Question about the death penalty

[James0235]

It is permitted for Catholics to support the death penalty when they believe “this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Catholics that support the application of the death penalty outside of these limits are not in accord with Church teaching on the respect of human life.

And that is why quotes like these are wrong:

SpiritMeadow:

First I would say that for all intents and purposes you are correct that the Church is teaching that the death penalty cannot be supported.

The death penalty can be supported. You can go ahead and qualify statements by saying that the pope gives specific instances where it cannot be supported. OK. That’s fine. But, making a blanket that the death penalty cannot be supported is just wrong.

SpiritMeadow:

You may excuse what you read any way you like. It remains the clear desire of 2 popes and the USCCB specifically that this barbaric practice be stopped. i am unable to understand why one would wish to go against the Church’s beliefs on this issue, just because technically you can. And I would point out that the USCCB makes this issue just as critical as abortion. It is intrinsically evil.

It is not intrinsically evil. To say that it is intrinsically evil is to accuse a good many popes and saints of approving of an intrinsically evil act and thus committing mortal sin. Vatican City had the death penalty on the books until 1969. Why would that be the case if it were intrinsically evil?

We really need to be more careful about what we say. Statements like “The Catholic Church is against the death penalty” are not accurate.

James

 

[estesbob]

I am having a difficult time with your position and logic here.

You say that you personally oppose the death penalty.
The Vatican and USCCB agree with you, in fact JPII specifically used exactly that language of the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death.

I seriously doubt that when asked if the Church categorically opposes the death we should explain to them the finer points of Papal infalliblilty-especailly when the answer is no.

I have many times in CAF (In fact I saw Marion Cummo make the same assertion) say that the Church can change its techings on abortion, homosexualtiy and the death penaly, etc because they changed their teachings on the Deatgh Penalty. If for no other reason than that we should take care that we do not mislead people into believing something is a doctrine when it is not.

It is also a common tactic of those who support abortion to slime those active in the pro-life ministry by claiming they are hypocrites for embracing the Churchs teaching on abortion while rejection the alleged doctrine that forbids the death penalty.

But you prefer when asked to tell people that you do so on your own beliefs instead of telling them, “The Catholic Church does not formally infallibly declare all execution to be immoral and against Church teaching. But she does express that there are few instances when it can legitimately be used. So I feel that I am in agreement with the Church on this.”

I prefer to work hard to end the Death penalty in this country while not lying to people to advance that cause.

Why would you wish to either remain silent or say that the church doesn not require a Catholic to oppose it? You do want it stopped don’t you? Why not the most forceful statement then? and one that is true?

I prefer to work hard to end the Death penalty in this country while not lying to people to advance that cause.

 

[estesbob]

SpiritMeadow,

Whether it is intentional or not** you are misleading people about the Catholic teaching on the death penalty**. It is permitted for Catholics to support the death penalty.

Exaclty.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It is permitted for Catholics to support the death penalty when they believe “this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Catholics that support the application of the death penalty outside of these limits are not in accord with Church teaching on the respect of human life.

Not to add more fuel to this fire, but perhaps your limitation is too restrictive?

The issue is not that clear cut – and the Catechism is a bit confusing on this topic. It would seem that there are legitimate uses for the death penalty other than protection. (Not to mention that the principle of double effect which justifies self-defense doesn’t seem readily applicable to capital punishment in the first place.)

Hopefully we might see clarification on this issue from the magisterium in the years to come.

VC

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Additionally I believe JPII said directly that given modern penal systems, the convicted person can be reasonably kept from society. That is also contained in Evangelium Vitae.

At no point has the scope of papal infallibility formally extended to cover judgments about the technical capabilities of “modern penal systems” as currently implemented. That kind of radical change in the position of the Church with regard to the authority of the State would take a lot more than extending JP II having stated an opinion on the subject, notably without any language suggesting even “ordinary infallibility” regarding that change.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The Bible explicitly states that the death penalty was partly for the purpose of deterence:
[Deuteronomy]
{13:11} So may all of Israel, upon hearing this, be afraid, so that nothing like this will ever be done again.

{19:18} And when, after a very diligent examination, they will have found that the false witness had told a lie against his brother,
{19:19} they shall render to him just as he intended to do to his brother. And so shall you take away the evil from your midst.
{19:20} Then the others, upon hearing this, will be afraid, and they will by no means dare to do such things.

{21:21} Then the people of the city shall stone him to death. And he shall die, so that you may take away the evil from your midst. And so may all of Israel, upon hearing it, be very afraid.

So you believe JPII, Benedict and the USCCB are all incorrect and not sufficiently aware of the verses you cite? If they are not incorrect then of what use is this to Catholics who are trying their best to follow the clear import of Church teaching?

I think your issue is taught in Matthew 19: 7-12 * They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”*

I think it is the same issue, those whom can should accept life with out divorce, capital punsihment, etc.,etc.,

 

[SoCalRC]

SpiritMeadow,

Whether it is intentional or not you are misleading people about the Catholic teaching on the death penalty. It is permitted for Catholics to support the death penalty.

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

(Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004 A.D., letter to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, #3 )

I’m sorry, but you are using the quote well outside it’s original context and meaning. Cardinal Ratzinger was using two important, widely embraced (by the Bishops) Church teachings to stress the special status of two infallible teachings.

It is important to remember that abortion and euthanasia are infallible by virtue of universal agreement of the Bishops, not papal authority, and the Cardinal was writing to the Bishops.

There seems to be some idea that “prudential” means optional. This is not so. Think about it, is the Nicene Creed optional?

I would agree with TMC’s assessment with the caveat that casual disagreement with the Pope would not suffice. Disagreement would need to be a strong crisis of concience, and a concerted effort to reach reconcillation with Rome. It is not a matter of reading mroe into the Catechism, but looking at it as a whole. Part one breaks down the Creed line by line and we do profess our belief in one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The death penalty has been addressed by Papal Encyclical and is part of the Catechism. The advisory body of US Bishops overwhelmingly rejects it’s application in the US. Catholics should not take this lightly. Please note that the last point in even Bishop Dulles’ article reiterates this point.

 

[Ender]

Cardinal Ratzinger is not saying that the Church’s teachings on the death penalty, which are set forth as the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium in the catechism at CCC 2266-67, are optional. He saying that there is room for differences of opinion on whether the way the death penalty is applied in a specific instance or by a specific legal framework violates those teachings.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as you say but it makes just as much sense to interpret it to mean a Catholic may disagree with the pope’s position on the death penalty as it is defined in the catechism. The latter understanding certainly makes more sense in light of comments by the USCCB and Cardinal Dulles on this issue.

It is permitted for Catholics to support the death penalty when they believe “this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Catholics that support the application of the death penalty outside of these limits are not in accord with Church teaching on the respect of human life.

Catholics who support the death penalty are in accord with Church teaching on the subject, they are just not in accord with the opinions of magisterium since 1995.

Ender

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,

Whether it is intentional or not you are misleading people about the Catholic teaching on the death penalty. It is permitted for Catholics to support the death penalty.

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

(Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004 A.D., letter to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, #3 )

---

More Quotes from Popes and Saints on the Death Penalty

James

****

I have stated explicitely that the Church allows wiggle room for Catholics on this issue. But the Church has expressed clearly that it does not favor the DP and finds few if any instances when it is permissible. The USCCB has stated very clearly and reinterated several times that it completely calls for its end in this country. Actually the death penalty is within the those items that Catholics cannot disregard. We are warned not to place over emphasis on any one teaching but to consider them as a whole.

Your sources are interesting to say the least. The first seems to be about “end time prophesies” and the other sets out a lot of statements by those long dead, and admits that the Vatican “dp” was dropped quite a number of years ago. I urge you to read the USCCB statement issued in Nov. on this issue, as well as Evangelium Vitae. JPII made it most clear that all life issues are tied into a “dignity of the human person” that includes all issues from conception to natural death.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I seriously doubt that when asked if the Church categorically opposes the death we should explain to them the finer points of Papal infalliblilty-especailly when the answer is no.

A simple two sentence statement such as I showed you is not giving the “finer” points as you suggest. Do you feel you are with Church teaching or against it in supporting the abolition of the DP?

I have many times in CAF (In fact I saw Marion Cummo make the same assertion) say that the Church can change its techings on abortion, homosexualtiy and the death penaly, etc because they changed their teachings on the Deatgh Penalty. If for no other reason than that we should take care that we do not mislead people into believing something is a doctrine when it is not.

I was not aware that you have claimed that the church has changed its position on abortion, homosexuality and the DP. I’m afraid I don’t know why you did, or what that means here. I stated thate the Church does not teach infallibly that the DP is no longer allowed, but a fair reading of appropriate documents suggests clearly that they do not believe that it can be applied in most cases.

is also a common tactic of those who support abortion to slime those active in the pro-life ministry by claiming they are hypocrites for embracing the Churchs teaching on abortion while rejection the alleged doctrine that forbids the death penalty.

Well I would agree that taking opposite stances on life issues might be construed as inconsistent, but I’m not prepared to say it must be so construed. I’m again not sure what this has to do with wwhether the Church supports or condemns in general the use of the DP. You do not disagree that the USCCB is most clear do you? And you believe it should be followed no doubt as we are supposed to follow our bishops and their pronouncements.?

I prefer to work hard to end the Death penalty in this country while not lying to people to advance that cause.

I applaud your work and I agree, it is never a good idea to not to lie to people. Even when its for their own good, as so many try to do here. But of course that does not answer why you decline to tell them the truth of where the Church is heading or why you do not tell them that the USCCB supports your position fully. I would certainly cite sources that supported me if I were trying to convince someone. Aren’t we trying to convince others that eliminating the DP is the Christian thing to do?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

But the Church has expressed clearly that it does not favor the DP and finds few if any instances when it is permissible.

I believe that you are intentionally ignoring that the Church has not made any sort of formal indication that it is changing its position about the authority to actually make that determination resting solely with the State. Your interpretation of the weight of the statement by the USCCB clearly requires ignoring substantial amounts of Church teaching (including several previously cited points of Scripture) about the nature of government under Natural Law; yet the wording of JP II’s statement about the DP in EV makes no reference to such a radical shift to the background framework.

 

[TMC]

Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as you say but it makes just as much sense to interpret it to mean a Catholic may disagree with the pope’s position on the death penalty as it is defined in the catechism. The latter understanding certainly makes more sense in light of comments by the USCCB and Cardinal Dulles on this issue.
Catholics who support the death penalty are in accord with Church teaching on the subject, they are just not in accord with the opinions of magisterium since 1995.

Ender

I have never seen, anywhere, any suggestion that Catholics must not accept the teachings of the Catechism. This is what John Paul II said regarding the doctrinal value of the Catechism:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a **sure norm **for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

This is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger said about adherence to teaching promulgated by the Magisterium:

1. The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”

To this paragraph belong all those teachings – on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore `tuto doceri non potest.’
ncronline.org/NCR_Online/documents/ratz.htm

Where is there any authority that any part of the Catechism is optional?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Where is there any authority that any part of the Catechism is optional?

Vatican I declared that novel teachings were not subject to papal infallibility. An interpretation of a papal statement requiring an unstated radical change to the authority of the State under Natural Law qualifies as novel.

Note that the only real guarantee for a catechism (or any other document under the umbrella of ordinary infallibility) is that believing what was in it would not be in error. However, when considering an issue that the Church still holds to be a prudential judgment within the authority of the State (and actually cannot reverse that position), then there is more than one possible position that is not in error. Holding a personal belief that the DP is no longer necessary in certain modern societies is allowable, but that is just part of the spectrum of allowable beliefs on that issue.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

At no point has the scope of papal infallibility formally extended to cover judgments about the technical capabilities of “modern penal systems” as currently implemented. That kind of radical change in the position of the Church with regard to the authority of the State would take a lot more than extending JP II having stated an opinion on the subject, notably without any language suggesting even “ordinary infallibility” regarding that change.

And IF you read what i said, I no where said that the Church has spoken infallibly on this issue, but it IS the clear import of its most recent statements:

"On the other hand, recalling the appeal made by Pope John Paul II on the occasion of the Jubilee Year 2000, I rejoice that on 18 December last the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution calling upon States to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and I earnestly hope that this initiative will lead to public debate on the sacred character of human life."Jan 7,2008 Address to the Diplomatic Corp.

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. Evangelium Vitae.

This is a time to teach clearly, encourage reflection, and call for a common action in the Catholic community to bring about an end to the use of the death penalty in our land. USCCB 2005.

I think that is a pretty clear statement of what the Church believes and where faithful Catholics should be headed as well. My only question to those who continue with the “but we are allowed to believe in the DP” is…why would you?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I believe that you are intentionally ignoring that the Church has not made any sort of formal indication that it is changing its position about the authority to actually make that determination resting solely with the State. Your interpretation of the weight of the statement by the USCCB clearly requires ignoring substantial amounts of Church teaching (including several previously cited points of Scripture) about the nature of government under Natural Law; yet the wording of JP II’s statement about the DP in EV makes no reference to such a radical shift to the background framework.

I suggest you contact them then and explain that they are wrong in what they are now saying. You may parse as you wish but JPII was most clear and apparently that is the way Benedict understood him and the USCCB. If you want to tell the Church that it is misunderstanding its own teachings be my guest. JPII said that for all intents and purposes the DP could not be supported.

And this view is directly in keeping with JPII’s “dignity of the human” which is a blanket endorcement of a culture of life extending from conception until natural death. We are told of course that we must not isolate teachings but we are to see them as a connected whole. We may not simply pick our favorite, our responsibility extends to stop evil and also promote good equally.

 

[Ender]

Actually the death penalty is within the those items that Catholics cannot disregard.

This is incorrect if you mean by it that a Catholic must oppose the death penalty. In the early 1200’s, pope Innocent III required the Waldensiens, who opposed the death penalty but wanted reconciliation with the Church, to accept that: *“The secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation.” *If your assertion is correct then the Waldensiens were right and the Church was wrong until 1995.

Your sources are interesting to say the least. The first seems to be about “end time prophesies” and the other sets out a lot of statements by those long dead

“Only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence”. (JPII Veritatis splendor) The Church has always held that morality does not change with place and time. If what Aquinas said was right when he said it it is every bit as true today.

If there is a reason to refrain from the death penalty it can only be for the prudential reason that it does more harm than good. The Church has always recognized (and does even today) that the state has the moral right to execute criminals for particularly heinous crimes.

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

And IF you read what i said, I no where said that the Church has spoken infallibly on this issue, but it IS the clear import of its most recent statements:

Actually the Church has spoken infallibly that such determinations fall within the scope of the authority of the State and not the Church, which is why the absence of any suggestion of a formal shift away from that general understanding if both notable and important. Attempting to interpret the more recent statements in a manner that contradicts teachings that are within the scope of ordinary infallibility is guaranteed to produce an unreliable conclusion.

I suggest you contact them then and explain that they are wrong in what they are now saying. You may parse as you wish but JPII was most clear and apparently that is the way Benedict understood him and the USCCB. If you want to tell the Church that it is misunderstanding its own teachings be my guest. JPII said that for all intents and purposes the DP could not be supported.

Yes, JP II has said that. However, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, he cannot make that a binding declaration because the actual authority to decide whether the DP can be supported in particular instances belongs only to the States. JP II never took that authority away, yet your interpretation of the import of those statements presumes that it does. If you start from the clear teaching that making that determination falls within the authority of the State to determine, JP II’s statements (and the statements of the USCCB based solely on that opinion of his) can be nothing more than a personal suggestion.

 

[TMC]

Vatican I declared that novel teachings were not subject to papal infallibility. An interpretation of a papal statement requiring an unstated radical change to the authority of the State under Natural Law qualifies as novel.

Note that the only real guarantee for a catechism (or any other document under the umbrella of ordinary infallibility) is that believing what was in it would not be in error. However, when considering an issue that the Church still holds to be a prudential judgment within the authority of the State (and actually cannot reverse that position), then there is more than one possible position that is not in error. Holding a personal belief that the DP is no longer necessary in certain modern societies is allowable, but that is just part of the spectrum of allowable beliefs on that issue.

Did you read the quote I provided from the Head of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith? A teaching does not have to be infallible to require assent. If that were true there would be no such thing as “cafeteria” Catholics because few of the common “cafeteria” issues have been infallibly defined.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Did you read the quote I provided from the Head of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith? A teaching does not have to be infallible to require assent. If that were true there would be no such thing as “cafeteria” Catholics because few of the common “cafeteria” issues have been infallibly defined.

Ahhh, but there is a distinction between this and the other “Cafeteria” issues: the Church has a clear prior record on this that is inconsistent with interpretations that require a presumption that the Church has assumed the authority to actually make a determination of the technological capabilities and their level of implementation. Over and over again the Church has drawn a line that says that its authority in areas of faith and morals does not extend to making scientific declarations by fiat.

Further, there are explicit and irrevocable proofs in both scripture and Tradition that the authority to determine when the use of the Death Penalty is required rests with the State.

On none of the true “Cafeteria” issues can you point to a tradition of the Church holding a position IN DIRECT OPPOSITION to what is proposed by interpretations of more current statements. The Church has already declared that she does not have the authority to make that decision for the State in much the same way that she has declared she does not have the authority to ordain women priests.

 

[James0235]

I have stated explicitely that the Church allows wiggle room for Catholics on this issue.

Yes, you have said this. The problem I have is with the fact that you have also said

It is intrinsically evil.

and that is not true. That is why I say you are being misleading.

Intrinsically evil would mean that by its very nature the death penalty were an evil act and could never under any circumstances be used. That is wrong.

And by saying that it is intrinsically evil you give the impression that the popes and saints who supported the death penalty in certain circumstances were wrong and therefore in mortal sin by approving of an intrinsically evil act - an act that could never be moral.

I am not arguing for the death penalty. I am not even saying that I support it. I am saying that it is not an intrinsically evil act. And, given that it can potentially be used, it is misleading for anyone to say that “the Catholic Church is against the death penalty”.

James