Pope Francis: Death penalty is contrary to the Gospel

[simpleas]

I don’t think of slavery as a criminal given work to do during their imprisonment as long as it’s fair, because we might say we are all slaves in one way or another. But slavery as one human being owning another can never be right, even if that person who is owned is treated very well, they are not considered as equal if they are owned by another.

 

[OneSheep]

In post #55 I cited section 2266 of the catechism along with its end note. In saying penalties should be medicinal where possible, the end note provides an example of a penalty that contributed to the rehabilitation of the sinner. That example was “the good thief” who was crucified with Christ. That is, it was a case of capital punishment that led to that end.

The end note refers to this part, I think:

41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve.

I am confused by this reference. On the one hand, it is possible that the speaking person in verse 41 actually had a conversion due to his torture and process of being put to death. However, such conclusion would allow crucifixion as a means to such conversion, which is truly against the heart of the Gospel. Truly the Church is not advocating a tortuous death as “medicinal”.

In addition, it is obvious that the torture and hanging was not the “medicine” appropriate to the other criminal. Also, saying that “we are getting what our deeds deserve” is coming from eye-for-an-eye mentality, which goes against the sermon on the mount.

The argument here is that since the church changed her doctrine on slavery, every doctrine is reversible (unless it has been explicitly declared infallible?). Doctrines on marriage, confession, heaven, hell…literally every doctrine of the ordinary Magisterium is open to change - at the inclination of whoever currently sits in the Chair of Peter. Is that really the road you want to take?

If that is the road the Spirit takes us, I am indeed on it. Please, Ender, this is not a single person’s inclination. This is backed by all modern popes and bishops, moral theologians, many Catholics learned in tradition and Spirituality. This is the Spirit at work.

Look, the DP was already out with CCC2267 in spite of what it says about when permitted. Based on what it says, the killing of the murderer has nothing to do with penalty or punishment, it has to do with immediately stopping a crime or dealing with apprehension of a criminal. A subdued criminal already does not qualify for the DP as lined out by CCC 2267.

I think we have beat this one to death, friend. I pray that you can find the value of forgiveness of all people.

 

[OneSheep]

I didn’t ask you to judge someone else’s desire for revenge. I asked whether vengeance itself is immoral.

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96

A desire for revenge that involves doing evil to someone appears to be immoral, Ender, according to the CCC. The DP does not correct a vice, it does not redress the disorder. In addition, as it says, if we have the desire that someone be killed, it is a mortal sin.

Yes, all of us with healthy consciences have certainly had the desire to have a murderer killed. Our thinking that this was okay and consistent with the Gospel is a matter of denial, and every individual, even the whole of humanity, is capable of denial because the capacity for denial itself serves the human, it is part of our nature. Does this mean that all those who previously rationalized wanting death of a murderer are condemned by God is some way? No, such thinking begins with a God who condemns, rather than understands and forgives, the sinner.

None of us is perfect in mercy and morals. When we sin, we do not know what we are doing, and denial plays a role in such unknowing. We do not even know when we are in denial.

 

[Ender]

On the one hand, it is possible that the speaking person in verse 41 actually had a conversion due to his torture and process of being put to death.

In the context of the comment in 2266 which says that punishment: “should contribute to the correction of the offender.” to which the reference was directly attached, this appears to be the most reasonable interpretation.

However, such conclusion would allow crucifixion as a means to such conversion, which is truly against the heart of the Gospel. Truly the Church is not advocating a tortuous death as “medicinal”.

Clearly she is not advocating torture, but that that form of death is objectionable cannot obscure the fact that death as a form of punishment is not.

Also, saying that “we are getting what our deeds deserve” is coming from eye-for-an-eye mentality, which goes against the sermon on the mount.

No, it really doesn’t. Here is a somewhat lengthy comment of St. Bellarmine that makes the point I raised earlier about the rights and obligations of the individual versus those of the State.

when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance; just as from the fact that the law said, “Thou shalt love thy friend,” they infer that it is lawful to hate enemies; but Christ teaches that these are misinterpretations of the law, and that we should love even our enemies and not resist evil, but rather that we should be prepared, if necessary, to turn the other cheek to him who strikes one cheek. And that Our Lord was speaking to private citizens is clear from what follows. For Our Lord speaks thus: “But I say to you not to resist evil, but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, etc.”

If that is the road the Spirit takes us, I am indeed on it. Please, Ender, this is not a single person’s inclination. This is backed by all modern popes and bishops, moral theologians, many Catholics learned in tradition and Spirituality.

You misstate the extent of the change: “the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles” (Ratzinger). Neither JPII, nor BXVI, nor the Magisterium ever went so far as to condemn capital punishment per se. Their opposition was practical, not moral.

 

[Ender]

“To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.”

I’ll take this as your answer to the question of whether vengeance itself is immoral - No.

The full citation of end note 94 is this: "It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice."

You have made any number of comments about a “desire for revenge” with the implication that those of us in general who support capital punishment - and me specifically - simply want to see evil people hurt, never once entertaining the possibility that our support for it arises from that very part that Aquinas identifies as praiseworthy: “for the good of justice.”

 

[pnewton]

I can see where as desire for harsh justice could cause one to support the death penalty. However, the desire for vengence would more likely lead to a type of fanatical, one-track promotion of this type of death which, to remind everyone, the Holy Father has said is contrary to the Gospel.

 

[OneSheep]

Clearly she is not advocating torture, but that that form of death is objectionable cannot obscure the fact that death as a form of punishment is not.

Problem is, such advocacy in this case is a clear contradiction to 2267, so the reference still does not make sense.

Here is the problem too: If the process of torture truly did redress the good thief’s disorder, then why proceed killing him?

Doesn’t make sense. It only makes sense in terms of vengeance, which goes against what Jesus calls us to do.

No, it really doesn’t. Here is a somewhat lengthy comment of St. Bellarmine that makes the point I raised earlier about the rights and obligations of the individual versus those of the State.

I disagree with St. Bellarmine on this. The “State” is made of people, of leaders of people. They are not immune to law, or the precepts of the Gospel concerning forgiveness. .

You misstate the extent of the change: “the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles” (Ratzinger). Neither JPII, nor BXVI, nor the Magisterium ever went so far as to condemn capital punishment per se. Their opposition was practical, not moral.

We’ll see what is manifested by the Spirit.

…never once entertaining the possibility that our support for it arises from that very part that Aquinas identifies as praiseworthy: “for the good of justice.”

This brings us back to the purpose and nature of justice itself. If justice is not merciful, then it is not of God.

I can see where as desire for harsh justice could cause one to support the death penalty. However, the desire for vengence would more likely lead to a typ:wink: of fanatical, one-track promotion of this type of death which, to remind everyone, the Holy Father has said is contrary to the Gospel.

Ender, I think pnewton says it very clearly.

Those who continue to advocate for the DP are on the side of those advocating for vengeance, which is contrary to forgiveness, and clearly a contrast to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. I think we’ve pretty much beat this topic to death, (pun intended).

 

[Vadne]

I think the blogger Father Hunwicke put it best on this issue in his post on the death penalty and other issues. (PF = Pope Francis):

"In the last few days, PF is reported to have contradicted the Church’s teaching with regard to Capital Punishment, and to have done so not obiter or in an airliner but formally, reading a written text to one of those “Pontifical Councils” which absorb so much of the financial contributions made by the Christifideles. This suggests to me that PF has himself consciously stopped even bothering to remain within the parameters set by the Magisterium to which he is as much under an obligation to submit as anybody else. The current careful formulation of the Church’s teaching with regard to the Death Penalty, which PF said he wants changed, is precisely twenty years old. A “Magisterium” which contradicts itself every twenty years is not a Teaching Authority to which many people are likely seriously to consider themselves obliged to give assent. (I say this as a strong opponent of the use of Capital Punishment in modern states.)

I can see no grounds plausibly to speculate that PF’s divagations from orthodoxy will in future tolerate any restraints. It is as if, having discovered himself at the bottom of a hole, he has decided that the only thing to do is to keep digging with redoubled energy. Or, like the Duke of Wellington in the Fifth Act of the Battle of Waterloo, perhaps he is saying to the world “In for a penny, in for a pound”! Or does he mean that he might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb? Will his parting gift to the Church Militant be a ringing endorsement of the homoiousios?

By joining with Newman in this analysis, I do not, of course, in any way suggest that PF and the silent or heterodox bishops have lost the right or capacity to use the Magisterium of his and their office. Precisely as Newman did, I am simply observing that, as a matter of fact, he is not and they are not using it. I am certainly not suggesting (and I do not believe) that this Suspense makes any difference whatsoever to the status or powers of the current occupant of the Roman See or of other bishops. Those who argue that PF has forfeited his See, or that his Election was for any reason void or voidable, are, in my judgement, talking piffle. (Quae sit huius verbi etymologia quaero. Num verbi ‘pontificalis’ depravatio est?)"

 

[Ender]

Problem is, such advocacy in this case is a clear contradiction to 2267, so the reference still does not make sense.

I pointed out before that your position created such contradictions, which you can only resolve by ignoring the contrary teachings, even though they too are in the catechism.

It only makes sense in terms of vengeance, which goes against what Jesus calls us to do.

Here’s another contradiction: “Vengeance is mine”, says the Lord, “I will repay.” Your position has God saying one thing and Jesus saying the opposite.

I disagree with St. Bellarmine on this. The “State” is made of people, of leaders of people. They are not immune to law, or the precepts of the Gospel concerning forgiveness.

And again, your position requires you to simply dismiss the teachings of the Doctors of the Church. Bellarmine was not alone in distinguishing the rights and obligations of the individual from those of the magistrate. Once you discard Bellarmine, Aquinas, and Augustine the field is getting fairly thin.

Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill… It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God… And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

We’ll see what is manifested by the Spirit.

Surely you cannot believe that everything a pope says is prompted by the Holy Spirit.

This brings us back to the purpose and nature of justice itself. If justice is not merciful, then it is not of God.

You keep making this stuff up. This is simply your personal opinion. Nothing the church has ever said anywhere directly supports this.

Those who continue to advocate for the DP are on the side of those advocating for vengeance, which is contrary to forgiveness, and clearly a contrast to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount.

If the DP is contrary to forgiveness then so is all punishment. Unless you are advocating for the complete elimination of punishment then this argument collapses under its own “logic.”

 

[pnewton]

And again, your position requires you to simply dismiss the teachings of the Doctors of the Church.

One can dismiss the conclusions of all doctors of the Church, and anyone, whose doctrines, thoughts and ideas are limited by the data they had at the time, for example, when life begins (conception, not ensoulement). They should not be dismissed, as they were brilliant and inspired, but they were still limited. This is why the Catholic Church has a living and evolving Magisterium. We do not worship a dead book, nor a dead history and tradition. The growth in the understanding of the death penalty has been organic and evolving for decades, as we have grown in technology, information, and the understanding of humanity.

 

[Ender]

One can dismiss the conclusions of all doctors of the Church, and anyone, whose doctrines, thoughts and ideas are limited by the data they had at the time…

It is proper to reject a conclusion a Doctor of the Church has reached if there is reason to do so. That is, if his conclusion can be shown to be wrong, but that isn’t the case here. What they taught about the rights and duties of magistrates versus the individual is what the church still teaches, just not as clearly and directly. Their teachings are being dismissed simply because they inconveniently contradict the opinions expressed here.

This is why the Catholic Church has a living and evolving Magisterium. We do not worship a dead book, nor a dead history and tradition.

Not exactly.
"…sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others." (Dei Verbum, #10)

Once again the approach is to disregard whatever doesn’t fit the narrative.

The growth in the understanding of the death penalty has been organic and evolving for decades, as we have grown in technology, information, and the understanding of humanity.

Since when was morality bound to technology and information, and if we believe the Holy Spirit guides the church how can we also believe it is our understanding of humanity that matters? Are we to assume the Spirit is deficient in that regard?

 

[irenaeus1]

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

Not true at all. All mankind is deserving of punishment, and this is not a matter of the flesh. God’s justice demanded atonement for sin for crying out loud. Expiation and propitiation provided by the sacrificial death of Jesus have everything to do with making amends as well as appeasing the wrath of God on our behalf. Also, Christ died on the cross to atone for the eternal penalty exacted for mankind’s sins, but the sacrifice of Christ did not necessarily remove the temporal punishment due for them.

 

[pnewton]

It is proper to reject a conclusion a Doctor of the Church has reached if there is reason to do so.

I have a reason. The Holy Father has spoken on how those conclusions do not apply today, as have the last two Popes. Three popes teaching in unity are a pretty compelling reason for Catholics.

Of course I will heed what the Pope says. I can’t stand it. I like the idea of quick and hard justice, the needle, a hanging or a firing squad. There are some really evil people out there that I want to see dead. That is exactly why I trust the Pope. I know I am so biased on this issue that I lack the objectivity or wisdom to know what is right. I could, like you, make sound and solid arguments for the death penalty. However, I would never know how much of my argument was bias to confirm that which I wanted. So on this one, I will back off and listen to Pope Francis.

An Pope Benedict.

And St. John Paul the Great.

 

[irenaeus1]

What I don’t understand is how a doctrinal teaching can hang on the prudential judgment of a pope. The pope could very well be in error, especially since he’s talking about changing the universal catechism which applies to third world countries as well. How does one know when a State’s criminal justice system has sufficiently improved so as to not regard capital punishment has a legitimate means?

This is exactly why those who support same-sex marriage, abortion, women priests, and a number of other heterodox positions all like Pope Francis so much and loudly sing his praises. Why? Because with this kind of exegesis, it’s just a matter time before they all get their way saying that their positions are just a natural outgrowth and development of doctrine of the Catholic Church. They are just waiting for the Catholic Church to get with the times and catch up with them.

 

[pnewton]

What I don’t understand is how a doctrinal teaching can hang on the prudential judgment of a pope.

I do not know if it will go that far. He is not really making doctrinal contradictions to other doctrines. Everything he said is at least in line with possible doctrine. After all, the idea of withdrawing mercy is really contrary to the Gospel, so there is at least one sense in which the death penalty is contrary to the Gospel. It is not as if he says it is a grave sin. Until he puts something out a paper, I am going to be slow in thinking he is changing doctrine.

Now his judgement that we do not need it and it should be abolished is not teaching, but it is in line with how the Church has been instructing the faithful for over thirty years now.

Why? Because with this kind of exegesis, it’s just a matter time before they all get their way saying that their positions are just a natural outgrowth and development of doctrine of the Catholic Church. They are just waiting for the Catholic Church to get with the times and catch up with them.

One thing about those people, those who think like that clearly are not Jesuits. There is no evidence or precedent for thinking Pope Francis, or any Pope, will reverse the Church’s teaching on those topics. The evidence is to the contrary.

 

[irenaeus1]

Now his judgement that we do not need it and it should be abolished is not teaching,

How can you say it is not teaching when he clearly wants to revise the catechism to reflect his line of thought, thereby codifying it as teaching?

 

[irenaeus1]

One thing about those people, those who think like that clearly are not Jesuits. There is no evidence or precedent for thinking Pope Francis, or any Pope, will reverse the Church’s teaching on those topics. The evidence is to the contrary.

Ah, but there’s the rub. It simply needs to be framed as a development in teaching, not a reversal. By the way, there was no evidence prior to 30 years ago or so that the Church’s teaching on the death penalty would be reversed… er… I mean… developed. There are a number of bishops advocating same-sex marriage and that the Church’s doctrine needs to change to be in line with the acceptance of such.

 

[Ender]

I have a reason. The Holy Father has spoken on how those conclusions do not apply today, as have the last two Popes. Three popes teaching in unity are a pretty compelling reason for Catholics.

I posted this before but apparently it didn’t make an impression:
“You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. (Cardinal Ratzinger, 1995)

If the doctrines have not been changed then what “conclusions” are false today that were true yesterday? If, as Ratzinger asserted, the application of the principles is being done based on the “context of present-day” circumstances, how is this not a prudential application of the principles? What has changed?

Of course I will heed what the Pope says.

So will I. Um, what popes are we talking about again? Innocent I? Innocent III? Pius X? Pius XII?,
And Pope Benedict. And St. John Paul the Great.

 

[pnewton]

Um, what popes are we talking about again?

I listed the last three popes. You can look above or Google a list of popes if you have forgotten.

I posted this before but apparently it didn’t make an impression:

Not in the least, at least nothing new, like the last dozens of times you have made the same arguments over the years. All I have learned is that you are a real sincere advocate for the death penalty.

 

[Vadne]

Francis has contradicted a teaching barely 20 years old. Nobody can take a Magisterium seriously that can’t be consistent over 2 decades.