Pope Francis: Death penalty is contrary to the Gospel

[mythbuster1]

Genesis and mathematics. Genesis establishes the death penalty for murder because the victim was created in the Image and Likeness of God and his blood cries out to Heaven for vengeance. The rest is required by the laws of logic.

 

[Joe_5859]

Do you realize that’s not what governs the Church’s dispensing of indulgences? There is actually a book promulgated. It’s the Manual of Indulgences. It outlines all the ways someone can earn an indulgence. I would encourage you not to mislead people by making claims that the Church grants something that does not appear in any official books but is merely something you personally believe can be reasoned to based on your private interpretation of Scripture.

 

[mythbuster1]

Sorry, wrong post. I can’t find the source for plenary indulgence for repentant criminals sentenced to death.

 

[exnihilo]

Exactly. And God’s justice is mercy!

God is justice. God is mercy. We mean this analogically. The whole purpose of analogical statements is to approach God while realizing He is far above our ability to fully comprehend. But it seems to me we can muddy the water if we start to press these too far. We could also say God’s justice is beauty or truth. But the whole point of saying God is justice is to understand God as being like justice in the human sense. Also, justice and mercy aren’t at odds. Mercy flows from justice.

And the price of murder is death, in your opinion?

But you see, though, that the price does not have to do with a debt, it has to do with punishment, does it not? Unless you are saying that the debt itself is a punishment.

The price of murder as well as other crimes could be death. There are different ways of looking at justice. Some view the punishment as fulfilling a debt in some sense.

 

[Ender]

The issue is not whether or not doctrine can develop, but that A can never become not-A. To say that we ought not to put murderers to death out of mercy is coherent. To say that it is contrary to human dignity to put a murderer to death is not coherent, for the entire basis for the death penalty for murder is the dignity of the victim, whose blood cries out to Heaven for vengeance. And if it is contrary to natural law today to put murderers to death, then it was always contrary to natural law, for natural law cannot change. The conclusion is an absurdity, nay, a blasphemy- to say that God commanded something that was intrinsically evil.

And there it is: is it possible for the church to reverse her doctrine on capital punishment? According to Fr. Hardon:

Behind this declaration of the Vicar of Christ [Pius XII] is a principle of our Catholic faith. Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium

He includes the teaching on capital punishment as infallibly taught. Is he right? I suspect so. This could all go sideways in a hurry.

 

[Ender]

But you see, though, that the price does not have to do with a debt, it has to do with punishment, does it not? Unless you are saying that the debt itself is a punishment.

Sin deserves punishment. That is the debt it incurs, and it is paid only when the due punishment has been inflicted.

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas ST I-II 87 - The Debt of Punishment)

For guilt cannot be restored to order save by punishment (Ibid III 71)

 

[pnewton]

Just to clarify all the “A, not-A” stuff. The pope is not claiming the death penalty is intrinsically evil.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, exnihilo

God is justice.

Reference?
What is the purpose of justice?

But the whole point of saying God is justice is to understand God as being like justice in the human sense.

If God is like justice in the human sense, then that is an anthropomorphism, right?

Also, justice and mercy aren’t at odds. Mercy flows from justice.

This might make sense if you could define the purpose of justice. Justice has a human purpose. God is love, and mercy is a manifestation of His love. All we can say about God flows from His love.

Some view the punishment as fulfilling a debt in some sense.

Here is the Catholic view of punishment:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

Punishment is for the guilty party, not for the benefit of the recipient of a “price”. If we talk about punishment for the benefit of the victim, we are talking about the human desire for vengeance, which is a matter of the flesh.

Jesus invites us to forgive rather than want a piece of people who have wronged us.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Ender,

Sin deserves punishment. That is the debt it incurs, and it is paid only when the due punishment has been inflicted.

The problem with this approach is that God asks us to forgive those who trespass against us. When we forgive, the debt is erased, even though we may pursue punishment as a means of redressing the disorder of the guilty party.

The whole idea of someone “deserving punishment” is a matter of the flesh, it is a human compulsion, also a chimpanzee compulsion. The compulsion is an evolved psychological mechanism, which is basically the conscience. The conscience is God-given, part of our beautiful created nature, but like many parts of our nature, it can enslave us.

When we say that God has not forgiven someone, (that a debt has not been paid to Him) we are projecting our human nature upon God.

Remember, we are called to “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. That is a perfection in mercy, Ender.

God forgives, period. God forgave “before always”. He does not hold a grudge. There are no debts.

But please remember what I said before, one cannot hurry forgiveness even when one recognizes that it is good to forgive.

 

[Cimachol]

I am a bit shocked here … if the pope can have Church teaching abridged to “keep up with the times”/comply with current world opinion, even while contradicting scripture and previous popes, what does this say about papal infallibility, or the infallibility of the constant teaching of the Church? Hoping someone can make sense of this for me.

Part of what lead me back to the Church was the case Catholic Answers and other sources made for the Church’s teaching authority based on her consistent teaching. I hope I am not seeing this all unravel under one pope.

 

[Ender]

The problem with this approach is that God asks us to forgive those who trespass against us.

The individual is commanded to forgive; the State is commanded to punish. Do you not recognize this distinction? It is what is meant in 2266 where it says: “…public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties….”

When we forgive, the debt is erased, even though we may pursue punishment as a means of redressing the disorder of the guilty party.

The debt is not paid; there remains the expiation of the sin.

“Therefore a man is punished by God even after his sin is forgiven: and so the debt of punishment remains, when the sin has been removed.” (Aquinas ST I-II 87,6)

The whole idea of someone “deserving punishment” is a matter of the flesh, it is a human compulsion, also a chimpanzee compulsion.

It is a matter of church doctrine. How do you accept that punishment can be justified, yet also hold that no one deserves to be punished? You completely sever punishment from the concept of justice when you assert we should punish people who don’t deserve it.

On the contrary, Nothing but sin deserves punishment (Ibid, 76, 2)

Remember, we are called to “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. That is a perfection in mercy, Ender.

Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?
A. God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. (Baltimore Catechism)

God forgives, period. God forgave “before always”. He does not hold a grudge. There are no debts.

See Aquinas above.

 

[Mark121359]

… if the pope can have Church teaching abridged to “keep up with the times”/comply with current world opinion, even while contradicting scripture and previous popes, what does this say about papal infallibility, or the infallibility of the constant teaching of the Church?

Yep, I hear you…like Amoris Laetitia Chapter 8.

 

[OneSheep]

I am a bit shocked here … if the pope can have Church teaching abridged to “keep up with the times”/comply with current world opinion, even while contradicting scripture and previous popes, what does this say about papal infallibility, or the infallibility of the constant teaching of the Church? Hoping someone can make sense of this for me.

Hello Cimachol,

I am glad you were led back to the Church! With a little investigating, one can find that all modern popes were against the death penalty, as well as the USCCB. The catechism is clear in CCC2267. This is by no means a matter of “keeping up with the times or world opinion”. If that were the case, then the Holy Spirit can be recognized to be active within the populace as a whole, and not solely withing the Church, right? And who is to say where His Spirit is speaking and not speaking? Of course, we rely on our Holy Father and those who our Church recognizes to interpret and discern unfolding revelation. When any previous pope spoke about the death penalty expressing the way of Christ, he was not speaking infallibly. There is a very narrow definition for infallible words from any pope, such words are rare.

Part of what lead me back to the Church was the case Catholic Answers and other sources made for the Church’s teaching authority based on her consistent teaching. I hope I am not seeing this all unravel under one pope.

What is consistent in our Church is that we worship a God who loves unconditionally, and forgiveness follows His love. What is consistent is that the Holy Spirit has guided us through the centuries. Stability is found in relationship with the Father, through prayer. Words are, in the end, only words. Words can be interpreted and molded to comply with anyone’s thinking. It is love that is our foundation, not words.

Do you also know the Father through prayer and through the love that comes from others?

 

[OneSheep]

The individual is commanded to forgive; the State is commanded to punish. Do you not recognize this distinction? It is what is meant in 2266 where it says: “…public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties….”

Hi Ender,

We have been through this before. As you may recall, there is actually no distinction. The purpose of punishment, as defined in the CCC, is to redress the disorder. Punishment exacted is to be done by the Christian for the purpose of converting the sinner, not for retribution. Jesus said this:

Mark 11:25English Standard Version (ESV)

25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you hold anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”[a]

So, if we hold a debt against someone (wanting retribution), we are to forgive. A Christian person in a state position could indeed be involved with the punishment of a person, but he is stilled called to forgive before punishing. Punishment meted by someone who has not forgiven is sure to involve revenge and/or resentment. Such is not the way of Christ.

See Aquinas above.

While the words of Aquinas are to be respected as guidance, they do not in themselves represent Church doctrine.

There are several positions taken by Catholics through the centuries, Ender. For the sake of being totally open with readers, please state your position on the death penalty:

1. I come from a position of forgiving all murderers; therefore, I do not hold anything against them. It is required that the State punish the person to redress the disorder (encourage conversion), and also for protection of society, defense of individuals, and rehabilitation of the sinner, but I hold nothing against the sinner now that I have forgiven. The death penalty does not rehabilitate the sinner or allow for conversion, so it is unmerciful.
2. I come from a position of not forgiving all murderers, therefore, I hold something against them . I want the state to enact a punishment that requires that the debt they owe be paid to society, a debt I am sure of. The debt for murder is death, in keeping with the life they have taken.
3. I come from a position of refusal to disclose whether I have forgiven or not. Justice is not a matter of the heart, and God is first just, as required by the Bible. Mercy has no place when considering justice. Justice takes precedent over all purposes. Love and forgiveness should have nothing to do with, nor influence, punishing people.

For the sake of honesty to the readers, Ender, please choose which position you are coming from. Of course, these three positions make a lot of assumptions, especially the assumption that an honest position is limited to these three. So please feel free to state your position as different from above, if that is the case.

One cannot talk about how to behave and believe as a Christian without considering Christ and his command to love one another. Any position we take has to keep in mind our love for God and one another.

blessings to you…

 

[OneSheep]

the entire basis for the death penalty for murder is the dignity of the victim, whose blood cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

Hi Mythbuster,

There is nothing merciful about crying out for vengeance, right? Christ asks us to forgive, which erases vengeance.

The Church says nothing about any punishment having an effect on the dignity of a victim or guilty; dignity is a given.

to say that God commanded something that was intrinsically evil

I think it was already mentioned that the modern popes and bishops who opposed the DP have not called it an intrinsic evil. The DP is a very natural manifestation of the workings of the human conscience (an eye for an eye, etc.), but Jesus calls us to love beyond the confines of our nature (i.e. loving one’s enemies, etc are essentially supernatural acts.).

Does that help?

 

[Cimachol]

With a little investigating, one can find that all modern popes were against the death penalty, as well as the USCCB.

They have been, but it seems to me that in the cases of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, they opposed the death penalty in the context of society today. They argued held that, consistent with Church tradition, showing mercy where one is reasonably able to do so is more in keeping with the gospel message, particularly when it is a question of life and death.

They also held the opinion that, in modern civilization, we have the means to keep criminals from doing additional harm through our penal system. The effectiveness of the penal system, however, is clearly a matter of opinion, not a matter of faith.

Implicit in the arguments of the past two Holy Fathers was an acknowledgment that the death penalty might very well be justifiable under a different set of circumstances, other than the ones that, in their opinion, currently exist. If I am understanding Pope Francis correctly, he is arguing that the Church has been wrong all along, that he knows better than all the popes and doctors of the Church preceding him, and that the death penalty is wrong always and everywhere.

The catechism is clear in CCC2267.

Yes, it is: "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty …

What is consistent in our Church is that we worship a God who loves unconditionally, and forgiveness follows His love. What is consistent is that the Holy Spirit has guided us through the centuries. Stability is found in relationship with the Father, through prayer. Words are, in the end, only words. Words can be interpreted and molded to comply with anyone’s thinking. It is love that is our foundation, not words.

I’m sorry, but I find these vague consistencies hard to reconcile with what appears to be a glaring inconsistency.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, it is: "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty …

Let’s see it in context:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

The words “will limit itself” are not vague, nor is “only possible way”. However, when you take a close look at what they are defining as the death penalty in 2267, they are not really talking about punishment but self-protection. The way I see it, Pope Francis looks at 2267 and sees that they are really talking about apprehending a murderer, and having to use lethal force.

Love, and the works of the Holy Spirit, are not vague, nor are they inconsistent, when one looks with eyes of faith, right?

 

[CaptFun]

From TODAY’s Gospel:

"A second time he sent other servants, saying,
‘Tell those invited: “Behold, I have prepared my banquet,
my calves and fattened cattle are killed,
and everything is ready; come to the feast.”’

Some ignored the invitation and went away,
one to his farm, another to his business.

The rest laid hold of his servants,
mistreated them, and killed them.

The king was enraged and sent his troops,
**destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. ***

It does seem that “those murderers” were … capitally punished.

It is a parable of Jesus (Matthew 22:1-14) aimed at the religious leaders of Jesus’ time. He began by saying “The Kingdom of Heaven may be compared to …” in his preface to the parable. And historically the Jewish Temple of Christ’s time was soon ended after the leaders rejected and killed Jesus and his messengers. Who knows. Maybe many of those same Jewish leaders were “destroyed”. Their city was burned and conquered in about 70 AD.

Capital punishment of captured and secured prisoners is what the Pope seems to allude to. But I must admit, I’m never quite sure of what this Pope is addressing. With John Paul II and Pope Benedict I had less clarity problems in my deciphering department.

Sometimes Capital Punishment is championed by people who are rather soft on abortion being an example of it. To me it’s ALMOST straining at gnats and swallowing camels to espouse those priorities … as (I live in California) even when capital punishment is the sentence … it is rarely if ever carried out. Whereas abortion is championed by some, excused by many more and continues to have millions (not handfuls) of victims each year.

We don’t maroon our condemned prisoners to the arctic with just a swiss army knife either. Money in the millions is spent clothing and housing these condemned for the rest of their natural lives … while I observe, some who are NOT criminals are allowed to freeze or starve in our streets without similar shelter, food, medical care or such.

Neither can these people immigrate to live under the roof of their local Catholic Church. Even when a Social Justice conscious pastor is in charge.

We individuals should do what we can in that matter. And I DON’T really want to set up the next class warfare controversy. Though casually I observe that there would be more justice in giving help to non-criminal poor folks than convicted criminals.

There is much to be said for loving our enemies … and showing as much mercy as we can. And this is what I think the Pope is pointing toward.

The words in this headline do beg certain questions though. The Gospel not only mentions capital punishment (or its equivalent) but records it as being done. Jesus even underwent it.

In a way WE are all under a death penalty and will die … and be judged … some sadly to face punishments more permanent than ones that end in death.

I won’t campaign FOR the death penalty (executing captured and rendered harmless prisoners) … and I do prefer mercy. Headlines like this one stir the pot unfruitfully IMO. An eye for an eye IS justice. But I do prefer prudent mercy - to strict justice.

 

[CaptFun]

Addition to my last post here:

However, the AGGRIEVED parties are due their justice. And in some ways, while I’d prefer NOT to … I might be able to serve ON a jury and declare guilty when it was proved in a capital case to ensure justice is done. Even when the sentence would be death by execution. As I say …in California, they might never actually DO the capital punishment even when it is the sentence.

Would I be violating the Gospel by serving on a jury and declaring “guilty” if a crime was so proved? I don’t think so. But some might get the idea that Catholics can’t serve on such juries now … or must declare “not guilty” in contradiction to the facts … if the case were a capital one.

 

[pnewton]

Are you kidding me? How about at least a stab at staying on topic, as in the Pope’s statement on the death penalty and not every a general slamming on the Holy Father. It can’t be that hard.