Reconciling Two Stances: The Death Penalty

[SimonC]

As a Catholic and a conservative, I find myself struggling to reconcile two stances on the death penalty.

On one hand, Pope Francis has changed the Catechism to say that the death penalty is inadmissible in any circumstance because human life still has dignity, even if the most serious of crimes are committed.

On the other hand, what good does that do for society? I completely agree that human life must always be dignified, but I don’t see how eliminating the death penalty could do so to the fullest extent. While eliminating the death penalty does preserve the life, and hence, the dignity, of a murderer, what if the murderer is sentenced to life in jail and is either released early or escapes? If I had to guess, I’d say that once he’s out, he’s gonna keep killing people and he won’t stop… that exposes him to the possibility of being killed in a confrontation. The Catechism does say that as long as killing is not the INTENTION, then killing someone in self-defense or defense of someone else in grave danger is permissible; the death penalty could keep far more people from even the possibility of being killed.

How do we, as Catholics, reconcile these two stances? On one hand, eliminating the death penalty can give even the most serious sinners a second chance like God always does… but there’s always the chance that they ignore God’s offer for forgiveness.

 

[TheLittleLady]

On one hand, eliminating the death penalty can give even the most serious sinners a second chance like God always does… but there’s always the chance that they ignore God’s offer for forgiveness.

Any one of us sinners can remain unrepentant. That does not diminish our innate human dignity.

 

[Beryllos]

On one hand, … On the other hand, …

Looks like you’ve examined it well.

How do we, as Catholics, reconcile these two stances?

Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that there are only two possibilities: life in prison or the death penalty. If the crime is serious enough to consider the death penalty, then parole can be ruled out. If prisons are designed and managed well, escape is all but impossible.

With those assumptions, how does it compare morally?

 

[SimonC]

You do have a point. Maybe my image is fogged by poorly run prisons in some of the inner cities.

 

[MikeInVA]

I have two issues with the current teaching. First, the idea that a criminal can be housed such that escape is impossible has been proven wrong time and again, from the Mexican drug lord digging out to the prisoners escaping from Alcatraz. Second, either it is morally acceptable for a state to execute a prisoner or it is not morally acceptable. Conditional morals are not true morals. I also wonder how this new teaching squares with 2000+ years of Church teaching - that a state has the authority to execute certain criminals? Was the Church wrong?

 

[kapp19]

A lawfully deputed authority may in fact INTEND TO KILL a lawfully convicted criminal for a proportionate crime - even without the “risk of further harm” by the criminal - as this is only one of several principles which allows for capital punishment.

All - and I really mean ALL - of the objections and counterarguments which are about to come in (in a well-meaning attempt to defend the position that CP is wrong in all cases, or at least used to be) are dealt with by Feser and Bessette in their book on the topic. (The blog posts by Feser are also worth looking at - as there are innumerable responses to critiques of the text, etc.)

The new CCC paragraph is terrible. There is just no way around it. It is possible to square it with Catholic teaching, but that’s precisely the problem - it’s possible, as in, you have to try to do it. It should not be that hard.

 

[SimonC]

Not all church teaching is infallible, and I see where you’re coming from. I’m intrigued by the statement “conditional morals are not true morals”. Never heard that before, and it’s interesting.

 

[Beryllos]

you have to try to do it. It should not be that hard.

There are hard teachings. So it says in John 6:60.

I think it’s easy if you consider that God is the source of all life. Who are we to destroy life?

 

[MikeInVA]

Never heard that before, and it’s interesting.

I’m sure Thomas Aquinas had a more eloquent way of saying it!

 

[kapp19]

No, I mean it should not be that hard to get what is in the CCC to line up with what the Church actually teaches. (In fact, it contains a formula that could be used to change almost any teaching you’d like… It is really awful. I give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, but that should not keep us from stating that the emperor has no clothes.)

Individual people as such may not try to kill another human being… The State is not “a person,” however, and may lawfully deputize executioners. This was relatively uncontroversial until about a microsecond ago. We can argue about when and how CP should be used, but it is a datum of the ordinary magisterium of the Church that a legitimate government can use capital punishment.

 

[Beryllos]

This was relatively uncontroversial until about a microsecond ago.

Not really. At least the three most recent pope’s have engaged in this controversy on the side of life.

 

[kapp19]

Yes, and the last two reiterated the constant teaching. It’s one thing to exhort to use it less or to emphasize certain motives, it is quite another to say it is “inadmissible” - which is not a familiar category in morals, by the way. Inadmissible HOW?

I will stay with St. Pius V on the issue - who had clergy of a certain… ahem… sin against the 6th Commandment… publicly degraded and then beheaded.

I will also once again point to the book and blog posts by Feser (and Bessette)… They go through absolutely everything - and anyone really interested in the topic simply must go through their work. Anyone with further objections… I just refer you to them.

-K

 

[puer.dei]

the death penalty could keep far more people from even the possibility of being killed.

It can also result in the execution of a person who was wrongly convicted. What is the value of that innocent life?

 

[kapp19]

The same thing happens with ALL penalties… What was the value of the 10 years one spent waiting to have his appeal? money won’t give those years back …and then what if he is really innocent and the appeal is overturned?

The justice system on earth is imperfect, but we are stuck with it. For CP, it is granted, there should be a higher than normal level of certitude…

-K

 

[Beryllos]

Feser (and Bessette)

Thanks, but I’ll stick with Francis.

 

[kapp19]

Me too. The fair thing to do is to assume that he is actually not disagreeing with literally every other pope ever. So, ironically, those who think that His Holiness has “changed teaching” are the ones who are less amenable towards him as the Pope. Strange but true.

Bowing out - I think I’ve made my point.

-K

 

[SimonC]

There’s less chance of that happening now than in the past; DNA testing and forensic science have progressed and made a name for themselves as irrefutable evidence. (You see exceptions all the time on TV and in the movies, but again… TV and movies. Hollywood is REALLY good at CGI and plot holes.)

 

[Beryllos]

Bowing out - I think I’ve made my point.

Yes, you have made your point well.

 

[Annie]

The fair thing to do is to assume that he is actually not disagreeing with literally every other pope ever.

There are certain areas in which popes can disagree with each other, as they each in turn have equal authority.

However, Pope Francis is disagreeing with Chirch teaching over the centuries. That is a problem that needs to be rectified, either by showing how the current idea is a development of close to 2000 years of the Church teaching the opposite, or by tossing the idea.

 

[Emeraldlady]

kapp19:

The fair thing to do is to assume that he is actually not disagreeing with literally every other pope ever.

There are certain areas in which popes can disagree with each other, as they each in turn have equal authority.

However, Pope Francis is disagreeing with Chirch teaching over the centuries. That is a problem that needs to be rectified, either by showing how the current idea is a development of close to 2000 years of the Church teaching the opposite, or by tossing the idea.

The thing you aren’t factoring in here is that the Church has never held that use of the death penalty is mandatory or an absolute necessity. It must at all times serve the common good. It’s always viewed it as a sub group of the 5th commandment “thou shall not kill” along with just war and self defense.

Aquinas in the 13th century stated that referencing Scripture.

Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. ST II II 64 2

That is a powerful command. If the death penalty is not being a service to the common good it is literally forbidden. And the Churchs silence on the issue of the death penalty being abolished around the world proves that point. For nearly 150 years nation after nation has abolished the death penalty for that reason. What the last few popes have come up against is the US faction claiming that Catholic teaching forbids abolition of the death penalty. They call it a divine a right not in service to the common good but an absolute right. That’s why now the Church has to speak out against that false claim very strongly. Use of the death penalty is conditional. Pope St JPII in calling for its abolition said it was “cruel and unnecessary” in modern times. When false claims made under the guise of it being “Catholic teaching” are preventing the natural movement to abolition, they must be corrected in the most serious way because if the death penalty no longer serves the common good, it is effectively State mandated murder.