 

[porthos11]

Where is this written down that the morality of capital punishment is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church?

Anything involving faith and morals are part of the doctrinal competence of the Catholic Church. The morality of an action is doctrine. On matters of faith and morals, the Church cannot reverse itself.

At various points in the past, the Church has always affirmed the morality of the death penalty. Even the current Catechism still affirms it (because the Church cannot reverse itself). Even if the current Catechism states a prudential judgment on its application, it in no way contradicts its historic stance that in itself, the death penalty is not an inherently immoral action.

Catechism 2267: Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching =doctrine] 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.

Because the Church has traditionally held that recourse to the death penalty is not excluded, although subject to prudential considerations, then the death penalty is not inherently immoral. This contrasts it to abortion and euthanasia, which are deemed inherently evil, and cannot be performed under *any *circumstances.

 

[Tomdstone]

Anything involving faith and morals are part of the doctrinal competence of the Catholic Church. The morality of an action is doctrine. On matters of faith and morals, the Church cannot reverse itself.

At various points in the past, the Church has always affirmed the morality of the death penalty. Even the current Catechism still affirms it (because the Church cannot reverse itself). Even if the current Catechism states a prudential judgment on its application, it in no way contradicts its historic stance that in itself, the death penalty is not an inherently immoral action.

Catechism 2267: Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching =doctrine] 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.

Because the Church has traditionally held that recourse to the death penalty is not excluded, although subject to prudential considerations, then the death penalty is not inherently immoral. This contrasts it to abortion and euthanasia, which are deemed inherently evil, and cannot be performed under *any *circumstances.

In your answer you have equated the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Are you sure that these two concepts are exactly equal and that there is no difference between them?

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Cardinal Dulles writes that is the right of the State to impose the death penalty.

They put an end to the assertions that the death penalty is intrinsically evil which means its morality is determined by the relevant moral circumstances and the end or intention. It could in fact be an immoral act if the circumstances and intentions are evil.

He doesn’t say that it is the obligation of the State in order to serve justice.

Again, this is true. It is also meaningless. No conclusion can be drawn from something someone doesn’t say.

Exactly. So there shouldn’t be any cause for alarm when the State decides to drop the death penalty from its penal code or the Church instructs careful examination about the practical merits of its use.

In your view, what happens to justice when mercy is shown in penal law?

Nothing. I have never suggested that mercy and justice are incompatible. They are both virtues; they do not vie with one another for supremacy.

So in a society where conditions and beliefs have an obvious bias and the death penalty is seeming to serve a bias rather than justice…it can actually serve justice to show mercy.

What were Augustine and other saints thinking would happen with justice when they petitioned for prisoners to be spared their death sentences?

Augustine opposed the use of capital punishment even against those who murdered Christians, but he did not oppose its use in other cases. That is, he saw very practical reasons why it should not be used in specific instances. How is this any different than what Christ said about not pulling up the weeds for fear of uprooting the wheat?

Why do you imagine that this analogy only pertains to individual cases and not to general law? The death penalty has been abolished from general law in many countries, precisely because the culture of death, promoted as womens rights or individual rights, makes good and evil confusing to the man on the street. Which are the weeds and which are the wheat?

Does the order remain unredressed when mercy is shown a criminal?

It may, but it is not necessarily the case. There are times when mercy is inappropriate.

The Church deems this era especially relating to the culture of death, as warranting abolishing the death penalty.

 

[Brendan]

Where does it say it is a doctrine and not a prudential decision to be applied according to the cultural norms in effect at the time in question.

Morality is never a prudential decision. The Moral Law is unchanging, as God is unchanging.

In addition, the quoted section was on the 5th Commandment, the Commandments themselves are unchanging.

The rejection of idols is not a prudential decision to be applied to the cultural norms. Neither is the love of one’s parents, or the coveting of another’s goods, or adultery. Likewise with the 5th Commandment. It does not vary on cultural norms, nor can it’s application.

 

[LongingSoul]

• There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)
  Ender

That doesn’t answer Tombstones question. ‘Defending the imposition of the death penalty’ does not equate with it being commanded or mandatory. He asks where is it commanded that the death penalty must be applied as a binding doctrine?

 

[porthos11]

In your answer you have equated the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Are you sure that these two concepts are exactly equal and that there is no difference between them?

Yes. Doctrine is a synonym for teaching. Doctrine cannot change.

 

[porthos11]

That doesn’t answer Tombstones question. ‘Defending the imposition of the death penalty’ does not equate with it being commanded or mandatory. He asks where is it commanded that the death penalty must be applied as a binding doctrine?

“That the death penalty must be applied” is not binding doctrine. States are free to abolish the death penalty and Catholics are free to oppose their imposition or support its abolition.

“That the death penalty is not immoral” is binding doctrine. States are also free to impose the death penalty for heinous crimes, subject to the prudential advice of the Church. Catholics are not free to lump it alongside abortion and euthanasia, and Catholics who do support the death penalty are not in a state of sin and can worthily receive Communion. Those who support abortion and euthanasia cannot.

 

[LongingSoul]

“That the death penalty must be applied” is not binding doctrine. States are free to abolish the death penalty and Catholics are free to oppose their imposition or support its abolition.

“That the death penalty is not immoral” is binding doctrine. States are also free to impose the death penalty for heinous crimes, subject to the prudential advice of the Church. Catholics are not free to lump it alongside abortion and euthanasia, and Catholics who do support the death penalty are not in a state of sin and can worthily receive Communion. Those who support abortion and euthanasia cannot.

Right, and while there may be a few people of the ultra pacifist persuasion who hold that the death penalty is intrinsically evil… the Church and those who strongly oppose the use of the death penalty today, understand that while it is a sentence that can serve as a last resort in the absence of non lethal alternatives… it is detrimental to the common good and human communion rendering its use extrinsically immoral today.