Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[pnewton]

I’m sorry you took it that way. The prayer is sincere. If you find it insulting perhaps that should be impetus to reconsider your position and come over to the pro-life side.

I am on the pro-life side. Your assumption that I am not is mistaken and insulting, but I think you know that already.

How would you take it if I told you that you need to come back to the side of Catholicism? Would you not consider that an insult. Don’t get me wrong, you stance is as solidly Catholic as mine is, I just want to point out the need to apply the Golden Rule here. Address others as you would wish to be addressed. Do you get what I am saying?

 

[estesbob]

You’re mischaracterizing this quote. There is indeed not a moral equivalency between the death penalty and abortion, but there is a moral equivalency between abortion and murder. When the death penalty is applied gratuitously, it is nothing less than murder. As the Evangelium Vitae instructs us, the morally legitimate usage of the death penalty is so rare in modernity as to be practically nonexistent. So what then-Cardinal Ratzinger was really saying in that quote is that in theory we may debate about whether or not the death penalty, when morally permissible, is a good idea. But in practice, the legitimate use of the death penalty is nonexistent.

No matter how you want to spin it the Pope said Catholics could support the death penalty Your assertion that Catholics who support the death penalty are not pro-life and need to come back to the Church is not correct Catholics are not bound to a felt your personal interpretation of either theCathecism or the Popes words .

 

[pnewton]

When the death penalty is applied gratuitously, it is nothing less than murder.

First, no one is suggesting a gratuitous use of the death penalty or revenge or any other strawman. Second, it is less than murder, and has always been, in Catholic theology.

I will challenge you to show where, in Catholic teaching, misuse of the death penalty, with the exception of deliberate dishonesty (as in Ahab and Jezebel) has been considered murder.

 

[Joe_Hill]

God bless Pope Benedict for this wise and courageous move.

 

[Ender]

No one would deny a retributive limiting principle and no one would say you can’t do it when it is the only practicable way to defend lives (even if that is not the only reason that you can use it.)

I’ll say it: you cannot execute someone even if it is the only practicable way to defend lives *unless *the person has done something deserving of such punishment. That is, it is retributive justice, not protection, that allows the use of the death penalty.

Evangelium Vitae, which it seems to quote, does not seem to really make the same limiting principle. If it derives its authority from that source, ought we infer the Catechism meant to follow the source?

In one of the quirkier examples of citations, each document (EV, CCC) cites the other as the source of the position it takes on capital punishment.

I also find it very difficult to determine whether this is merely prudential or not. If anyone knows a good authoritative source on finding the distinction between the prudential and moral judgments I would love to have it (please PM me).

I have little doubt that 2267 is prudential. Cardinal Ratzinger is surely not saying there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion about doctrine and Cardinal Dulles was explicit on this point: "The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good."

I really hope the Magesterium makes a clear declaration on this sometime soon.

We are not alone in believing clarification is necessary.

“Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe.” (R. Michael Dunnigan, canon lawyer)

Ender

 

[Dranu]

I’ll say it: you cannot execute someone even if it is the only practicable way to defend lives *unless *the person has done something deserving of such punishment. That is, it is retributive justice, not protection, that allows the use of the death penalty.

You misread me there (you didn’t ‘say it’ ). I said no one would deny retribution is a limiting principle. That is, no one would deny you need retribution to be met for a crime to be punished (you are ‘limited’ to punishing crimes where retribution is met). However, there are arguments out there that you ALSO need protection to be met for the death penalty. I’m still up in the air on that one.

In one of the quirkier examples of citations, each document (EV, CCC) cites the other as the source of the position it takes on capital punishment.

And the citation of the Catechism EV makes few would blink an eye at as ‘public order’ encompasses a whole lot of things. It’s the revision after EV that caused the stir.

Cardinal Dulles was explicit on this point: "The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good."

He could easily be referring to the last sentence of 2267 and not the second sentence which for me is the real kicker. I don’t think many would disagree with Dulles if only referring to the last sentence. Of course your interpretation is far from unreasonable there, its just not certain in my eyes (honestly I do not know which one to take). Dulles article on this stuff struck me hard though, especially his skepticism on the reasons for the modern world’s distaste for the death penalty. I really need some good catechesis on what is a ‘prudential judgment’ is.

 

[stanczyk]

I don’t see why there is any need for hand-wringing about this. It is a simple as Cardinal Dulles eloquently puts it. The death penalty, at least in countries like our own, ought not to be invoked. This is in line with the Catechism and the Evangelium Vitae. Why on earth would any Catholic want to poke holes or lawyer this issue in such a way as to attempt to make the death penalty palatable?

If you read that quote from Card. Dulles a little further, there are two quotes in particular which ought to be very instructive to our pro-death penalty friends:
Card. Dulles:

“Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things, should not be confused with vindictiveness, which is reprehensible.”

Card. Dulles:

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

 

[Dranu]

I don’t see why there is any need for hand-wringing about this. It is a simple as Cardinal Dulles eloquently puts it. The death penalty, at least in countries like our own, ought not to be invoked.

The point is not that he supports it (he doesn’t), but that he points out the anti-death penalty sentiment of many of the clergy is prudential (though I am having trouble determining to what extent he thinks this). If prudential, the ones probably in the best citation to determine this are the proper authorities of the State with a well informed conscience in my opinion. That is not to say that his or any other hierarchical member’s prudential judgment is not very important and ought to be seriously considered.

 

[stanczyk]

The point is not that he supports it (he doesn’t), but that he points out the anti-death penalty sentiment of many of the clergy is prudential (though I am having trouble determining to what extent he thinks this). If prudential, the ones probably in the best citation to determine this are the proper authorities of the State with a well informed conscience in my opinion. That is not to say that his or any other hierarchical member’s prudential judgment is not very important and ought to be seriously considered.

This is incorrect. The Pope and bishops have issued their prudential judgment to inform the State. Cardinal Dulles is far more clear than you are reading him, and I fail to see why you are misinterpreting Card. Dulles so badly. Read the entire passage:

“Like the pope [John Paul II] the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the church. The doctrine remains what is has been: that the state, in principle, has the right too impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the state should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question of whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like out own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked.]”

This is unequivocal, and, as Card. Dulles goes on later to point out, the prudential judgment of the Pope and bishops is what should inform that moral judgment of Catholics with respect to death penalty policy.

 

[pnewton]

This is incorrect.

What was incorrect about it?

The statement says twice that it is a prudential judgment. Never once, and I have issued this challenge dozens of times and not one Catholic can answer it, has the Holy Father, the USCCB or any poster here shown the data upon which they base this judgement.

Where is the evidence that we can safely incarcerate the worst of criminals?

Again, where is the evidence that we can safely incarcerate the worst of criminals? I

I feel like I am spitting in the wind here. I keep asking for this, and searching every Church document and find zip. Is this just a theory coming from CNN? If the bishops are, as I believe, mistaken in their assessment of our current level of penology, then their conclusion can be flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[stanczyk]

What was incorrect about it?

This is incorrect:

If prudential, the ones probably in the best citation to determine this are the proper authorities of the State with a well informed conscience in my opinion.

Notwithstanding that “citation” is probably the wrong word here, it is simply false that it is within the power of the State to make the decision of whether or not the death penalty is practically permissible. As Card. Dulles advised, conscientious Catholics must abide by the pope and the bishops, who have condemned any usage of the death penalty in the United States and similarly situated countries. It is not for the State to override the judgment of the Holy Father and the bishops, even if it is a prudential judgment.

 

[pnewton]

This is incorrect:

If prudential, the ones probably in the best citation to determine this are the proper authorities of the State

I see. Well, if words like “probably”, “best” and “in my opinion” are used, it should be a clue that this can not be a correct or incorrect issue. I do not know if I agree or disagree, but so far it seems that the Church does not show any reasons to justify facts that are assumed. I am sure that is because it is the nature of the Church to give doctrine, normally, and allow the civil authorities to pass the actual laws.

Does the Catholic Church even keep any statistics like the DOJ does? No. The Church has moral authority on her side. These bishops are wise and holy men, but do they have the facts straight? I can’t say. I have never seen any.

 

[Ender]

stanczyk:

This is incorrect. The Pope and bishops have issued their prudential judgment to inform the State.

If you admit that 2267 is prudential then the argument is over: there is no obligation for a Catholic to accept it. It is not binding on our consciences.

As Card. Dulles advised, conscientious Catholics must abide by the pope and the bishops, who have condemned any usage of the death penalty in the United States and similarly situated countries…

Your claim here is the opposite of what Dulles actually said:

Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Dulles and His Critics: An Exchange on Capital Punishment, 2001)

Ender

 

[Ender]

there are arguments out there that you ALSO need protection to be met for the death penalty. I’m still up in the air on that one.

Justifying capital punishment on the need to satisfy the obligations of both retribution and protection is a much more reasonable argument than simply dismissing the need for retribution but I don’t recall anyone presenting an argument to support this position.

And the citation of the Catechism EV makes few would blink an eye at as ‘public order’ encompasses a whole lot of things.

Good point. Using the term “order” without giving it a precise definition has caused some real problems.

He could easily be referring to the last sentence of 2267 and not the second sentence which for me is the real kicker. I don’t think many would disagree with Dulles if only referring to the last sentence.

The last sentence is clearly prudential; that much is not really debatable. (And, FYI, the first sentence is clearly incorrect in its claim about the traditional teaching of the Church.) I agree, it is the second sentence that is the heart of the section. The issue depends on the validity of its claim.

Is it true that bloodless means “better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”? It would seem that the determination of what corresponds to the common good is also a prudential question. I think this part of the claim is what Dulles was referring to when he said the Pope believed: "in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance,* it does more harm than good**."*

What, then, about capital punishment being less in* conformity to the dignity of the human person*? Is it? It doesn’t seem so to me. The Church has always based her position on capital punishment on Gen 9:5-6 which states that a murderer is to forfeit his life specifically *because *man is made in the image of God - which is the very source of man’s dignity: (1700) “The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God.”

(1745) "Freedom characterizes properly human acts. It makes the human being responsible for acts of which he is the voluntary agent. His deliberate acts properly belong to him." Man’s dignity flows from his having been granted the right to choose and it is an offense against that dignity to excuse him from the consequences of his choices. It is *in not *holding him fully accountable for his actions that we offend against his dignity.

*Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. *(JPII)

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

What was incorrect about it?

The statement says twice that it is a prudential judgment. Never once, and I have issued this challenge dozens of times and not one Catholic can answer it, has the Holy Father, the USCCB or any poster here shown the data upon which they base this judgement.

Where is the evidence that we can safely incarcerate the worst of criminals?

Again, where is the evidence that we can safely incarcerate the worst of criminals? I

I feel like I am spitting in the wind here. I keep asking for this, and searching every Church document and find zip. Is this just a theory coming from CNN? If the bishops are, as I believe, mistaken in their assessment of our current level of penology, then their conclusion can be flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.

That is, in fact, true.

My contention is that neither both Popes, nor those involved in writing the CCC, even gave the penological facts any consideraton, whatsoever.

Had they done so, they would have found that the death penalty is a greater defender of cociety and of the innocent.

In other words, what the Pope’s and Church are supporting is more “mercy” toward murderers, which will result in more murdered innocents.

There is a 2000 year record of Catholic Saints, Popes, religious leaders, biblical scholars and theologians speaking in favor of the death penalty, a record of scholarship, in breadth and depth, which overwhelms any position to the contrary.

It is a mystery why the Church didn’t review the available evidence, that execution offers a greater defense of society, but instead She has chosen to spare more murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocents.

Thankfully, the Church’s wrongly considered about face is based upon a utilitarian foundation which is a prudential judgement, meaning that any Catholic can support more executions and remain a Catholic in good standing.

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4 NAB. This is a frequent passage which God used in the OT, which, as was Jesus’ custom, He brought into the NT for emphasis of continuity and importance.
full context www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew15.htm

Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

“Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

Christianity and the death penalty
prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#F.Christianity

Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty,
homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important. This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something contrary to support for execution.

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

The power to execute comes directly from God.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit, God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

For murder, there is no mitigation from a death sentence.

many. many more

 

[stanczyk]

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

I thank God that the holy father and the bishops do not share this anti-life disturbing worldview. I pray that Catholics who think like this will come around to pro-life someday.

Please God, soften the hearts of Catholics who cannot see past their desire for vengeance, let them see that sanctity and dignity of human life requires the total abrogation of the death penalty. Please God, bring all Catholics who have been led astray by pro-death penalty rhetoric to see the Gospel of Life for what it truly is. Please God, let them see that there truly is no justice without life.

 

[dudleysharp]

I thank God that the holy father and the bishops do not share this anti-life disturbing worldview. I pray that Catholics who think like this will come around to pro-life someday…

The “No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot” was the Holy Spirit’s decision for Ananias and his wife, Saphira.

Do you think He was wrong and should have, instead, come around to the pro life position?

 

[stanczyk]

The “No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot” was the Holy Spirit’s decision for Ananias and his wife, Saphira.

Do you think He was wrong and should have, instead, come around to the pro life position?

I won’t indulge any kind of nonsensical comparison between the Justice of the Lord and man’s justice.

 

[Ender]

I won’t indulge any kind of nonsensical comparison between the Justice of the Lord and man’s justice.

Actually, those forms of justice are not as distinct as you perhaps suppose.

*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. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)

Ender

 

[stanczyk]

Actually, those forms of justice are not as distinct as you perhaps suppose.

There are not two different sorts of justice. There is only the perfect Justice of God. Man’s attempt to live up to God’s justice is always doomed to imperfection.

It is absurd to use Ananias as a justification for the use of the death penalty among human beings. It is simply and patently a faulty argument.