Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[pnewton]

The use of capital punishment even today is not immoral and no one’s opinion about the advisability of using it can make it so.

Likewise, no one’s opinion that it is moral makes it so. As we know that the death penalty can be moral or immoral, then the argument of its morality today is nothing more than pitting one’s opinion against that of another, in this case, Pope Francis (Pope Benedict, St John Paul, etc.) Sure all are just opinions based on understanding of social science and moral theology.

Then there are all those bishops that insist we still need a death penalty in the world today, such as…well, I can not actually think of a single one.

 

[Ender]

The claim that is being made is that if they were wrong on other issues, it is possible that they were wrong on this particular issue also. No one argued what you put in quotes.

It is true that Aquinas made some mistakes. If that fact means that we may safely ignore or dismiss his opinions on capital punishment then it must be equally true about literally everything he said. If your position is accurate that “Aquinas was wrong about X so we may ignore what he said about Y”, it doesn’t matter what “Y” is. You have dismissed all of Aquinas…as well as pretty much everyone else.

If this isn’t what your comment meant then explain how you can limit “Y” to mean capital punishment but nothing else.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Likewise, no one’s opinion that it is moral makes it so. As we know that the death penalty can be moral or immoral…

You are conflating two concepts here: the idea of a act being intrinsically wrong with the concept that a particular act may be wrong because of the intention and circumstances behind it. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. The only real question is whether its use in particular circumstances is appropriate.

…the argument of its morality today is nothing more than pitting one’s opinion against that of another, in this case, Pope Francis (Pope Benedict, St John Paul, etc.)

If you limit the discussion to whether the use of capital punishment is advisable today it is appropriate to include only the last three popes. If, however, the discussion is about whether it is permissible today then you have to include the positions expressed by all the preceding 260+ popes, the saints, Doctors, and Fathers of the church. That is a very different discussion.

Sure all are just opinions based on understanding of social science and moral theology.

The moral theology of this topic goes all the way back to Paul; it did not start with JPII. I admit the role social science plays in forming people’s positions on this topic; I just deny that that forms the basis of a moral distinction.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

If you limit the discussion to whether the use of capital punishment is advisable today it is appropriate to include only the last three popes. If, however, the discussion is about whether it is permissible today then you have to include the positions expressed by all the preceding 260+ popes, the saints, Doctors, and Fathers of the church. That is a very different discussion.
The moral theology of this topic goes all the way back to Paul; it did not start with JPII.

I am only considering the advisability of the death penalty today. St. Paul knew nothing about society today. Likewise, I know of no Pope that has ever said the death penalty was wrong back in the time of Paul.

 

[Ender]

I am only considering the advisability of the death penalty today.

This then is like a discussion of whether or not raising the minimum wage is a good idea. There is no moral distinction in choosing one side or the other (for either issue) assuming that the choice is based on a conviction that the chosen action will lead to the best result. That is, it is a practical and not a moral choice.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is both inadequate and irrelevant. I asked for specific citations to support your specific claim that "There are many statements that say the death penalty must (or must not) be used to defend the common good."

Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)

From the point of view of our faith, no one ought to slay a person who in the course of nature still would have time for repentance up to the very moment of his death. A guilty man provided a premature punishment had not deprived him of life could well procure forgiveness by redeeming himself by an act of repentance, however belated. (St. Ambrose, Cain and Abel, II.7.38)

The public authority is given the power to kill wrongdoers, and that not unjustly, since it is necessary for the defense of the commonwealth. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)

Do not condemn to death, and there will be someone there who can repent. Do not have a person put to death and you will have someone who can be reformed. As a man having this kind of love for men in your heart, be a judge of the earth. Love terrifying them if you like, but still go on loving. I don’t deny that penalties must be applied. I don’t forbid it. But let it be done in a spirit of love a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming. (St. Augustine)

For, although we can deny any responsibility for the death of those who are seen to have been handed over for judgment, not due to the accusations of ours, but because of the indictment of those who have charge of the defense of the public peace, we still do not want the sufferings of the servants of God to be avenged by punishments equal to those sufferings, as by the law requiring an eye for an eye. (St. Augustine)

Except in the case of the definition of the Traditional teaching on capital punishment where the two versions are strikingly different.

Also from the same Apostolic Letter:

Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time. (bold mine)

There isn’t made an exception for what the Catechism says on the death penalty.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments:

It is not therefore a new Catechism, but only the final text of the Latin Catechism of the Catholic Church, which since 1992 has already been translated and published in about thirty languages, and are about a dozen in the course of preparation. In this Latin typical edition will have to comply now all translations, **even those already published. ** (Bold mine)vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_09091997_cathechism_it.html

And these are the people who were part of the Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism: Ratzinger, Card. Schotte, Bertone, Schonborn, Ternyák Csaba, and Claudio Maria Celli.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)

From the point of view of our faith, no one ought to slay a person who in the course of nature still would have time for repentance up to the very moment of his death. A guilty man provided a premature punishment had not deprived him of life could well procure forgiveness by redeeming himself by an act of repentance, however belated. (St. Ambrose, Cain and Abel, II.7.38)

The public authority is given the power to kill wrongdoers, and that not unjustly, since it is necessary for the defense of the commonwealth. (St. Alphonsus Liguori)

Do not condemn to death, and there will be someone there who can repent. Do not have a person put to death and you will have someone who can be reformed. As a man having this kind of love for men in your heart, be a judge of the earth. Love terrifying them if you like, but still go on loving. I don’t deny that penalties must be applied. I don’t forbid it. But let it be done in a spirit of love a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming. (St. Augustine)

For, although we can deny any responsibility for the death of those who are seen to have been handed over for judgment, not due to the accusations of ours, but because of the indictment of those who have charge of the defense of the public peace, we still do not want the sufferings of the servants of God to be avenged by punishments equal to those sufferings, as by the law requiring an eye for an eye. (St. Augustine)

In any case, Romano Amerio and Avery Dulles on death penalty and the common good:

From St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to Taperelli d’Azeglio, the traditional teaching is that the decision as to the necessity and legitimacy of capital punishment depends on historical circumstances, that is, on the urgency of the need to hold society together in the face of the disruptive behavior of individuals who attack the common good. (Amerio)

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. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. (Dulles)

 

[Ender]

The public authority is given the power to kill wrongdoers…

In none of your citations was there any statement that capital punishment must, or must not, be used. All of them were some variation of “one ought” or “one ought not” use it. There are no statements saying “it must” or “it must not” be used. I have any number of comments on capital punishment but even those who view it as an obligation of the state never mandated its use.

Also from the same Apostolic Letter:Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time. There isn’t made an exception for what the Catechism says on the death penalty.

None of this changes the facts of the matter. No matter what general claim is made about the two catechisms, it is simply indisputable that the explanation given for the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment differs between the 1992 and 1997 versions. That much is obvious to anyone who accepts the common meaning of words.*In the short span of time between the first edition of the text and the final official Latin version issued in 1997, the section pertaining to the death penalty was significantly revised.

This earlier edition of the catechism retains the traditional teaching of the church.* (Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)
By saying the earlier edition retained the traditional teaching it should be apparent that Bishop Gregory is also saying the later version did not.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

This then is like a discussion of whether or not raising the minimum wage is a good idea. There is no moral distinction in choosing one side or the other (for either issue) assuming that the choice is based on a conviction that the chosen action will lead to the best result. That is, it is a practical and not a moral choice.

Ender

That is your opinion, and only an opinion. I believe, even in practical matters, there can be a moral, and an immoral, choice. The use of the death penalty by a dictator (like Stalin), or with callous disregard toward wrongful conviction can be a practical matter, and a moral matter. Taking a life, is a morally significant act. It can be done morally, or immorally.

 

[Tomdstone]

That is your opinion, and only an opinion. I believe, even in practical matters, there can be a moral, and an immoral, choice. The use of the death penalty by a dictator (like Stalin), or with callous disregard toward wrongful conviction can be a practical matter, and a moral matter. Taking a life, is a morally significant act. It can be done morally, or immorally.

Taking the life of an innocent person is something that is an abomination and something that God hates according to Holy Scripture.

 

[Ender]

I believe, even in practical matters, there can be a moral, and an immoral, choice. The use of the death penalty by a dictator (like Stalin), or with callous disregard toward wrongful conviction can be a practical matter, and a moral matter. Taking a life, is a morally significant act. It can be done morally, or immorally.

If I go to a store to buy a suit I may struggle over the choice of getting the black one or the gray one, but the decision involves no moral choice. You could respond that I might decide to steal a suit and that’s a moral choice so buying a suit involves moral choices. That’s analogous to your comment about Stalin.

Of course things can be abused, but that’s not what we’re discussing. If both of us are trying to do what is best in deciding whether the death penalty ought or ought not be used, there is no moral decision involved. We are both doing what we think is best, and the fact that we have come to exactly opposite conclusions doesn’t change the nature of that choice. One of us will surely be mistaken, but neither of has sinned because we are not faced with a moral choice, only a practical one.

If you think a moral choice is involved you should be able to identify what it is.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Taking the life of an innocent person is something that is an abomination and something that God hates according to Holy Scripture.

At least acknowledge the distinction between deliberately taking someone’s life and inadvertently doing so. Intentionally killing an innocent person is the gravest of sins. Inadvertently doing so is simply a tragedy.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

If I go to a store to buy a suit I may struggle over the choice of getting the black one or the gray one, but the decision involves no moral choice. You could respond that I might decide to steal a suit and that’s a moral choice so buying a suit involves moral choices. That’s analogous to your comment about Stalin.

Color is not an issue. The issue is whether taking the life is necessary for protection of society. You may think justice is the bigger issue, but the Catechism places the protection of society as that which must be considered. Also, the likelihood of killing an innocent is a moral consideration. I would clarify what Tombstone said, to say the deliberate taking of innocent life is wrong. A wrongful execution is not the deliberate taking of innocent life. However, even the reckless taking of human life is immoral, though to a lesser degree. If we take a life when we do not have to, and we can not be morally certain of guilt, then it could be consider reckless and immoral. I am not arguing this point, only giving you one of the moral considerations, as per your request.

 

[Ender]

The issue is whether taking the life is necessary for protection of society.

No, the issue is whether capital punishment in a particular instance is the better choice, that is, is it better or worse for society to execute this person or imprison him?

You may think justice is the bigger issue, but the Catechism places the protection of society as that which must be considered.

It is not up to me to decide which is the primary objective; I’m simply observing that the church has made that determination and she has identified it as (retributive) justice. Do you believe that protection is more important than justice?

Also, the likelihood of killing an innocent is a moral consideration.

No, it is a practical calculation. The probability that an innocent person will be executed is some value, call it X. What is the probability that a person will be murdered by a recidivist murder who was not executed? Call that Y. How much bigger than X would Y have to be for you to conclude that accepting the risk of executing an innocent person is the better option?

However, even the reckless taking of human life is immoral, though to a lesser degree.

I have already acknowledged that people can do evil things but this discussion is not about recklessness, it is about error. If you have to include external actions that are sins to begin with it is because there is no sin inherent in mistakes, even tragic ones. You are including characteristics that are generic to all actions but that are not particular to capital punishment. I could apply your objections to pretty much everything.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

No,…
No…

You sure use that word a lot. Oh, well, you have your opinion, even if you prefer to express it as factual. I am reminded of a boy rolling a hoop with a stick. The stick is the way you use “no” just to state again what you just stated. The good thing about a forum is that the previous answers are here. I could cut and paste what I just wrote with the word “no”, but I have found in the real world that such negativity when asserting my opinions works poorly.

For those interested in the subject, there is the Catechism one can read, which carries more weight than anything here.

 

[pnewton]

Let us consider the comments of Pope Francis in light of Church doctrine. St. John Paul the Great writes in Evangelium Vitae:

• The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.*
  **
  It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
  **
  In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.
  **
  In light of this, when we consider both the death penalty and life imprisonment, we must weigh more than redressing the wrong (we know vengeance is not an issue), but also what is the best weigh to redress the issue that safe guards both the public, and the public understanding of human dignity for all, even the worst of humanity.

 

[CrossofChrist]

it is simply indisputable that the explanation given for the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment differs between the 1992 and 1997 versions.

We’ve been through this before. The explanation is different, but the essence is the same.

You’ll say:

If the essence was the same this discussion wouldn’t exist.

And I’m just going to say that’s not true. We’re having that discussion now, discussions happened with traditionalists post VII, they happened with Thomists in the Middle Ages, etc. Yet there was no change in the essence of what was said, only the language used to express it.

By saying the earlier edition retained the traditional teaching it should be apparent that Bishop Gregory is also saying the later version did not.

Yet he also says, “The statements of the supreme pontiff and those of the American hierarchy over the last 40 years are by no means inconsistent with historical Catholic teaching on just punishment”.

Gregory is in fact saying that the Pope’s statements are consistent with traditional Catholic teaching.

And if the Catechism does err, then you have to account for it somehow, and that’ll be tough trying to get around Ratzinger and JPII, not to mention the others.

 

[Ender]

You sure use that word a lot. Oh, well, you have your opinion, even if you prefer to express it as factual. I am reminded of a boy rolling a hoop with a stick. The stick is the way you use “no” just to state again what you just stated.

I don’t use that word to dispute opinions, nor do I ever dispute something without giving an explanation of my position.

For those interested in the subject, there is the Catechism one can read, which carries more weight than anything here.

Actually, there are at least a half dozen catechisms one can read…and only one of them contends that the traditional teaching of the church limited capital punishment to cases where it was necessary for the defense of society. “One of these things is not like the others…”

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

None of this changes the facts of the matter. No matter what general claim is made about the two catechisms, it is simply indisputable that the explanation given for the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment differs between the 1992 and 1997 versions. That much is obvious to anyone who accepts the common meaning of words.*In the short span of time between the first edition of the text and the final official Latin version issued in 1997, the section pertaining to the death penalty was significantly revised.

*This earlier edition of the catechism retains the traditional teaching of the church. (Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)
By saying the earlier edition retained the traditional teaching it should be apparent that Bishop Gregory is also saying the later version did not.

Ender

That is because the teaching on capital punishment has changed as many other teachings have changed. The teaching on the grounds required for a marriage annulment have also changed and this is possibly why His Excellency Walter Cardinal Kasper has said that in some cases a marriage annulment is a divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way. Pope Innocent IV approved the use of torture to extract confessions (under certain conditions), but that has been changed since recent popes have spoken against the use of torture. In the past, slaves were told to obey their masters and Catholic clergy held slaves, but that has changed and Catholic clergy no longer hold slaves.
americamagazine.org/content/all-things/cardinal-kasper-some-fear-domino-effect-synod-family

 

[Ender]

We’ve been through this before. The explanation is different, but the essence is the same.

Let’s be very clear about what is being discussed: I am (in this instance) referring solely to the explanations of the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment as expressed in the 1992 and 1997 versions of the catechism. Regarding the two explanations, they are quite different as the 1992 version simply does not contain the caveat limiting the use of capital punishment to cases where it is necessary to safeguard the public. Not only does that restriction not appear in the 1992 edition, it does not appear anywhere (that I have found) in the entire history of the church. If that really is the traditional teaching then surely there should be some evidence somewhere to support the claim. There is in fact none.

There are statements (e.g. Trent) where protection is recognized as a benefit of capital punishment, but nowhere is it alleged that this is a requirement for its use.

Yet he also says, “The statements of the supreme pontiff and those of the American hierarchy over the last 40 years are by no means inconsistent with historical Catholic teaching on just punishment”.Gregory is in fact saying that the Pope’s statements are consistent with traditional Catholic teaching.

Bishop Gregory was a little disingenuous in saying that the changes in the catechism were only changes in presentation. The changes were in fact substantive, and to the extent that something changed it is to that extent inconsistent with what it was prior to the change.

And if the Catechism does err, then you have to account for it somehow, and that’ll be tough trying to get around Ratzinger and JPII, not to mention the others.

I can’t account for it, but the fact that I can’t explain it doesn’t change the fact that the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment is accurately defined only in the 1992 version, not the 1997 version.

Ender