Question about death penalty and history

[Reformed_Rob]

Ok, I’m going to try to be brief here…

If the Church has always been “against the death penalty”…I’m not saying it has or hasn’t, but IF it has…

Then why did Church authorities back in the Middle Ages turn over heretics to the civil authorities to be executed?

Like, you know, one of the ways we do apologetics for the Inquisitions is to say that it wasn’t the Church, it was the civil authorities that executed certain people.

But that brings up a social teaching issue for me…If the Church was against the death penalty back then, why didn’t the theologians and Magesterium say “Now don’t execute these people, that’s not right!”

Maybe they did, I don’t know. Of course, we know that it was the Inquisitor’s job to bring the accused or the heretic back into communion with the Church and with truth. Theirs was a mission of mercy, not condemnation. But the question still remains about the Church’s stance on the civil right to administer the death penalty.

I’m not like doubting the current teaching or being rebellious, I just have wondered for some time. There’s obviously more I could bring up…but that’s perhaps hitting at the core of the issue.

 

[mike182d]

But that brings up a social teaching issue for me…If the Church was against the death penalty back then, why didn’t the theologians and Magesterium say “Now don’t execute these people, that’s not right!”

First and foremost, the Catholic Church is not against the death penalty, per se. It’s current position is that there are few, if any, circumstances in the present age that would warrant its use.

That being said, I personally think you’ve rightly identified a noticeable shift in Catholic theology that is very similar to that of its understanding of just war theory. In fact, it was revisting the Church’s tradition of just war theory prior to the 20th century that led me to return to supporting the death penalty and I think the two positions are linked.

For example, it is the Church’s teaching on just war that only acts of self-defense are legitimately justified. This has been expanded to included aggressive wars in which “defense” might refer to preventing an imminent threat. But still, the bottom line for the Church is “self-defense.”

The problem with this reasoning is that the fathers of just war theory, such as Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, were not concerned in the least with self-defense as a requisite for just war. For example, Sts. Augustine and Aquinas make a point to state that *only *a leader of a nation may declare war and it is never moral for an individual to take up arms against another or declare war, with one exception: self-defense. Now, if an individual with no power to declare war or take up arms against another does not need justification for doing so in self-defense, how much less justification would the leader of a nation need?

What am I getting at? In just war theory prior to the 20th century, self-defense was a “given” and required no justification. Just war theory did not exist to justify something that warranted no justification but rather the pursuit of justice. That is the difference. The fathers of just war theory were concerned with justice and saw war - and capital punishment for that matter - as a means of attaining this. Now, when war no longer becomes about “justice” but is simply reduced to self-defense, it becomes apparent why capital punishment is held in a different esteem in the present age as well.

So, it should now it should be quite obvious why there is a difference in Church practice during, say, the Inquisition and the present age:

If one is only justified in taking human life in self defense, capital punishment is unnecessary and irrelevant in the present age because of the many resources available to incarcerate the individual.

If one is only justified in taking human life in the pursuit of justice (or with “right intention” as the just war theologians state), capital punishment is just as relevant and acceptable as it was in the 1900 years prior to the 20th century.

 

[mlchance]

If the Church has always been “against the death penalty”…I’m not saying it has or hasn’t, but IF it has…

Then why did Church authorities back in the Middle Ages turn over heretics to the civil authorities to be executed?

But the Church wasn’t and isn’t “against the death penalty” and so the question is a little silly. Right?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mike182d]

But the Church wasn’t and isn’t “against the death penalty” and so the question is a little silly. Right?

– Mark L. Chance.

True. But you cannot deny there is a huge shift in the Church’s perception and understanding of the death penalty.

 

[mlchance]

True. But you cannot deny there is a huge shift in the Church’s perception and understanding of the death penalty.

Sure I can. The only “shift” has been that the Church is taking into consideration the effects that modern technologies might have in each given situation. One thousand years ago, the state couldn’t house murderers for long periods of time in safe conditions. Today, the state often can. In those situations, judged on a case-by-case basis, where incarceration is still insufficient to protect human life from a killer, the state is justified in executing that killer.

But this is beside the point. The OP starts with a “what if…” scenario that flies in the face of the facts. It’s like asking, “If the Church is opposed to toast, why does the Church use bread for the Host?”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mike182d]

Sure I can. The only “shift” has been that the Church is taking into consideration the effects that modern technologies might have in each given situation. One thousand years ago, the state couldn’t house murderers for long periods of time in safe conditions. Today, the state often can. In those situations, judged on a case-by-case basis, where incarceration is still insufficient to protect human life from a killer, the state is justified in executing that killer.

Punishment is not given for the possibility of future action but in accord with justice for what has already been done. Does it not seem more unjust to sentence a man to death because we can’t prevent him from doing something again instead of sentencing a man to death because of what he’s already done?

I don’t believe this was a condition upheld by the doctors of the Church for over 1900 years - prior to the 20th century - regarding the death penalty.

Better example, let’s suppose I owe the IRS $100,000 (I don’t know why I would, but just go with it ). If they come to my door to collect and I don’t have the money, they are not going to say “oh, well, what have you got in assests? $25,000? Just pay us that then and we’ll be on our way.” They make you pay that and then set up a payment schedule over the next 30 years to continue to collect until the $100,000 payment is met in full. Why? Because that’s just. I *owe *them $100,000 and the only just punishment is the remittance of $100,000 to them.

To base capital punishment upon external factors, such as financial means available to the State or space within its prisons, seems terribly unjust to me because the punishment for a crime is being based upon something* other than the crime itself*.

Either my debt of $100,000 demands the remittance of $100,000 or its doesn’t. Either murder is so haneous a crime that it warrants the death penalty or it doesn’t. I can’t think of a system of law that would make sense otherwise.

Do you see my point? Under the Church’s current teaching on capital punishment, if a man is killed it is not because of the crime he committed but because they didn’t have the resources to incarcerate him. That doesn’t seem right to me for some reason, and terribly unlucky for the inmate that did not have the opportunity to be in a State were such resources *were *available. I dunno.

 

[thistle]

I think there is a big difference between not being against something and being in favour of it. The Church is definitely NOT in favour of the death penalty but rather sees it can be justified as a last resort in some situations.
The fact is the Church publicly rejoices whenever a country abolishes the death penalty (just as it did in the recent past when the Philippines abolished the death penalty).

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Thanks everyone for your comments!

I don’t really have much to add, you might think I would…but I’ll just watch. You can discuss it better without me, if you wish.

Hmmmm…but maybe I’ll ask a question soon. And maybe not.

Thanks for the discussion

-Rob

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Do yall think that maybe some Catholic people that are really into the social and political scene, they sort of advertise this view that the Church is just totally against the death penalty in all cases?

I’m aware that Catholic social teaching…which, while not a new thing, but certainly it has come a long way in like the last century, and human dignity topics are more to the forefront, so that surely has a part to play.

Kind of like…the Church is pondering deeper truths of humanity, and letting the light of it’s collective reflection shine.