Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[graciew]

I started investigating this issue not long after I joined CAF. I entered these discussions at first just to counter certain arguments that I felt were invalid, but as the discussion became more pointed I found I needed to be able to support my position with what the church actually taught. My personal opinion - properly so - carries no weight, so before I could assert something I first had to find where the church (broadly speaking, to include the Fathers, Doctors, etc) asserted it. That investigation has led me to where I am now.

Ender

This has always been one of my weak spots.
I grew in an environment where we did not have to " compete " to put it somehow with other religions. We are catholic majority and probably due to bigger issues , religion has not been one.
Not that I did not study or read , I did , but it was for pleasure or faith building and it added in me.
The issue where I live is that people do not go to jail that easily. I have understood that more clearlt,the process after your explanation.
No , I would not go for death penalty. It would lead to abuses and as a society ,there is much mendi g to be done before recurring to that.
I understand though that you firmly believe that it suits a purpose and that is valid for me.
Peace , Ender

 

[pnewton]

Now I have to look up the word " chuckle " !
Is it bad ??

I guess I showed my age.

… pnewton being one of those as I too remember a time he had a foot on either side of the fence on this issue.

One clarification: I have never changed my opinion that there will be some that cannot ever be safely incarcerated, at least at this time and under our current Constitution. I just have added the long term impact of our culture to the equation. I believe both that abortion is a much more important issue and that we will not change society on that issue until we change the culture.

 

[Ender]

No , I would not go for death penalty. It would lead to abuses and as a society, there is much mending to be done before recurring to that.

The last three popes preferred that it not be used either so you’re in good company.

Ender

 

[graciew]

The last three popes preferred that it not be used either so you’re in good company.

Ender

Thanks.
Only that sometimes,and this may be personality,I prefer direct company,even if we may not agree.
Just the fact that you take the trouble to answer,and show me what you think and believe,even if it may be imperfect,makes a lot of difference for me. You adapt your language to my understanding and you share what you can.
I don’t know,maybe it is me,but it it the humanity of Christ that lead me to the Divine. Call it wrong,maybe,but it is that you become human to me,that starts building trust in me. Even very imperfect,and I am not saying you are!
What has this to do with death penalty? Maybe that when a person has a face and a name,it is easier to shake the gates of Heaven for mercy,than when we all become a percentage or a unit.
This does not mean the Popes are not important! It just means that you are closer.
Again,this is personal,and it is just the way I see things.

 

[Ender]

Maybe that when a person has a face and a name,it is easier to shake the gates of Heaven for mercy,than when we all become a percentage or a unit.

It is surely easier to discuss executing when you’re not the one doing it, nonetheless, whatever personal difficulties one may have with the mechanics of what is involved, this doesn’t change the thinking that either supports or opposes its use. It is either right or not right both specifically and generally. It is important to recognize that objections to it in specific cases do not translate into objections to it as a general doctrine. And, yes, there are cases where mercy should excuse someone from the death penalty…just as there are cases where it should not.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This is a… error. It would be a mistake to say to you what pnewton said to me as something is not a lie merely because it is wrong. The fact that you believe such nonsense simply means that you are mistaken, not that you are lying.
This is a…nother error. You really don’t seem able to understand what I say, and it should be apparent to even casual readers that - unless I spell it out - no one can have any inclination of why I say what I do. You say I do this or don’t do that *because *I find or don’t find support for my “agenda”. Do you not realize we are forbidden to judge about things we cannot know? I realize in citing Aquinas I’m just using one of those barely relevant old guys again but it’s the best I can do.Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things
I’m pretty sure your categorization of my intentions falls into the rash judgment category. I really wish you wouldn’t make this so personal. Not because I care so much but because it’s likely to get the thread shut down.

Ender

If you re-read my post you will notice that I was addressing a general demeanour regarding a certain type of debater… sort of like the Pope referred to ‘hostile inflexibility’ which we could all instantly recognise in a certain type of attitude or demeanour. You took that cap and it must have fit so that is on your head so to speak.

As for Aquinas, I’ve never seen anyone here cast him as “one of those barely relevant old guys” so that’s on your head as well. I see a problem with you quoting his documents with the same intention that we would normally quote scripture… when in fact, the documents of the Church form the vessel of doctrine by their combined force. Human beings are not God and cannot produce a whole truth within one piece of writing the way the inspired scriptures can. The Church herself is one living organism containing 2000 years of writings. No one period of that history is more relevant than the others and its foolish to try and create division and contradiction where none exists. If in winter the human body discerns the need to wear woolly garments it does not mean that when the weather becomes hot again and the garments are shed that there is a contradiction of truth. Doctrines reflect a truth that cannot be fully expressed once for all time like scripture. To try and say that the default is to wear woolly garments and that shedding them for summer is just a prudential judgement is wrong. All decisions amount to prudential judgements based on the needs and the inherent dignity of the living organism they serve.

We today, deem the death penalty unnecessary. The living organism it served no longer needs it and in fact it is detrimental to retain it in these times. Just like forcing someone to wear a woolly jumper in the middle of summer.

 

[Ender]

If you re-read my post you will notice that I was addressing a general demeanour regarding a certain type of debater… sort of like the Pope referred to ‘hostile inflexibility’ which we could all instantly recognise in a certain type of attitude or demeanour. You took that cap and it must have fit so that is on your head so to speak.

Since you were responding to a post I made it seemed reasonable to assume you were addressing my comments and not the random demeanor of certain types of debaters.

I see a problem with you quoting his [Aquinas] documents with the same intention that we would normally quote scripture…

Don’t comment on my intentions. You cannot know what they are and it is inappropriate to speculate, especially when your speculation is uncharitable.

the documents of the Church form the vessel of doctrine by their combined force. Human beings are not God and cannot produce a whole truth within one piece of writing the way the inspired scriptures can. The Church herself is one living organism containing 2000 years of writings.

How can you oppose my citing Aquinas when you do the very same thing? If there is any difference between your citations and mine it is that mine are much more extensive and include literally dozens of different sources.

Doctrines reflect a truth that cannot be fully expressed once for all time like scripture. To try and say that the default is to wear woolly garments and that shedding them for summer is just a prudential judgement is wrong. All decisions amount to prudential judgements based on the needs and the inherent dignity of the living organism they serve.

You persist in conflating doctrine with the application of doctrine. The former is unchangeable truth while the latter involves prudential judgments that can change from one social setting to another. The comments in 2267 are prudential, they refer to the application of doctrine, not to the doctrine itself.* 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)

We today, deem the death penalty unnecessary.

You may deem it unnecessary. “We” don’t.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

You persist in conflating doctrine with the application of doctrine. The former is unchangeable truth while the latter involves prudential judgments that can change from one social setting to another. The comments in 2267 are prudential, they refer to the application of doctrine, not to the doctrine itself.* 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)

Yes the State in its capacity to administer justice according to the common good, has the right to resort to the death penalty. That means that it is not intrinsically evil like abortion or euthanasia. That does not amount to a command. The command as we all very well know is “Thou shalt not kill” within which legitimate defenses are subsequently treated of.

Likewise, I have a right to defend myself with lethal force if necessary. That does not amount to a command to kill my attacker. I am not going against God by not arming myself with lethal force in anticipation of that possibility. I personally would rather die than kill someone else and that does not displease God.

In Cardinal Dulles essay he sums up his position and you seem to have failed to have considered # 7 to 10 which provide the true scope of his position.

1. The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.
2. **The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life. **
3. Persons who specially represent the Church, such as clergy and religious, in view of their specific vocation, should abstain from pronouncing or executing the sentence of death.
4. Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition.

We today, deem the death penalty unnecessary.

You may deem it unnecessary. “We” don’t.

Ender

‘We’ as in the Catholic Church and the majority of the world. You have your own agenda as to what constitutes human justice I know.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Understand that I am not suggesting there is no proper role for mercy, only that it can also be inappropriately used as well. It is not something that should be automatically applied in every situation. Now, given that mercy is not universally applicable, what does that say about those cases where it is not proper? If the merciful sentence is LWOP then does that not mean that the just sentence is death? If LWOP is the just sentence then one does not have to argue for mercy to oppose the death penalty, justice will equally serve that purpose.

The argument that all murderers should be treated mercifully and not executed contains within it the admission that death is the just punishment…so what is the argument for not using it in those cases where mercy should not be granted?

Misses the point though. If we are acting mercifully and therefore justly, then it can be that perhaps the death penalty is the most merciful option.

OTOH, perhaps the fact that we almost instinctively view not applying the death penalty as being merciful is something to take into account.

 

[LongingSoul]

Misses the point though. If we are acting mercifully and therefore justly, then it can be that perhaps the death penalty is the most merciful option.

OTOH, perhaps the fact that we almost instinctively view not applying the death penalty as being merciful is something to take into account.

Exactly. I can cite the Queensland experience here. The death penalty was abolished nearly a century ago. In the situation, there was an instinctive recognition of the injustice that minorities and the disenfranchised were over represented by the noose. The general feeling was that because all people are equal (can be know through reason) despite the prevalent class divisions… the common good was not being served by such a blood thirsty act of punishment. That feeling, while pertaining to the common good, can be supported by the fact of Gods mercy towards man. It’s not like normal human beings are experiencing themselves as God administering divine justice. Through human instinct they experience justice in relation to the common good and this we can call mercy as a reflection of Gods relationship to man.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I don’t agree that this. On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty.
This agrees with your comment that there is no guilt but neither is there any hint that the action was objectively wrong. Think of it this way: two people commit the same crime and both are executed. In one location there is no outcry; the incident is simply noted and the public moves on. In the other location, the brother of the executed man takes to the streets, inflames a mob and there is rioting. It is not reasonable to contend that these executions are objectively different. Either they are both contrary to man’s dignity or neither of them is.

The principle of double effect would apply. If the action is morally acceptable then:

1. the action must be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent.
2. the bad result not be directly intended
3. the good result must not be a direct causal result of the bad result
4. the good result must be “proportionate to” the bad result.

#4 would objectively be the problem.

I accept that such conditions can exist.

Good. Then hopefully 2267 poses no doctrinal problems for you.

It is a sin to do anything we believe is wrong, but the term “conflict with human dignity” cannot be so broadly used that it means any sin at all.

Sin is by nature an affront on human dignity.

For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man (Gaudium et Spes 16)

More grievous sins merely compound the intensity of how much an action conflicts with human dignity.

 

[Ender]

you seem to have failed to have considered # 7 to 10 which provide the true scope of his position.

I didn’t address them because they aren’t relevant to the point I was making, which was the distinction between doctrine and the application of doctrine.

1. The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

Dulles refers here to the “purposes” (plural) of punishment. He does not, like 2267, limit the consideration merely to protection.

1. The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.

This point is obviously true. I have several times acknowledged it.

1. Persons who specially represent the Church, such as clergy and religious, in view of their specific vocation, should abstain from pronouncing or executing the sentence of death.

This pertains to the clergy, not the state, and simply repeats what was said at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Nothing new here.

1. Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops…

I have been attentive to their guidance. I have responded to everything they’ve said that someone has cited. Is it not also clear that “should be attentive to” is quite different than “must adhere to”?

… Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition.

I’m glad you highlighted this since this has been my point all along, and should suffice to explain why I’ve been citing from that very tradition. It is not my position that conflicts with tradition. I’m not the one relying on the “development” of doctrine to explain why it is OK for the present to disagree with the past.

‘We’ as in the Catholic Church and the majority of the world. You have your own agenda as to what constitutes human justice I know.

There’s that scare word “agenda” again. I present arguments which you are unable to confound, which would explain why you try to characterize them in a way that implies they can be ignored. You may be able to dismiss them; what you are unable to do is refute them.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I have been attentive to their guidance. I have responded to everything they’ve said that someone has cited. Is it not also clear that “should be attentive to” is quite different than “must adhere to”?

And herein lies the crux. That’s your issue. I on the other hand, am attentive to the teachings of the pope and bishops and actually have no conflict at all in reading 2267 as flowing from the whole teaching of the Church. You persist in telling anyone who believes with the Church, that they are in error or not understanding according to your theologically superior understanding. I began addressing your posts in an effort to help you resolve your conflict, but I have come to realise that you have no desire whatsoever to try and see the issue through the lens of the Church. You are stubbornly rooted in whatever agenda it is you have.

 

[graciew]

It is surely easier to discuss executing when you’re not the one doing it, nonetheless, whatever personal difficulties one may have with the mechanics of what is involved, this doesn’t change the thinking that either supports or opposes its use. It is either right or not right both specifically and generally. It is important to recognize that objections to it in specific cases do not translate into objections to it as a general doctrine. And, yes, there are cases where mercy should excuse someone from the death penalty…just as there are cases where it should not.

Ender

Yes, I can understand where you are at and also how important it is to you to stay within Church teaching. It is also important for me,and as you say " the last three Popes keep me company " also so I am safe there too. Basically,our Mother protects us.
I can also see that you also see mercy after death in the case of death penalty ,and I kind of see it here on earth if possible,and you too.
The worst case scenario for me if death penalty is held high,is that vulnerable people in other states,will be lost. How can one say,"Do not kill that woman " if under other people.s religious point of view in other places of the earth it is acceptable.?
For me dynamic does not mean at the same pace,we are met where we are at. And States also have their particular processes.
Could this be possible within Church teaching for you?

 

[graciew]

Correcting: States not states

 

[Ender]

How can one say,"Do not kill that woman " if under other people’s religious point of view in other places of the earth it is acceptable?

It is not possible for people with different religious beliefs to reach agreement on issues where their doctrines are different. Within a religion, however, agreement should be possible, so while Catholics may disagree with Buddhists and Baptists they ought to be able to agree with one another.

Where the disagreements are practical, as in “Is this a good idea?” it is quite possible for a Catholic to agree with a Baptist even while disagreeing with another Catholic. In prudential matters the church has no specific positions so individuals are free (and obligated) to come to their own conclusions.

My disagreements with others about CCC 2267 are on two levels. The first is with those who believe that section represents new or expanded doctrine (I believe it is prudential, not doctrinal), and the second is with those who agree with its prudential recommendations.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

It is not possible for people with different religious beliefs to reach agreement on issues where their doctrines are different.

I don’t see where it has been shown that acceptance of capital punishment is an infallible doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. It has been a tradition, but traditions can change as we see from the overthrow of the tradition that women are to wear headcovering in Church.

 

[LongingSoul]

Let me find a common ground for discussing this point further. Give me an example of what sort of conditions would prevail that made the death penalty an immoral law requiring abolition.

How are you able to explain the Churchs complete silence over the last 2000 years when nations or States have abolished the death penalty from general law? How do you explain Vatican city abolishing the death penalty from its criminal law books without any protest from the college of Cardinals?

If a death penalty is the only just punishment for some crimes, why did it not present a conundrum to the Magisterium when a Christian country abolished it? Why was there at least no objection at the local Church level when the government of the day abolished it? Why did the local Churchs in fact help counsel those lay Catholics and citizens that the death penalty is not a divine command but a natural and human law response to defense of society in pursuit of justice?

If there is no just cause for abolishing the death penalty as a punishment, why has the Church been so silent in the face of all these instances of abolition over 2000 years?

 

[Ender]

I don’t see where it has been shown that acceptance of capital punishment is an infallible doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. It has been a tradition, but traditions can change as we see from the overthrow of the tradition that women are to wear headcovering in Church.

There are Traditions and there are traditions. The church’s teaching on capital punishment is in the former category, headscarves the latter. The latter can be overthrown, the former cannot. I’ve said before that most of the church’s infallible doctrines are so not because they are declared to be but because of how they are taught. The doctrine against women priests, for example, was never declared infallible. Nonetheless, as Cardinal Ratzinger explained, it was infallible because:* it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2).* (Responsum ad Propositum Dubium)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html
This characterization seems equally true of the teaching on capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

There are Traditions and there are traditions. The church’s teaching on capital punishment is in the former category, headscarves the latter. The latter can be overthrown, the former cannot. I’ve said before that most of the church’s infallible doctrines are so not because they are declared to be but because of how they are taught. The doctrine against women priests, for example, was never declared infallible. Nonetheless, as Cardinal Ratzinger explained, it was infallible because:* it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2).* (Responsum ad Propositum Dubium)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html
This characterization seems equally true of the teaching on capital punishment.

Ender

That is what Cardinal Ratzinger said. But Father Sullivan disagrees.