Question about the death penalty

[TMC]

I’ll draw your attention to the wording of the Catechism of Trent I cited above: “Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.”

That statement is FALSE if the death penalty can only be used by the State for protecting human life. Read it carefully, it says that avenging crime represses outrage and violence, and that inflicting punishments (including the death penalty) towards those goals are the legitimate right of civil authority.

Likewise, saying that “it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” (Pope Piue XII, 1952) also cannot** be true** if the criminal’s right to live is based on his future threat rather than the crime for which he has already been convicted.

My position has been made clear, repeatedly, where you are quite frankly stonewalling on an uncomfortable question about a core presumption of your position. Is it your position that the Church has modified its understanding of Natural Law to restrict the authority of the state on that matter at some point after 1952, and if so, where has it formally declared that background framework to have been so changed? We cannot decide what can or cannot be carried by the cart before clarifying the capabilities of the horse pulling it, and it is simply not sufficient to base such conjecture on an “if” and a “should” that themselves involve scientific determinations or other decisions which the Church itself has declared fall outside of its competence.

When a state’s use of the death penalty itself becomes an outrage, that would be in violation of the mandate of the state. There are some limitations already, (some outlined in the broader context of the sources I cited in post 46) but they are things that spring from natural law (e.g. the standard of an “eye for an eye” as a *maximum *penalty that could legitimately be assessed) that have been ratified by the Church rather than falling under the authority of the Church to actually legislate.

But one cannot make a claim that the state is no longer the legitimate avenger of crime (inclusive of inflicting the death penalty), or that the criminals right to life cannot deprived on the basis of their crime alone, without saying either the Catechism of Trent and/or Pope Pius XII were wrong about the authority of the state under Natural Law.

Why are you so hung up on the Catechism of Trent? I thought we were discussing what the Church teaches today, now, in this year and century. I suppose that with time and inclination one could construct an argument that the current teaching is in accord with, is a development of, or refutes that Catechism on this issue. That is not what I am discussing.

Let us assume that the current teaching cannot be reconclied with Trent, what would that prove to you? I frankly don’t know if they can or cannot, but either way the CCC is the current teaching of the Church, isn’t it?

I truly don’t get your argument. I admit to ignoring the repeated cries of “1952!” because I don’t know how they apply here. Is your point that if today’s teaching differs from 1952’s that today’s is wrong? If so, how is that different from “I think the Church is wrong”? It may give support to your position, or not, but it doesn’t change what the Church teaches.

Or is it that despite what the catechism says it can’t mean that because it must be read to accord with those past statements?

Seems like you are making one of these points:

1. That the Church is wrong on this issue, but used to be right.
2. That the Catechism does not “really” reflect the Church’s teachings on this issue (for some reason), so we have to default to the last teaching you think was licit.
3. That I am somehow reading the Catechism completely wrong, and that your evidence of that is contained in the Catechism of Trent.

Is your argument some version of one of these?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think we need to remember that the Catechism stated that the that the need for the death penalty is rare if not practically non-existence. Even in this statement the possibility is left. Even if the death penalty was restricted to murderers, but applied to every murderer, that would still be a small minority of criminals, and could thus be considered rare. If we restrict this to those who murder and there is evidence that they might kill again, the numbers drop and rarity increases. It was only later that Pope John Paul II made the statement about modern penal systems. Of course we are free to disagree with such a statement of scientific opinion made outside the Catechism. It was not a statement of moral teaching, but a comment on the state of security inside penal institutions, a subject outside the vast expertise of the Holy Father.

It seems the Vatican is unaware of their “error”. Seriously the only place this weird lay analysis is being proposed is on this site. It appears in no articles or other Catholic publications interpreted in that fashion that I have seen. It remains interesting why people wish to disagree with the Pope on this issue. I cannot fathom why.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

random

citation, but one directly stating that the Church has changed its position on the authority of the state to exercise capital punishment that was stated in the Catechism of Trent and reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in 1952.

What you fail to see is that your premise is incorrect and no one can give you the citation you wish since it cannot exist as stated. Correct your premise and there is no further issue. Do you really think the Vatican is so incapable as to not know these things before you point them out?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Why are you so hung up on the Catechism of Trent? I thought we were discussing what the Church teaches today, now, in this year and century.

Truth is timeless. I’m not seeing to refute the CCC, but to reconcile its reading with the rest of the deposit of faith. Since the Church has already taught some specific things about the authority of the state and the reasons it may legitimately utilize capital punishment, one must interpret current guides within the boundaries that have already been defined. I know I’ve already mentioned that one cannot read current documents in a vacuum as if the prior teachings did not exist to guide and direct our reading, and I think you’d agree with that in general, so why the exception for this issue?.

Let us assume that the current teaching cannot be reconclied with Trent, what would that prove to you?

Hypothetically, at that point, we would go back to Vatican I, in which the bishops in union with the pope declared that new teachings that had no basis in the deposit of sacred tradition were not protected by the office of papal authority. If the pope were to release an enclycial tomorrow invoking the papal office but declaring that only rice cakes and blackberry juice consecrated by a woman priest constituted the proper elements for the Eucharist to be validly confected, we’d be free, even obliged, to dutifully ignore it as being at odds with what was found in the deposit of Sacred Tradition, whether or not that pope simultaneously promulgated a version of the CCC containing modifications to that effect. An extreme example to make a point, one the fathers of Vatican I had the foresight to codify: the pope cannot arbitrarily edit out parts of the deposit of faith that conflict with his personal opinion, as that has been infallibly declared to not be within the authority of his office.

However, that is unnecessary in this case, as just a quick glance back and the still current status of Church teaching about the authority of the State under Natural Law reveals that it remains as it was, even in the new CCC, with no recent statements even indicating a formal intent to change it, thus the only possible interpretation based on what the Church has taught formally is that the post-EV modifications to 2267 must be a prudential guide but not actually binding, since the Church still formally teaches that the authority to make decision actually belongs to the civil authority.

I frankly don’t know if they can or cannot, but either way the CCC is the current teaching of the Church, isn’t it?

This is where the “legitimate diversity” language comes in. Forming one’s beliefs around what is actually stated in the CCC is not going to lead on into direct theological error. However, the position stated in 2267 is just part of a broader range of personal opinions that a Catholic may hold in good conscience because the Church is clear that decision falls within the realm of civil authority. The CCC doesn’t actually put forth a new limit on civil authority, that is the part you are having to read in based on your presumption that 2267 must be universally binding.

I truly don’t get your argument. I admit to ignoring the repeated cries of “1952!” because I don’t know how they apply here. Is your point that if today’s teaching differs from 1952’s that today’s is wrong?

It was to point out that Truth is timeless. What was true at Trent and in 1952 is true today, or else the Catholic Church has no claim to authority at all.

Or is it that despite what the catechism says it can’t mean that because it must be read to accord with those past statements?

Nothing in the CCC directly states that the authority of the state to legitimately inflict the DP has been abridged. You are having to read that presumption into 2267 in order to declare that JP II’s personal opinions found there are binding on the faithful.

1. That I am somehow reading the Catechism completely wrong, and that your evidence of that is contained in the Catechism of Trent.

Is your argument some version of one of these?

More or less #3. The CCC has to be read in tandem with the rest of the deposit of Sacred Tradition, period. As I mentioned before, the clock didn’t reset at the end of Vatican II, practices changed but the teachings remained in full force. It is also not just the Catechism of Trent I’ve been citing, but a broad and diverse range spanning a thousand years or more, leading at least right up to the doorstep of Vatican II. Your position seems to have its foundation poured with the release of EV but not a scrap of basis in Church teaching before that time on the points where we diverge.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I thought I’d posted this earlier, but had too many tabs open and it was hiding waiting on my attempt to proof-read it.

If you go to CA and their apologetics library you can find some sense of where this argument comes from.

I have a link to one of the relevant entries from the CA library up in post 47, along with a link to a separate article by their staff apologist.

It remains the usual parsing of documents to get them to agree with you.

Tell me, what in the entire Catechism of Trent agrees with you where we diverge with regard to the authority of the state on this issue? The writings of the Doctors of the Church? Sacred Scripture? How about the original version of the CCC? Anything at all prior to EV’s release? …Didn’t think so.

Does nobody at the Vatican step forward to correct at least the USCCB in their obvious heresy? LOL…

The USCCB has stopped short of claiming that the State is no longer the legitimate authority to make the decision to utilize capital punishment or not (which brings us back to the presumption that keeps being made that I’ve yet to see support for). Thus, though they (the USCCB) are standing with their toes against the line, they have not stepped into heresy, so there is no heresy there for the Vatican to step forward and correct.

You are bound to be aware that there are issues with much broader impact than the relative handful of people in the US that are much more pressing in their need for attention from upstream. The abuse scandal, bishops endorsing abortion or contraception, invalid masses where the ordinary in unresponsive - these are much more pressing and have a greater negative impact on the faithful than being slow in coming down on the US bishops for confusing wording about their authority to mandate opposition to capital punishment among the faithful, especially when the position they are advocating the faithful take isn’t heretical either.

 

[TMC]

Truth is timeless. I’m not seeing to refute the CCC, but to reconcile its reading with the rest of the deposit of faith. Since the Church has already taught some specific things about the authority of the state and the reasons it may legitimately utilize capital punishment, one must interpret current guides within the boundaries that have already been defined. I know I’ve already mentioned that one cannot read current documents in a vacuum as if the prior teachings did not exist to guide and direct our reading, and I think you’d agree with that in general, so why the exception for this issue?.

Hypothetically, at that point, we would go back to Vatican I, in which the bishops in union with the pope declared that new teachings that had no basis in the deposit of sacred tradition were not protected by the office of papal authority. If the pope were to release an enclycial tomorrow invoking the papal office but declaring that only rice cakes and blackberry juice consecrated by a woman priest constituted the proper elements for the Eucharist to be validly confected, we’d be free, even obliged, to dutifully ignore it as being at odds with what was found in the deposit of Sacred Tradition, whether or not that pope simultaneously promulgated a version of the CCC containing modifications to that effect. An extreme example to make a point, one the fathers of Vatican I had the foresight to codify: the pope cannot arbitrarily edit out parts of the deposit of faith that conflict with his personal opinion, as that has been infallibly declared to not be within the authority of his office.

However, that is unnecessary in this case, as just a quick glance back and the still current status of Church teaching about the authority of the State under Natural Law reveals that it remains as it was, even in the new CCC, with no recent statements even indicating a formal intent to change it, thus the only possible interpretation based on what the Church has taught formally is that the post-EV modifications to 2267 must be a prudential guide but not actually binding, since the Church still formally teaches that the authority to make decision actually belongs to the civil authority.

This is where the “legitimate diversity” language comes in. Forming one’s beliefs around what is actually stated in the CCC is not going to lead on into direct theological error. However, the position stated in 2267 is just part of a broader range of personal opinions that a Catholic may hold in good conscience because the Church is clear that decision falls within the realm of civil authority. The CCC doesn’t actually put forth a new limit on civil authority, that is the part you are having to read in based on your presumption that 2267 must be universally binding.

It was to point out that Truth is timeless. What was true at Trent and in 1952 is true today, or else the Catholic Church has no claim to authority at all.

Nothing in the CCC directly states that the authority of the state to legitimately inflict the DP has been abridged. You are having to read that presumption into 2267 in order to declare that JP II’s personal opinions found there are binding on the faithful.

More or less #3. The CCC has to be read in tandem with the rest of the deposit of Sacred Tradition, period. As I mentioned before, the clock didn’t reset at the end of Vatican II, practices changed but the teachings remained in full force. It is also not just the Catechism of Trent I’ve been citing, but a broad and diverse range spanning a thousand years or more, leading at least right up to the doorstep of Vatican II. Your position seems to have its foundation poured with the release of EV but not a scrap of basis in Church teaching before that time on the points where we diverge.

Well we will have to leave it at that. I do not believe that anything in the catechism is presented as one possible thing you can believe, or that there is any authority at all that anything in the catechism is merely one man’s opinion. It is well know on this forum that I admit to not being in communion with the Church on some issues. I guess I should go back and see if I can’t “opinion” those things away and declare myself “100% Catholic”.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I guess I should go back and see if I can’t “opinion” those things away and declare myself “100% Catholic”.

Your tone on this is strange, in a way that makes me think you are trying to take a situation where the Church has declared it does not have the authority to bind the faithful to a certain position and try to apply that to a situation where it does have that authority. We certainly don’t have more authority than the pope or local bishops conferences to edit out the parts of the deposit of faith that don’t sit well with us personally.

 

[pnewton]

It seems the Vatican is unaware of their “error”. Seriously the only place this weird lay analysis is being proposed is on this site.

Really? I have seen it elsewhere and heard it from many, including a couple of bishops and Fr. Corapi. They all agree with the CCC that the wording does allow for the possibility of the death penalty. I am no where nearly as educated and learned as JP II, but in this one area, I believe I am in better postition to judge the effectiveness of American jails and prisons. I have really searched to see if any research at all has ever gone into the CCC on the subject or the USCCB statements. I have never found one bit. All I could find is that they rely on common knowledge. This type of knowledge is basically what we glean from the media and can be way off base. Now if someone could find something I never did where the Vatican or the USCCB actually researched their statements beyond the theological principles and into the application of them, then that would be something.

By the way, it is probably not best to get off on the wrong foot by using terms like “weird analysis”. Best to let such things slide. Also, I do not want to disagree with the Vatican at all. I have taken this variant postition as my responsibility to understand better why the Church’s teaching has changed. I can not find a valid reason. The closest I get is that they have faith in the modern penal system. I know that this faith is misplaced. Until I change or the Church changed back, I will be open to new evidence they have.

 

[Filius99993]

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. This is not church teaching at this time however, but it is the clear import of various statements by both JPII and Benedict and is the clear statement of the USCCB.

I generally make this argument. First there is no proof after many many years that shows that executing people in any way reduces murder or other serious crimes. The DP thus is a purely punishment choice. If one believes that every sinner can repent and be saved, who are we as human creatures to upset God’s desire? To execute means we do not feel that there is any redeeming value in some human life, and we usurp the power of God in destroying that life. Such persons, if dangerous, can be securely kept from society. In addition it is vastly cheaper to keep a person in prison than to execute him/her. It requires about a million dollars to do this. Most all civilized countries have already abandoned the DP. Why are we not leading the world? It demeans me as a human to be made a party of such barbarity by my govt. Mostly it is not right to parse life issues in this manner, making subjective determinations that some are worthy of life while others are not. HOpe this helps.

For once, I agree with you. Yeah, we really should oppose the Death Penalty… the Catechism states that the only time the Death Penalty is to be permitted is when there is no other way to stop the criminal from killing people… that rarely happens. Same with abortion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I

Tell me, what in the entire Catechism of Trent agrees with you where we diverge with regard to the authority of the state on this issue? The writings of the Doctors of the Church? Sacred Scripture? How about the original version of the CCC? Anything at all prior to EV’s release? …Didn’t think so.

You see, I had no idea what the Church taught on this issue, so I researched it. I have no particular interest in how the Catechism of Trent is reconciled if it is at all. I trust that those in position of authority know what they are doing in regards to reconciling their statements with previous statements. I am no expert, and that is the point to me. They are. You aren’t. If the Church is quite clearly saying it essentially opposes the DP today, I assume they know that that does not conflict with older teachings. yet in every disagreement wherein the Church takes a “liberal” stand, conservative Catholics always claim the real teaching is something that was announced hundreds of years ago and has never “formally” been recinded. I think its just the usual cafeterial selection…except sometimes its not the liberal factions in the Church that are doing the picking and rejecting.

The USCCB has stopped short of claiming that the State is no longer the legitimate authority to make the decision to utilize capital punishment or not (which brings us back to the presumption that keeps being made that I’ve yet to see support for). Thus, though they (the USCCB) are standing with their toes against the line, they have not stepped into heresy, so there is no heresy there for the Vatican to step forward and correct.

I have not been able to bring up the full document so far, since it locks my computer every time. I’ll keep trying. The USCCB supporting documents make no such parsing. So I cannot really comment on how they have stopped short of anything. I remain confused why one works so hard to find a way to support the DP.

You are bound to be aware that there are issues with much broader impact than the relative handful of people in the US that are much more pressing in their need for attention from upstream. The abuse scandal, bishops endorsing abortion or contraception, invalid masses where the ordinary in unresponsive - these are much more pressing and have a greater negative impact on the faithful than being slow in coming down on the US bishops for confusing wording about their authority to mandate opposition to capital punishment among the faithful, especially when the position they are advocating the faithful take isn’t heretical either.

I’m not convinced that nobody at the Vatican has the “Time” to check out the USCCB stand. They claim they have had it for 25 years…LOL…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Really? I have seen it elsewhere and heard it from many, including a couple of bishops and Fr. Corapi. They all agree with the CCC that the wording does allow for the possibility of the death penalty. I am no where nearly as educated and learned as JP II, but in this one area, I believe I am in better postition to judge the effectiveness of American jails and prisons. I have really searched to see if any research at all has ever gone into the CCC on the subject or the USCCB statements. I have never found one bit. All I could find is that they rely on common knowledge. This type of knowledge is basically what we glean from the media and can be way off base. Now if someone could find something I never did where the Vatican or the USCCB actually researched their statements beyond the theological principles and into the application of them, then that would be something.

I agree completely that the CCC says just that. It has been interpreted by both JPII and Benedict and both have suggested that the DP cannot any longer be supported. The USCCB agrees.
? If you believe in the dignity of the human from conception to natural death, it would seen an odd position to claim that the Vatican interpretation is wrong. I have had a great deal of experience in the penal system as well, though certainly not as a guard. Still, there are very few breakouts, certainly I don’t remember anyone escaping from death row. I think the system is quite good at keeping the bad guys in. Start showing us stats on how death row inmates are killing each other or others in the system if you have any.

By the way, it is probably not best to get off on the wrong foot by using terms like “weird analysis”. Best to let such things slide. Also, I do not want to disagree with the Vatican at all. I have taken this variant postition as my responsibility to understand better why the Church’s teaching has changed. I can not find a valid reason. The closest I get is that they have faith in the modern penal system. I know that this faith is misplaced. Until I change or the Church changed back, I will be open to new evidence they have.

It remains a minor position held by no one but ultra conservatives so far as I’ve seen. I’m sure you don’t want to disagree with the Vatican, but of course, you feeled compelled by your conscience to do just that. I respect that, certainly.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

For once, I agree with you. Yeah, we really should oppose the Death Penalty… the Catechism states that the only time the Death Penalty is to be permitted is when there is no other way to stop the criminal from killing people… that rarely happens. Same with abortion.

Hey, even OtherEric and I found common ground on one issue. It can happen. Nobody here is evil…we are just all Catholics attempting to understand ourselves and our Church and how we fit that with God and grow in our capacity to be good people, worthy of the sacrifice made for us. We never will be what we should, yet each is doing the best they can. May we find other common ground, or at least be enlightened of other ways of looking at the world.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

You see, I had no idea what the Church taught on this issue, so I researched it. I have no particular interest in how the Catechism of Trent is reconciled if it is at all. I trust that those in position of authority know what they are doing in regards to reconciling their statements with previous statements. I am no expert, and that is the point to me. They are. You aren’t. If the Church is quite clearly saying it essentially opposes the DP today, I assume they know that that does not conflict with older teachings. yet in every disagreement wherein the Church takes a “liberal” stand, conservative Catholics always claim the real teaching is something that was announced hundreds of years ago and has never “formally” been recinded. I think its just the usual cafeterial selection…except sometimes its not the liberal factions in the Church that are doing the picking and rejecting.

The “real” teaching is a combination, not an either/or. In cases of the “usual cafeterial selection” (like liturgical abuses, modernist heresies, birth control, the church as a democracy ,etc.), the people holding the liberal / “cafeteria” view are always insisting that we should should be working only from extrapolations from unstated presumptions they’ve read into recent Church documents, usually starting with those of Vatican II, and that anything which contradicts their extrapolation from prior to 1961 should be ignored. You’ll never find a “cafeteria” issue that is based on insisting on interpreting relevant document in unison.

In this case, you’ve set your cut-off even later than Vatican II, all the way up to the release of EV, as your extrapolation is insupportable even in the ORIGINAL wording of the new CCC in sections 2266 and 2267 (that conflict is stepped though in detail in one of the articles I linked in post 47). It is you are the one retreating to saying we should rely only on the modern “experts”, dancing the whole time around your lack of any citation by the Church actually making a formal claim that the to the authority it previously taught belong to the state as to determining the legitimate reasons to utilize capital punishment.

Of course, the reason you cannot find such a formal statement to back up your presumption is that the Church cannot say that what was once a true teaching is now false and what was once a false teaching is now true - that is what the protections of the Holy Spirit are all about in the end.

I have not been able to bring up the full document so far, since it locks my computer every time. I’ll keep trying. The USCCB supporting documents make no such parsing. So I cannot really comment on how they have stopped short of anything. I remain confused why one works so hard to find a way to support the DP.

Just to point out, the stuff that comes out of the USCCB committees rather than the full body has no binding authority on US Catholics at all, and actually has a track record of being quite questionable or even dangerous to the faith (e.g. The re was a document a few years back from a USCCB committee saying that it was theologically inappropriate to try to convert Jews to a belief in Christ - of course, that goal happens to have been the original mission of Jesus, and I rather doubt that committee outranked God on determining what was theologically appropriate. The Vatican did step in on that one, but then they were proposing outright heresy in that case.).

I’m not convinced that nobody at the Vatican has the “Time” to check out the USCCB stand. They claim they have had it for 25 years…LOL…

If you insist on continuing to overstate to try to create a straw man to laugh at, I can’t stop you from doing so, but it is not me that looks silly when you are trying to force such a stretch.

 

[iamrefreshed]

No matter what anyone says the CCC allows for the use of the death penalty.

Just because 2 popes and the USCCB don’t want it used does not change church teaching.

When the Pope wants to change that he will.

Until then, DP IS allowed by the church.

I still pray we end its use but I won’t question someone’s faith by trying to shame them into believing they are not following church teachings. That’s just wrong and sad.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No matter what anyone says the CCC allows for the use of the death penalty.

Just because 2 popes and the USCCB don’t want it used does not change church teaching.

When the Pope wants to change that he will.

Until then, DP IS allowed by the church.

I still pray we end its use but I won’t question someone’s faith by trying to shame them into believing they are not following church teachings. That’s just wrong and sad.

The CCC has always and will always allow for the death penalty, there is no change. The Popes and Bishops statement is to remind the faithfully the correct use of the death penalty is becoming rare because the ability to protect the innocent is achievable by alternative means. The CCC has always based the use on a series of factors which include certainty of guilt and protecting the innocent. Some refuse to believe the protecting of the innocent was the objective, which is a lack of their knowledge not a deficiency in the CCC

 

[estesbob]

The turth of the matter is that the magestrium would like to change Church teaching on allowing for the death penalty but know they cant.

 

[pnewton]

I agree completely that the CCC says just that. It has been interpreted by both JPII and Benedict and both have suggested that the DP cannot any longer be supported. The USCCB agrees.
? If you believe in the dignity of the human from conception to natural death, it would seen an odd position to claim that the Vatican interpretation is wrong.

The CCC allows for my position. What JP II did was not interpret it, but apply it. Papal authority applies to area of faith and morals. It does not apply to areas of math, science, sociology, business and many other things. In context of the current discussion, anytime the Holy Father goes beyond exponding on moral principles and into the area of application, he carries weight to the extent his knowledge in an area dictates.

It is interesting that it is actually my intense respect of life that causes me to believe that the taking of innocent life is so heinous, it must be deterred at all costs. In any case, let me address a few more issues.

You mention that death row has few escapes. True. Death row is the safest place in prisons. If we could have a constitutional amendment to delete teh portion about cruel and unusual punishment, We could treat all prisoners with that severity of control. We might make some real inroads on making the worse of the worse powerless to act out their inhumane impulses.

 

[Ender]

It is understandable that those who oppose the death penalty so adamantly support 2267 (/EV): there is no other documentation in Church history that reinforces that position. Without this section of the catechism there is no moral argument against the death penalty; the Church had consistently supported it until 1995. I have in the past tried to move the discussion from a debate on the nature of 2267 (doctrine of the Church or prudential opinion of JPII) but without much success. I would, however, be very interested in hearing arguments against the death penalty, supported by Church documents, that don’t rely on 2267.

Ender

 

[TOME]

For many years I was involved in a lively diologue with a priest friend of mine on this topic, the paradox of it was he was an advocate of the death penality and I was against it as it is exercised in this country. Reading the post of this thread reminded me of these discussions but they also reminded me of the one night my friend came out and said I was right after all (his statement did come just a few days after Pope John Paul II address of this subject).

I agree with those who state that we are not bond by consciene to be against the death penality per se - Pope John Paul II never said that the death penality could never be justified but in the every day life of human society it could not.

If you study Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI teachings on the DP they are not a new creation rather the application of well established moral principles - the most fundamental principle being all human life is sacred from the moment of conception to when God either calls the soul to himself or allows another to end a human’s life although against the Father’s will for us.

The sanctity of life must be the moral principle from which all discussions, from a Catholic view point, must start. With this starting point then we must look at how the DP can be justified.

I am sure that there are many sincere Catholics who support the DP on the basis of the sancity of life and would say that it is justice in action by ending the life of a murderer (please note the term murderer). However, the Church, in her wisdom as expressed through the teachings of popes such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI (here I include their writings as theologians) have pointed out that as the Chuch has deeped her understanding of scripture the term “Justice” is something quite different then what most people hold. Justice is not what one “deserves” (that is usually best described as revenge) reather Justice is giving to a person what the person truly needs to obtain perfection. For example, the parables of Jesus such as the “Prodical Son” or "The workers who were hired at the end of the day but obtained a full days wage (By the way, those who are familiar with Pope Benedict’s writings know he has been using these two parables for years and it wasn’t something new in his “Jesus of Nazareth”). Also, in the theological studies of the nature of Salvation it really becomes very clear that our salvation was something totally undeserved but given and if theology is to be truly who soteriology cannot be seperated from Christology thus the gift of salvation does come with the demand of a new way of thinking and part of this thought must be response to God’s love and what this response means - best expressed by the First Letter of John.But, scripture and Christ’s own words in the parable of the Good Samaritan points out that a true follower of Christ must have unconditional love of his neighbor and as Bishop Sheen would say our neighbor is any one in need and you enemy. I think the teachings of the popes from centuries ago also expressed this, this was, in regards to the DP their operating motivation - it’s just today many in the Church and society in general see the means, as oppose to the goal, as different. So with a scriptural understanding of seeing true justice in the light of the demands which comes from being true followers of Christ, then it is difficult for many to justify the taking of a life as an act of justice.

But this brings me to the stronger reason for the justification or the rejection of the DP, namely, the question of society’s right to self defense.

 

[TOME]

(continued from #99). I think all would agree that part of the nature of government is to promote the common good which includes the right of self defense. But using the principle of self defense as first proposed by Augustine and later refined by Aquinas and used by the Church from Augustine to the present, I question how those, who advocate the use of the DP, as opposed to the teachings of popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the US Catholic bishops and found in the CCC, justifiy this position using the principle of self defense?

One of the principle of self defense is to use only the necessary force to stop an unjust aggression. In regards to a human person on death roll, where is the unjust aggression? Has it not been stopped? Can self defense really be invoked by saying the person killed once so he may kill again? Self defense can only be invoked during the actual time of the act, not for some possible future act. Also, if self defense allows for only the force necessary to stop an aggression but does not allow force beyond the means of stopping the aggressive act, then how can the DP be justified when a person is behind bars?

Also, and I will use a term I know many cannot accept, but one cannot use force against an innocent person and claim self defense. I am sure many would disagree with my usage of the term innocent however I am not taking in the sense that one has been though the justice system and found guilty, here innocent is used in regards to a persons ability to defend himself. As Catholics and as humans this again reflects the sancity of all human life and that human life which cannot defend itself must be protected by the state. Some may argue that a person condemned to death has gone throught he legal process and therefore was not defensless but the I revert back to the point of self defense that only the necessary means to stop an unjust aggression may be used abd no matter what the legal process may be, the taking of an innocent life (life that cannot defend itslf) is morally wrong and cannot be justified by the principle of Self Defense.

I have avoided the question of does the DP deter crime and thus the State has the right if not the duty to use the DP because first
what has been at the basis of the recent papal teachings, first and foremost the principles upon which we should base our moral decision - and the first principle being all life is sacred because all life come from God. Also, in order to get into a discussion about the DP’s actual affects on crime would mean getting into discussion based on ones perceptions of crime statics for a given country, the application of the DP sentence and whether or not it is fairly applied to all races and genders and here in the USA in each individual State. Also what are the relationship of the rate of crime that is punishable by death to various economic factors, for example, does the murder rate increase during hard economic times and decreases during economic booms thus the economy may have more to do with the rate of crime than the DP itself.
These I want to avoid because I think they beg the true question which, again, what are the objective moral principle used to either defend or condemn the use of the death penalty.

When one objectively studies the present teachings of the Holy Father and Pope John Paul II, I think you will find that, as I wrote earlier, they did not create a new morality rather both have applied the moral principles of the sanctity of life and self defense
to the question of the use of the DP in the normal life of society.

And one final point, why is it so hard for people to accept the teachings of the popes on this matter when after all it is their ministry and thus duty to instruct us and it is our obligation as practicing Catholics to follow their teachings? After all, they are addressing the Church of today and the Church’s needs of today yet as I briefly pointed out using both scripture and the same moral principles used by the popes of the past centuries who were applying these principles to the life situations of the people of thier times. St Augustine said not to progress is to regress and here in this question of the DP I see a progression in the Church’s understanding and applications of her own principles.

Also, in the case of the DP I think we actually see the Church acting as she should in a culture where the separation of Church and State is the norm. As Pope Benedict XVI points out and as John Paul II did before him the Church must be the leven of society which changes society from within. By standing firm on sound moral principles rooted in the Gospel then we can and are being the leven Christ called us to be - what’s wrong with that?