Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[LongingSoul]

If that was so then how could the church ever support capital punishment? She has always accepted the death penalty as a just punishment for severe crimes. She couldn’t have done that if mere existence was the higher good. Clearly there are three cases where life may be taken.Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
*1. In self-defense… *
2. In a just war…
*3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… *(Baltimore Catechism)
The purpose of retribution is “to repair the disorder caused by the offense.” (CCC 2266) The disorder caused by a murder is of rather significant magnitude.So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.(1) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (1) Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)
The story of Cain is in Genesis 4. What is in Gn 9:6 is the directive from God himself as to what the just punishment is for murder along with an explanation for why this is so. The fact that God protected Cain from being killed by others has never been used by the church to form her position on capital punishment. That position belongs to Gn 9:6 (and Rm 13:1-4).

Ender

Summa Theologica = “Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. **Now the end of law is the common good; **because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that “law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens.” Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6).”

"The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. "

"On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above–either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory–or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him–or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), “a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all.”

“Vengeance is lawful and virtuous so far as it tends to the prevention of evil.”

“All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others.”

From Pope Francis homily 31/10/14…

“This way of living attached to the laws, distanced them from love and from justice. They followed the laws and they neglected justice. They followed the laws and they neglected love. They were the models. And for these people Jesus had only one word (to describe them): hypocrites. On one hand, you travel across the world looking for proselytes: you’re looking for them. And then? You close the door. Closed-minded men, men who are so attached to the laws, to the letter of the law that they were always closing the doorway to hope, love and salvation… Men who only knew how to close (doors).”

“This is the path that Jesus teaches us, totally opposite to that of the doctors of law. And it’s this path from love and justice that leads to God. Instead, the other path, of being attached only to the laws, to the letter of the laws, leads to closure, leads to egoism. The path that leads from love to knowledge and discernment, to total fulfilment, leads to holiness, salvation and the encounter with Jesus. Instead, the other path leads to egoism, the arrogance of considering oneself to be in the right, to that so-called holiness of appearances, right? Jesus said to these people: You like to be seen by the people as men of prayer and of fasting…:’ To be seen, right? And it’s for this reason that Jesus tells the people: “do what they tell you but do not do what they do.’”

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/31/pope_love_and_justice_count_more_than_attachment_to_laws/1109859

 

[CrossofChrist]

I decided, you know, what the heck, might as well respond…

If that was so then how could the church ever support capital punishment? She has always accepted the death penalty as a just punishment for severe crimes. She couldn’t have done that if mere existence was the higher good.

The value of life is much more than mere existence…

Which is why I think the following is wholly irrelevant…

Clearly there are three cases where life may be taken.Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
*1. In self-defense… *
2. In a just war…
*3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… *(Baltimore Catechism)
The purpose of retribution is “to repair the disorder caused by the offense.” (CCC 2266) The disorder caused by a murder is of rather significant magnitude.So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.(1) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (1) Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)

The story of Cain is in Genesis 4.

Yes.

What is in Gn 9:6 is the directive from God himself as to what the just punishment is for murder along with an explanation for why this is so

And why is it a just punishment? Because it shows how valuable human life is.

Another thing: is there any document from the Magisterium that says capital punishment is the just punishment for murder, to the exclusion of other punishments being just?

The fact that God protected Cain from being killed by others has never been used by the church to form her position on capital punishment.

Never? Ever?

Pope JPII used it.

St. Ambrose used it here:

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.

That position belongs to Gn 9:6 (and Rm 13:1-4).

Not denied by me.

Ender

 

[graciew]

The notion of retribution strikes me as static.There must be something I am failing to un derstand. Nothing can be greater than God. So the words " restore" and “order " have to involve some kind of movement or activity towards God and some kind of " community.” Nobody is an island.
Jesus is not a concept.He is a person.So we are to move and seek a person ,not a concept.
What is the purpose of a Desert in this case ?
Ok , Aquinas do not despair , I am trying.

 

[LongingSoul]

What is in Gn 9:6 is the directive from God himself as to what the just punishment is for murder along with an explanation for why this is so

 

[Ender]

I decided, you know, what the heck, might as well respond…

Thank you.

The value of life is much more than mere existence…

OK, but if life is always more precious than justice - and all that flows from it - then why did the church allow life to be taken in order to satisfy the obligation of justice? If the church has always recognized the validity of capital punishment it is surely true that she does not place the highest value on our earthly existence.

Another concern that is seldom discussed is that of expiation. We must make expiation for our sins and the church also teaches that the death penalty, if it is accepted by the sinner, serves as expiation even for the sin of murder.It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments (JPII)
We look at death as eliminating the possibility of repentance, but what we forget is that it also offers the possibility of atonement. Repentance alone is not sufficient to erase the debt we incur for our sins, a debt that will be paid in this life or the next.

And why is it a just punishment? Because it shows how valuable human life is.

A punishment by definition is just if its severity is proportionate to that of the crime.

Another thing: is there any document from the Magisterium that says capital punishment is the just punishment for murder, to the exclusion of other punishments being just?

There is no one punishment that is always just in every situation. There are both rules and exceptions to the rules. If punishment X is a just punishment, what is the argument for imposing a lesser punishment than what has already been deemed just?

St. Ambrose used it here:
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.

We were talking about the church using the story of Cain and Abel to form her doctrine on capital punishment. Ambrose did not refer to that story in your citation.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The notion of retribution strikes me as static.There must be something I am failing to un derstand. Nothing can be greater than God. So the words " restore" and “order " have to involve some kind of movement or activity towards God and some kind of " community.” Nobody is an island.
Jesus is not a concept.He is a person.So we are to move and seek a person ,not a concept.
What is the purpose of a Desert in this case ?
Ok , Aquinas do not despair , I am trying.

What is required of us when we sin? First we must admit our guilt and regret having committed it. We must repent. That, however, is insufficient.* Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. (CCC 1459) We must also atone for it; our sin must be expiated by a just punishment.When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault (Pius XII)
How is expiation accomplished? It is done through the acceptance of our punishment.When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. (CCC 2266)
This concept of expiation is lost in the modern approach to punishment.“A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law** as the prime function of penalty**”* (Pius XII)
When punishment is looked at as mere vindictiveness it is no wonder that people question it. From that perspective justice itself becomes suspect. That of course has never been the church’s perspective.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

Thank you.
OK, but if life is always more precious than justice - and all that flows from it - then why did the church allow life to be taken in order to satisfy the obligation of justice? If the church has always recognized the validity of capital punishment it is surely true that she does not place the highest value on our earthly existence.

Another concern that is seldom discussed is that of expiation. We must make expiation for our sins and the church also teaches that the death penalty, if it is accepted by the sinner, serves as expiation even for the sin of murder.It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments (JPII)
We look at death as eliminating the possibility of repentance, but what we forget is that it also offers the possibility of atonement. Repentance alone is not sufficient to erase the debt we incur for our sins, a debt that will be paid in this life or the next.
A punishment by definition is just if its severity is proportionate to that of the crime.
There is no one punishment that is always just in every situation. There are both rules and exceptions to the rules. If punishment X is a just punishment, what is the argument for imposing a lesser punishment than what has already been deemed just?
We were talking about the church using the story of Cain and Abel to form her doctrine on capital punishment. Ambrose did not refer to that story in your citation.

Ender

What you appear to be forgetting is that Our Lord and Saviour has given the keys to bind and loose to the Pope. As Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, His Holiness is the Vicar of Christ and he has called for abolishing the death penalty.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip
The use of any punishment is a matter prudence, as you have often pointed out. Making the value of life a greater priority than retribution, is an application of doctrine, not a reversal, as is in doctrinal development. The Church is not stagnant.

No but She has gone backward.

Within the Church, the death penalty has always been based upon the reverence for life.

In addition, the death penalty preserves more innocent lives (1).

The Church, now, is attempting to save all murderers lives, at the cost of more innocents murdered (1).

Therefore, the Church has devalued life, with this new teaching, while discounting justice.

It could hardly be more or a mess.

1. Catechism & State Protection
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html

 

[dudleysharp]

What you appear to be forgetting is that Our Lord and Saviour has given the keys to bind and loose to the Pope. As Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, His Holiness is the Vicar of Christ and he has called for abolishing the death penalty.

He, individually, not the Church.

Besides the massive problems within CCC 2267 ----

Any good Catholic may disagree with the Church’s newest teaching on the death penalty (1) and remain a Catholic in good standing (1) and can find that (a) the primary and eternal purpose of sanction is justice and/or redress, as confirmed in this latest CCC, and that (b) justice should not be and cannot be subjugated by a secondary purpose of sanction, even the important concern of “defense of society” and that (c) the death penalty offers a greater degree of protection for society and individuals (2) , that being the protection of the potential innocents harmed, now spared, and potential repeat unjust aggressors, also, now spared, by preventing them from harming even more innocents and , thereby, putting their eternal lives more at risk (3&4), thereby revealing that more executions provide greater protection for both innocents and the guilty and, therefore, more respect for the sanctity of life, the Church’s foundation of death penalty support, for over 2000 years and the death penalty and its greater protection of innocents and the guilty “better corresponds to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

and from two Catholic scholars:

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the (death penalty) restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II”.(5)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.” (5)

1. From Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict, then Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

(paragraph 3) “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

from Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles, part of memorandum sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal

McCarrick, made public July 2004.

http(COLON)//www.ewtn(DOT)com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm

1. The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
   http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
2. The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
   http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html
3. Catechism & State Protection
   http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html
4. “Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics andCulture (University of Notre Dame).

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP If the church has always recognized the validity of capital punishment it is surely true that she does not place the highest value on our earthly existence. SNIP
Ender

Earthly life is extremely important, the most important example of which Is Jesus, God made man, which He thought, vitally, important.

But, more important, is the Passion of the Christ, the great sacrifice for our eternal lives.

St. Dismas makes such a wonderful example.

 

[LongingSoul]

No but She has gone backward.

Within the Church, the death penalty has always been based upon the reverence for life.

In addition, the death penalty preserves more innocent lives (1).

The Church, now, is attempting to save all murderers lives, at the cost of more innocents murdered (1).

Therefore, the Church has devalued life, with this new teaching, while discounting justice.

It could hardly be more or a mess.

1. Catechism & State Protection
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html

The Church is addressing the toxic situation of a culture of death. She deems it vital to be unconditionally prolife on every level because there exists in society, the erroneous belief that mortal man has some supreme power over life and death.

Even in these debates it is clear that the death penalty is not regarded as a tool serving the common good… but erroneously defended as a divine command detached from the common good altogether.

Catholics are permitted to argue for retention of the death penalty in areas where it is believed to serve the common good of that society, but that’s a practical matter that doesn’t warrant any appeal to Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

No but She has gone backward.

That would be forward, at least as Catholics believe. Protestants may not accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit and view the Church as a corrupter of doctrine, but then they are not Catholic. We look to our Bishops as shepherd, with His Holiness as the Vicar of Christ, not bloggers. Now there is some room for disagreement as we seek to understand the mind of the Church, but the last source of understanding should come from non-Catholics who think we have gone backwards (or Catholics).

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIPThe Church is addressing the toxic situation of a culture of death. She deems it vital to be unconditionally prolife on every level because there exists in society, the erroneous belief that mortal man has some supreme power over life and death. SNIP.

LS:

You know that such is not true.

No one claims that the Church teaches that we cannot kill in self defense or defense of others or in a just war against unjust aggressors, nor it the death penalty banned, but is a matter of prudential judgment, within which we may support the death penalty.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Thank you.

You’re welcome!

OK, but if life is always more precious than justice - and all that flows from it - then why did the church allow life to be taken in order to satisfy the obligation of justice? If the church has always recognized the validity of capital punishment it is surely true that she does not place the highest value on our earthly existence.

Human life is precious because it is made in the image of God and raised to a supernatural dignity. If capital punishment is used in certain instances it is because it better shows that dignity, which was disrespected.

Another concern that is seldom discussed is that of expiation. We must make expiation for our sins and the church also teaches that the death penalty, if it is accepted by the sinner, serves as expiation even for the sin of murder.It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments (JPII)
We look at death as eliminating the possibility of repentance, but what we forget is that it also offers the possibility of atonement. Repentance alone is not sufficient to erase the debt we incur for our sins, a debt that will be paid in this life or the next.

True. But many people in our day aren’t Catholic, so it seems at least outward repentance (inner repentance aside since we can’t judge that) may not be too common. Sometimes you even hear of a story where someone wants the death penalty because it gives them a cop out for dealing with what they have done.

There could also be alternative ways of expiating the grave sin committed. But I grant that capital punishment would be one way of doing so.

A punishment by definition is just if its severity is proportionate to that of the crime.

True. I guess I was going more for the fact how if you commit a crime like murder, you disrespect your own dignity as being made in the image of God, and in effect you are saying you are willing to lose the privileges that come with the dignity you have (Or, in the words of Pius XII, you have forfeited your right to life).

If punishment X is a just punishment, what is the argument for imposing a lesser punishment than what has already been deemed just?

What ever better shows the dignity of the human person in a given situation.

For instance, Archbishop Renato Martino’s Intervention about abolishing the death penalty is based on how the dignity of human life is better shown through abolition. Very much along the same line of thought as Pope St. John Paul II, yet neither argue that capital punishment is per se immoral.

We were talking about the church using the story of Cain and Abel to form her doctrine on capital punishment. Ambrose did not refer to that story in your citation.

Yes he did. It was taken from: Cain and Abel, II.7.38

 

[CrossofChrist]

LS:

You know that such is not true.

No one claims that the Church teaches that we cannot kill in self defense or defense of others or in a just war against unjust aggressors, nor it the death penalty banned, but is a matter of prudential judgment, within which we may support the death penalty.

To be unconditionally prolife would support the idea of self-defense because it would do the most protection to human life. Same could be said (even though I disagree) for capital punishment.

Like you said, it comes down to prudential judgment and how we best show that we are unconditionally prolife.

 

[TCR74]

I would be willing to let people like Charles Manson and other mass murders out of Prison as soon as the Pope is willing to let them come live in the Vatican city. Is he opening his arms up yet ? since he opposes these issues yet offers no solution to fix them?

 

[graciew]

I would be willing to let people like Charles Manson and other mass murders out of Prison as soon as the Pope is willing to let them come live in the Vatican city. Is he opening his arms up yet ? since he opposes these issues yet offers no solution to fix them?

No , he was thinking of sending him.to yours
Look , I may be a boulder , but.to think he said Yeah ! Open th gates and let everyone out no matter what " is plainly underestimate him way too much.
Abolishing death penalty and life sentence.may mean 50 years.in jail and consider if you are.not still an agressor before letting you out.
Yes , he has been addressing the.“how” partly , only that sometimes we are.deaf. That person in prison as much as it may hurt or disturb to think of it , is also your brother and neighbour.

 

[Ender]

What you appear to be forgetting is that Our Lord and Saviour has given the keys to bind and loose to the Pope.

If by this you mean the pope has the authority to decide what should and should not be moral, you are mistaken. That is not at all what that passage means. The church is tasked with preserving the moral law, not inventing it.

As Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, His Holiness is the Vicar of Christ and he has called for abolishing the death penalty.

• It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. And, if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. *(Christopher Ferrera, President American Catholic Lawyers Assn)
  Ender

 

[Ender]

Human life is precious because it is made in the image of God and raised to a supernatural dignity. If capital punishment is used in certain instances it is because it better shows that dignity, which was disrespected.

Human life is precious because man is made in the image of God, and it is precisely for that reason that God himself decreed the murderer forfeits his own life.

There could also be alternative ways of expiating the grave sin committed.

There could be…but suggesting that incarceration is expiatory is idle speculation. We know that a person can expiate the sin even of murder by accepting the death penalty as a just punishment.

What ever better shows the dignity of the human person in a given situation.

It is an affront to a man’s dignity not to hold him fully accountable for his actions.But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all,* this would be to deny the person’s dignity** and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin.* (JPII Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)

For instance, Archbishop Renato Martino’s Intervention about abolishing the death penalty is based on how the dignity of human life is better shown through abolition.

The Intervention you cite is rather badly argued. I wouldn’t put much currency in what was said.

Yes he did. It was taken from: Cain and Abel, II.7.38

You didn’t provide that information in the citation. I’ll address this in another post.

Ender

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

If by this you mean the pope has the authority to decide what should and should not be moral, you are mistaken. That is not at all what that passage means. The church is tasked with preserving the moral law, not inventing it.

• It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. And, if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. *(Christopher Ferrera, President American Catholic Lawyers Assn)
  Ender

Christopher Ferrera is not someone I would trust to listen on matter of Catholic teaching because of his hostile and critical views of the Church since Vatican II. An example is how he feels that NFP is inherently immoral.