Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[Ender]

In Catholic teaching the rule is ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Capital punishment represents the ‘exception’ to the rule and only if the common good behoves such a defensive measure in penal justice.

Correct. However the determination of what contributes to the common good has been spelled out for us. That is, the formation of a “just conception of the wickedness of murder…**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.”

I have an article published in the Catholic newspaper [a century ago] to explain to Catholics the Churchs position.
"Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?
This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no.

OK, so far so good.

Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law.

No objection so far.

the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers.

I’m surprised you cited this. So far I agree with all of it.

If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system.

This is the author’s opinion now; clearly it is not something the church ever taught. I’ll also point out that the writer doesn’t give the same reason for opposing its use as 2267.

It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether.

Back to what the church does teach.

So much seems to be sure, that the number of those has not died out who will be deterred from committing great crimes by nothing short of death.

This is opinion again and it is interesting to note that the opinion expressed here directly conflicts with the preferred opinion nowadays that capital punishment is not a deterrent.

So “in former centuries this was almost considered a divine law” and its perfectly understandable that our ancestors not equipped with a sophisticated penal justice machine, might take capital punishment for granted as divinely commanded since it needed to be defended as an only option for the common good.

Do you really think divine commands are only culturally relevant rather than true for all times and places?

Today, with our advances in civil capability and natural theological enlightenment that time affords, we can more clearly distinguish capital punishments meaning for the common good.

Right. Clearly modern societies with abortion on demand, no fault divorces, and the normalization of homosexual behavior are demonstrating significant theological advances over earlier, unenlightened eras.

Ender

 

[Kelt]

Maybe someone SHOULD be arguing with this pope. Maybe a lot of people should be arguing with this pope.

Some criminals deserve to be shot. They have no hope for SOCIAL redemption. We even put rabid dogs down. Read Justice Sotomeyer’s book. Even says there are some people who are beyond social redemption.

Here’s a link to the bookstore if you can’t find the book in the library.

barnesandnoble.com/listing/2670775844697?r=1&kpid=2670775844697&cm_mmc=Google%20Product%20Search--Q000000633--2670775844697PLA--Book_25To44--Q000000633-_-2670775844697

Ooh, I’ve just joined this thread…I got this far and I think that, with ‘Christian’ values like these on display, I’d better not venture further… .??

 

[Ender]

Again twilight zone stuff. The majority of the world has abolished the death penalty without a single word from the Church.

Do you recall that you wrote “instance of abolition over 2000 years”? In fact most of the abolition has occurred over the last half century. As I wrote earlier, there are almost no instances of its being abolished by earlier societies.

It’s been abolished because it is unnecessary and unworthy of justice and the common good.

Then again, maybe not.*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. *(Cardinal Dulles)

That is doctrinal.

It isn’t clear what “that” is, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t doctrinal whatever you mean by it.

If the State was aware of its negative effect on society but continued to retain such a lethal measure as being ‘our right’… that is a gross misrepresentation of the doctrine.

If you’re suggesting it is wrong to do something one believes is wrong, this is true, but since it pertains to literally everything it isn’t clear what relevance it has to a specific example.

The State is answerable to the common good and in that capacity, represents obedience to God. It can never dismiss the common good as the highest human law.

You go on about the common good as if the best way to achieve it was common knowledge. That it isn’t obvious should be clear by the proliferation of political parties and intense political battles that take place between those who disagree about whether X or not X is the best way to go. These do not represent moral choices and the church has no doctrines on them.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

he Church has always defended the right of the State to use capital punishment…

And the Church has continued today to defend the use of capital punishment if the common good warrants the act. The only difference in wording is accounted for by historical context. It’s like reading a food manual from the middle ages which might say that ‘fire is necessary in the preparation of raw meat for consumption’. Then reading the same manual today which might read ‘fire is permitted in the preparation of raw meat if the electricity or microwave is not available’. So the doctrine which seems to command the use of fire in one era, shows itself to be a permission if more efficient and safe solutions aren’t feasible in the moment. The core of the doctrine remains the safe preparation of meat just like the core of the doctrine in this issue remains the service to the common good.

When I was doing theology, historical context was one of the main considerations. Without incorporating that into the reading of Church documents, you are in all sorts of trouble. A baptist lady who was doing one of the subjects at the Catholic University I was going to, actually dropped out of the subject because of her difficulties with this aspect.

 

[Ender]

if using prudence person A thinks performing capital punishment in a given moment wouldn’t contribute to the common good, then it would be contrary to human dignity for person A to support its use in that instance.

You believe capital punishment is harmful to the common good. I believe it is helpful. By your definition above I have not done anything contrary to human dignity. It would only be violation of that dignity if you supported it, but clearly the same action cannot be opposed to man’s dignity if you do it and not opposed to his dignity if I do it. The intent behind the action does not change its nature. Your definition cannot be accurate.

So that IMO explains the use of “human dignity” in 2267.

I think there is still a pretty big hole in your explanation as I said above.

Only if you try to read it that way.

I have challenged everyone on CAF to provide any documentation in support of the assertion in 2267 that the traditional teaching of the church allowing capital punishment contains the caveat “*when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” *To date no one has cited even one example where this restriction is specified. The church has always recognized that protection is achieved by capital punishment, but she has never predicated its use on the need for protection. As I said, this is a question of fact, and the facts do not support the claim made in 2267.

Ender
*
*

 

[LongingSoul]

I have challenged everyone on CAF to provide any documentation in support of the assertion in 2267 that the traditional teaching of the church allowing capital punishment contains the caveat “*when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” *To date no one has cited even one example where this restriction is specified. The church has always recognized that protection is achieved by capital punishment, but she has never predicated its use on the need for protection. As I said, this is a question of fact, and the facts do not support the claim made in 2267.

Ender
*
*

We’ve provided those documents many times. Unfortunately you don’t accept them because they don’t fit your agenda.

Aquinas on capital punishment…"Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

He also said… Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

He also said… “As stated above (Article 2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”

He also said… “It is lawful for any private individual to do anything for the common good, provided it harm nobody: but if it be harmful to some other, it cannot be done, except by virtue of the judgment of the person to whom it pertains to decide what is to be taken from the parts for the welfare of the whole.”

I won’t bother going on because I know you will find a way to dismiss the common good as the reason and motivation of human law for justice.

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP

I have added numbers Dudley

1. I can only chuckle at your (Ender’s) indignant accusations of ‘uncharitability’ and complete obliviousness to your own condescending attitude of dismissal toward others.
2. In Catholic teaching the rule is ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Capital punishment represents the ‘exception’ to the rule and only if the common good behoves such a defensive measure in penal justice. The whole topic is dealt with in the context of the chapter “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”… under Article 5 “The Fifth Commandment” (Thou shalt not kill)… subheading 1. “Respect for Life”

SNIP

1. So “in former centuries this was almost considered a divine law” and its perfectly understandable that our ancestors not equipped with a sophisticated penal justice machine, might take capital punishment for granted as divinely commanded since it needed to be defended as an only option for the common good. Today, with our advances in civil capability and natural theological enlightenment that time affords, we can more clearly distinguish capital punishments meaning for the common good. SNIP

In response, by number

 

[LongingSoul]

1. As an observed rule, Ender is not condescending, but charitable and instructive. His tone gets a bit stronger when he is rebutting comments that he knows were intentionally deceptive. Understandable. I doubt you have an example to the contrary, which might put you in that later category.

Intentionally deceptive? Interesting coming from someone who does not reveal his anti Catholic stance regarding the legitimacy of papal authority, the legitimacy of the teaching value of the Catechism and calls into doubt the Popes reference to ‘redeeming himself’ (CCC2267) as heretical… and who constantly links to ‘authoritative’ sources that turn out to be authored by… himself.

1. Both traditionally and theologically, the Church has always read the commandment as thou shalt not commit an unjust or unlawful killing.

And she makes that qualification totally in the context of legitimate defense of persons and society. No positive command that just killing pleases God or satisfies the divine order is created by that fact. All killing is always wrong unless it is referred to the common good as a defensive act by a legitimate authority. All people deserve punishment for their sins but nobody deserves death if the common good can be served by non lethal punishments.

Every indication I have ever seen says that killing in self defense or in defense of others or in a just war, when dealing with unjust aggressors, is a moral killing, as with execution of an unjust aggressor who has committed a capital crime - the exception being the most recent Catechism, with regard to the death penalty.

See my above post of Aquinas quotes and to add to it…

" it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity."

There is no justification to kill any perpetrator outside of what protects the common good. The natural human order warrants death only if there’s no way of protecting the public if he lives. His divine deserts are completely within Gods hands. We cannot refer any human killing to the divine order. We are forbidden to do that by traditional Church teaching. As Card. Dulles said… “Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27).** Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice**.”

1. There is no theological enlightenment over and above eternal teachings, as we all know. Because of both technology and extensive errors in criminal justice systems, it may be more required, today, to have capital punishment, if defense of society and defense of innocent individuals is your true. concern, as reviewed:

It’s arrogant not to acknowledge the limits of human knowledge and the truth of theological development. I gave an analogy above of the necessity of fire in preparing meat for human consumption, as seen through the environment of the past and the environment we now live in. Human progress naturally peels away the layers of comprehension to reveal the truths we hold dear in a clearer light.

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

Now let me just check your authoritative source of Catholic teaching here… hmmm Dudley Sharp. What a coincidence Dudley! This expert has the same name as you!

 

[Kelt]

Then again, maybe not.

*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. *(Cardinal Dulles)
​

Well, can you see the irony in that???
People who are not any longer obsessed with the idea that they will be rewarded or punished by their maker, for what they do in life…being more ‘Christian’ in their outlook and behaviour towards even the troublemakers in their society, than some of the practicing Christians!
Christians baying for the death of an individual have strayed far from the Jesus of 2000 years ago.
No chance of repentance, no compassion just judgment.
I wonder what these people would do if they got to the pearly gates and saw all the bad people in history sitting on the other side…‘Oh, they’ve been forgiven’ says St Peter when asked why they’re there…Would those people be really hacked off and tell God off??
It sounds like it!​

 

[CrossofChrist]

You believe capital punishment is harmful to the common good. I believe it is helpful. By your definition above I have not done anything contrary to human dignity. It would only be violation of that dignity if you supported it, but clearly the same action cannot be opposed to man’s dignity if you do it and not opposed to his dignity if I do it. The intent behind the action does not change its nature. Your definition cannot be accurate.

Let me ask you this: if the U.S declared war on Canada, would that be a just war?

I have challenged everyone on CAF to provide any documentation in support of the assertion in 2267 that the traditional teaching of the church allowing capital punishment contains the caveat “*when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” *To date no one has cited even one example where this restriction is specified. The church has always recognized that protection is achieved by capital punishment, but she has never predicated its use on the need for protection. As I said, this is a question of fact, and the facts do not support the claim made in 2267.

There have been a number of supporting statements that speak of defending the common good or the defense of society. Which is another way of saying defending human lives. You just have chosen to ignore that and have stuck with interpreting that as physical protection, and so are bound to find problems with that part of 2267.

Pope St. John XXIII: The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another…"

Just because classically capital punishment was described in a way where it was divided into 4 objectives, one of them being human defense (i.e physical protection), doesn’t mean that’s what the Catechism means. Maybe the relatively recent example of religious freedom can serve as an example. Religious liberty was condemned for about a century before Vatican II. After VII it was enthusiastically accepted. What happened? Well, what was meant by “religious liberty” was different, even though the phrasing was identical.

It seems something similar happened with capital punishment, as we see with St. JPII placing it under “legitimate defense” in the Catechism.

 

[dudleysharp]

Your not being Catholic or believing in Papal authority, I can understand why you don’t value the teachings of the Church or their inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

.

You appear to just be making things up, I am sorry to say.

Pope Francis is giving his personal opinion. He was factually wrong and he had no biblical, theological or traditional support for his claim.

He made a secular policy claim:

Pope Francis condemned “a ’ penal populism’ that promises to solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”

My response was:

Do any leaders say that “we must solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”?

“instead of”

This is not the teaching of the Church, as you well know.

I can see no reason why the Pope would have said this.

I still cannot. Can you?

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP

So it is with Catholic teaching. It is not deemed either true or false depending on our personal concept of true or false. We don’t automatically reject something handed onto us for our edification based on whether it conforms to our studious intellects and limited concepts of Truth.

That aspect only presents a dilemma to those outside the Church (and some inside the Church), who can’t fully accept Papal authority.

‘Reality’ to an atheist or pagan is limited to how a thing affects the self or the immediate tribe, but ‘reality’ to Christians is conceived through the lens of mankind as a family. In a family justice and mercy are very personal in that they relate to not just how individuals are affected in the commission of a crime… but how the family is damaged by that act. When parents punish a child, they are not primarily ‘teaching it a lesson’, they are caring about that child’s welfare and its relationships with others. They want to know more about why a sin or crime happened and how they can redress the disorder by not just punishment, but resolving any family cultural attitudes and behaviours that have contributed to the child’s deviation.

You could in that sense say that in families, the social justice aspect takes higher priority than the effects of punishment on the person. As a society we have moved on from the idea of indiscriminate, detached punishments that don’t take into account the toxic influences of the culture in causing sin and crime. That is more reflective of family dynamics than a dynamic based on divisions.

So odd. This did not address any of the points, as you know.

 

[dudleysharp]

Intentionally deceptive? Interesting coming from someone who does not reveal his anti Catholic stance regarding the legitimacy of papal authority, the legitimacy of the teaching value of the Catechism and calls into doubt the Popes reference to ‘redeeming himself’ (CCC2267) as heretical… and who constantly links to ‘authoritative’ sources that turn out to be authored by… himself. !

LS, this is just too much.

I have never had an "anti Catholic stance regarding any of those… You just made it up, sadly.

The CCC states that man redeems “himself”. My reply was that redemption comes by the grace of God, not through the sinner himself.

Was I in error?

My Catholic sources as authoritatively Catholic.

I refer to my own research on criminal justice matters as authoritative, which, so far, has not been challenged, here and, certainly, not be you.

If you wish to do so, please . . . I will be more than happy to respond.

 

[graciew]

You appear to just be making things up, I am sorry to say.

Pope Francis is giving his personal opinion. He was factually wrong and he had no biblical, theological or traditional support for his claim.

He made a secular policy claim:

Pope Francis condemned “a ’ penal populism’ that promises to solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”

My response was:

Do any leaders say that “we must solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”?

“instead of”

This is not the teaching of the Church, as you well know.

I can see no reason why the Pope would have said this.

I still cannot. Can you?

I do not seem to understand what you are saying.
What is it you want exactly? What is it you need to understand that you have not already published and posted in all the links you shared explaining why you are right and the Pope is wrong?

 

[Dianna_Jean]

I like to think that if one wants to changed for the better, it can be done but some people seems to be beyond saving. I do not agree with the death penalty.

 

[Kelt]

You appear to just be making things up, I am sorry to say.

Pope Francis is giving his personal opinion. He was factually wrong and he had no biblical, theological or traditional support for his claim.

He made a secular policy claim:

Pope Francis condemned “a ’ penal populism’ that promises to solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”

My response was:

Do any leaders say that “we must solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”?

“instead of”

This is not the teaching of the Church, as you well know.

I can see no reason why the Pope would have said this.

I still cannot. Can you?

Think a bit harder…

 

[dudleysharp]

Longing Soul has, clearly, misinterpreted my writings on this topic.

Published, years ago.

CCC 2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him (the unjust aggressor) the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267).

The Catechism states that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace.

Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves. Again, a poorly written CCC section.

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.

All of our sins have us die “early”. Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

The biblical record, its interpretations, the Magesterium and virtually all knowledgeable Christian scholars and laymen, Catholic or not, find that the universal blessing that God gives us is that we all have the opportunity of being redeemed “before we die”.

The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

Do all of those early and earthly deaths remove the possibilities of our redemption? Of course not.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come (8), the perfect example of expiation and restoration, via the criminal’s accepted sanction of death.

Thus, the Catechism, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what that death may be - a teaching the Church has always accepted, until now.

Some opposing capital punishment “. . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory.”(10)

"In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (10)

1. “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007
   www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

 

[Kelt]

The death penalty does not/cannot take that away anymore than does a car wreck, cancer, old age or any other “earthly” and “early” death, meaning all deaths, because of our sins. We all die “early” because of our sins.

Life and death is a cycle…can’t have one without the other. What do you mean…‘we all die ‘early’ because of our sins’…?

 

[Ender]

We’ve provided those documents many times. Unfortunately you don’t accept them because they don’t fit your agenda.

I don’t accept them because they don’t prove the point they attempt to make.

Aquinas on capital punishment…Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good

This is a good example of what I meant above. 2267 says capital punishment is allowed only to protect society. Aquinas says it is allowed to safeguard the common good. These are overlapping concepts but they are far from identical. The protection of society is only one aspect among many that contribute to the common good. No one could argue that justice was not another aspect of that good. What applies to dogs applies to animals, but not all that applies to animals applies to dogs. The same is true of the relationship between protection and the common good. The former is a subset of the latter; it is in no way identical to it.

He also said… "As stated above (Article 2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community…

This is a repetition of what was said above and the same objection applies.

I won’t bother going on because I know you will find a way to dismiss the common good as the reason and motivation of human law for justice.

I have neither the inclination nor the need to dismiss the common good since that is not the issue. The determination of what contributes to that good involves prudential judgments about which people may legitimately disagree, but even that is irrelevant to this discussion since no one has suggested the right to do something harmful to society.

The question is whether the use of capital punishment is dependent solely on whether it is needed for protection, and whether that is part of the Traditional teaching of the church. No general debate about the common good is relevant to those questions. Your response did not address those questions and that is why I discount it.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Think a bit harder…

I already have, on this topic, for some years.

Your comment gave zero evidence for your thinking. Happy to hear your thoughts on that exact topic.

Thank you.