Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[estesbob]

I wholeheartedly concur. From conception to natural death, that’s the true Catholic position.

That is not Catholic position. Church allows for the death penalty, allows for killing in self-defense, and allows for war if it is just.

 

[Birdpreacher]

The Pope is saying that in our present day those situations that would necessitate reliance on the death penalty are practically non-existent. That’s not a contradiction. If modern technology led to a world where every person was equipped with a “self-defense bubble” that would sense danger and automatically deploy in order to protect a person from attack, then the situations where it would be justifiable to kill someone in self-defense would also be practically non-existent.

I hear you, and as a proponent of abolishing the DP I wholeheartedly agree with both Popes and the Catechism, however there is something fishy going on here that even Supreme Ct Justice Scalia (a very conservative Catholic) has issues with.

In advocating the abolishment of the DP, the Pope is declaring that the intrinsic good associated with retribution is not sufficient, in of itself, to warrant the continued implementation of the DP. THis seems to go against Church Tradition which upholds the values of retribution.

 

[stanczyk]

I could agree 100% if we could also end murders. Then there would be no cases where use of the death penalty would serve the interests of justice and protection of innocent lives.

Even though there are murders and other heinous crimes, there is simply no case where the death penalty can serve the interest of justice; the death penalty is violative of natural law and is intrinsically unjust. Any support for the death penalty, even for pragmatic reasons, is at odds with the Church’s reverence of life.

 

[stanczyk]

I wish he’d focus on abortion. It is the most morally bankrupt issue of our time.

Personally, I find it a shame that the death penalty takes a back seat in the minds of so many American Catholics. The moral bankruptcy of both abortion and capital punishment are equivalently anti-life. Simply put, any support for the death penalty is in defiance of the Church, just as is support for abortion.

 

[rlg94086]

Even though there are murders and other heinous crimes, there is simply no case where the death penalty can serve the interest of justice; **the death penalty is violative of natural law and is intrinsically unjust. ** Any support for the death penalty, even for pragmatic reasons, is at odds with the Church’s reverence of life

That is actually contrary to Church teaching.

 

[estesbob]

Personally, I find it a shame that the death penalty takes a back seat in the minds of so many American Catholics. The moral bankruptcy of both abortion and capital punishment are equivalently anti-life. It is rank hypocrisy-- and defiance of the Church-- when a person rails against abortion while supporting the death penalty.

So you find it a shame that so many Catholics agree with the Church that there is no moral equivalence between capital punishment and abortion??? That a Catholic can support the former but never the latter? . I personally find it a shame that so many Catholics do not understand the Church’s teaching on capital punishment and on abortion and worse yet use that misunderstanding to try and rationalize their voting for pro-abortion candidates and even to condemn other Catholics when they correctly enunciate the Church’s teaching.

 

[stanczyk]

That is actually contrary to Church teaching.

When there are alternative means to death in order to defend society, the government must make use of them. Any use of the death penalty when an alternative exists (i.e. lifetime incarceration) is violative to natural law. Since the alternative of lifetime incarceration is always present, the death penalty is therefore always violative of natural law.

CCC 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 more in conformity with 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.” 68

Notes:
68 John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.

 

[ExLibris]

I oppose capital punishment on the possibility of Type I error. Statistical logic is also a part of God’s Natural Law which makes its conclusions a serious argument.

I think a distinction should be made capital punishment and the death penalty. If you rob life from a person, then yes you should be given the penalty of death. However, is the State the most effective means of achieving that end? And, if the State is to act as the judge over life and death, by what standard is capital punishment valid? Surely, Stalin’s use of the death penalty is without justice. But what about current-day China? United States? Iran? How do we know if we’re killing too many? How do we know if we are killing too few?

In short: capital punishment no, death penalty yes.

That’s just how I see it.

 

[stanczyk]

I think a distinction should be made capital punishment and the death penalty. If you rob life from a person, then yes you should be given the penalty of death. However, is the State the most effective means of achieving that end?

This is inaccurate. The question is really one of defense, not punishment. If it is possible to protect society through means less destructive than capital punishment/death penalty (I see no difference between the two terms), the the alternative must be used by the authority. This is the Church’s teaching of natural law. As the Blessed John Paul II astutely pointed out, as a practical matter there is simply no case where the security of society require death of an offender. Lifetime incarceration is always an alternative means to protect society, and natural law requires that all alternatives be exhausted before the death penalty is implemented. Punishment does not enter into the equation.

 

[stanczyk]

So you find it a shame that so many Catholics agree with the Church that there is no moral equivalence between capital punishment and abortion??? That a Catholic can support the former but never the latter? . I personally find it a shame that so many Catholics do not understand the Church’s teaching on capital punishment and on abortion and worse yet use that misunderstanding to try and rationalize their voting for pro-abortion candidates and even to condemn other Catholics when they correctly enunciate the Church’s teaching.

There is a moral equivalence of abortion and capital punishment, and to suggest otherwise is to incorrectly enunciate the Church’s teaching. I find it a shame when Catholics support abortion and oppose capital punishment, and I likewise find it a shame when Catholics oppose abortion and support capital punishment. In both instances they are at odds with Church teaching.

The Church supports life in all instances, it is as simple as that. It breaks my heart when American political divisions tear Catholics at the seams. This isn’t a Republican/Democrat issue, this is life/death issue. Those Catholics who think abortion is the only issue, and rational capital punishment are no different than the Catholics who “rationalize their voting for pro-abortion candidates.” Catholics are required to take the side of life, in all instances. It is not for us to pick and choose.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So the Pope is 100% opposed to something the Church Permits…thats a little confusing.

Its really very simple.

Capital Punishment is not INTRINSICALLY EVIL and thus is permissible in certain situations. The pope is merely reiterating his belief that those “certain situations” don’t really exist anymore, however, CP can be used with moral licitness in certain extenuating circumstances (such as a prisoner who kills other prisoners or prison guards, executing this person is done to protect society).

 

[ExLibris]

This is inaccurate. The question is really one of defense, not punishment. If it is possible to protect society through means less destructive than capital punishment/death penalty (I see no difference between the two terms), the the alternative must be used by the authority. This is the Church’s teaching of natural law. As the Blessed John Paul II astutely pointed out, there is simply no case where the security of society require death of an offender. Lifetime incarceration is always an alternative means to protect society, and natural law requires that all alternatives be exhausted before the death penalty is implemented. Punishment does not enter into the equation.

I draw the distinction between capital punishment and death penalty on etymology. One deals with punishment dealt by chiefs or heads and the other deals with the payment of atonement. Death penalty need not be administered by the State.

I’m glad you corrected my error. This is good to know. Though I have to wonder why we use the terms death penalty/capital punishment since punishment is not what is intended.

So, the government is wrong in applying death in any situation where it is not directly working to protect innocents from immediate threats? Interesting…

 

[stanczyk]

Its really very simple.

Capital Punishment is not INTRINSICALLY EVIL and thus is permissible in certain situations. The pope is merely reiterating his belief that those “certain situations” don’t really exist anymore, however, CP can be used with moral licitness in certain extenuating circumstances (such as a prisoner who kills other prisoners or prison guards, executing this person is done to protect society).

Capital punishment is always intrinsically evil when there is an alternative means of punishment which will protect society. Practical circumstances of modern American society are such that capital punishment is always intrinsically evil.

I don’t like your example of a prisoner who kills prisoner guards. Absent exigent circumstances (which are essentially a matter of self-defense) there is nothing a prisoner could do that would require capital punishment. If a prisoner is dangerous, then the solution is increasing the security level of incarceration, not death.

Self defense on the part of prison guards, of course, is a separate issue entirely. It is not capital punishment, it is self defense.

 

[stanczyk]

I draw the distinction between capital punishment and death penalty on etymology. One deals with punishment dealt by chiefs or heads and the other deals with the payment of atonement. Death penalty need not be administered by the State.

I’m glad you corrected my error. This is good to know. Though I have to wonder why we use the terms death penalty/capital punishment since punishment is not what is intended.

So, the government is wrong in applying death in any situation where it is not directly working to protect innocents from immediate threats? Interesting…

My apologies for the curtness of my response, I regret that I have no couched this discussion in more polite terms.

As I just mentioned in my previous post, I think there is a danger of conflating “self defense” with “capital punishment.” I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, that what you are talking about is killing in self defense, which is morally permissible in order to defend oneself or another. Capital punishment, strictly speaking, is the killing of a person who presents no immediate threat, whereas self defense is the killing of a person who presents an immediate threat to the life of another person.

I applaud your obvious sincerity in approaching this issue and I hope that you can forgive rudeness on my part.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Capital punishment is always intrinsically evil…

This phrase is patently incorrect and does not coincide with Church doctrine.

 

[stanczyk]

This phrase is patently incorrect and does not coincide with Church doctrine.

I agree, it is incomplete. The more complete way to say that would be, as John Paul II said, that as a practical matter the death penalty is always intrinsically evil. The death penalty may be morally licit under certain extreme circumstances, but in this day and age, incarceration makes renders any such circumstances obsolete, there is always an alternative to capital punishment, and therefore any capital punishment is intrinsically evil.

 

[estesbob]

There is a moral equivalence of abortion and capital punishment, and to suggest otherwise is to incorrectly enunciate the Church’s teaching. I find it a shame when Catholics support abortion and oppose capital punishment, and I likewise find it a shame when Catholics oppose abortion and support capital punishment. In both instances they are at odds with Church teaching.

The Church supports life in all instances, it is as simple as that. It breaks my heart when American political divisions tear Catholics at the seams. This isn’t a Republican/Democrat issue, this is life/death issue. Those Catholics who think abortion is the only issue, and rational capital punishment are no different than the Catholics who “rationalize their voting for pro-abortion candidates.” Catholics are required to take the side of life, in all instances. It is not for us to pick and choose.

The Church does not support your postion .In addition nobody said abortion was the only issue. However the Church has made it clear that a Catholic can in good conscience can support capital punishment cannot support abortion under any circumstances. You may personally think that there is a moral equivalence between the two but people should be aware that is not what the Church teaches

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I agree, it is incomplete. The more complete way to say that would be, as John Paul II said, that as a practical matter the death penalty is always intrinsically evil. The death penalty may be morally licit under certain extreme circumstances, but in this day and age, incarceration makes renders any such circumstances obsolete, there is always an alternative to capital punishment, and therefore any capital punishment is intrinsically evil.

NO NO NO. To say it is INTRISICALLY EVIL means that the very act itself is evil and can never be justified.

Capital punishment can never be defined this way, as there are circumstances that make its use justified and licit, therefore it cannot ever be considered INTRINSICALLY evil.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree, it is incomplete. The more complete way to say that would be, as John Paul II said, that as a practical matter the death penalty is always intrinsically evil. The death penalty may be morally licit under certain extreme circumstances, but in this day and age, incarceration makes renders any such circumstances obsolete.

Actually, incarceration does not, if deterrence is a legitimate objective. People are raped, maimed and killed in prisons by prisoners. Some prisoners, such as members of the Aryan Brotherhood, order murders outside of prison, and get them done. There have been murderers, like the torture/murderer recently executed in TExas who avowed that if he had another chance to murder, he would. There have been a number of those.

It seems inevitable to me to conclude that JPII’s statement could only relate to potentiality not actual conditions presently. He really didn’t explain his statement. But if we are to truly deter crimes among prisoners, we would have to build a substantial number of supermax prisons, at whatever cost. It seems to me that is necessarily a step within his thought process, but he only expressed the end point. He never explained how we might get there.

 

[estesbob]

I agree, it is incomplete. The more complete way to say that would be, as John Paul II said, that as a practical matter the death penalty is always intrinsically evil. The death penalty may be morally licit under certain extreme circumstances, but in this day and age, incarceration makes renders any such circumstances obsolete, there is always an alternative to capital punishment, and therefore any capital punishment is intrinsically evil.

John Paul II never said the death penalty was intrinsicly evil. That is NOT Church Teaching.

***The death penalty",is not **intrinsically evil [like abortion and euthanasia are]. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity."

Archbishop Charles Chaput*