Should the 19 year old Florida school shooter be given the death penalty?

[Ender]

If life imprisonment satisfies a primary objective then life imprisonment also satisfies a secondary objective.

That one objective is satisfied says nothing about whether any of the other objectives are satisfied; they are all separate and independent. The issue here is that what is or is not needed for a secondary objective cannot determine what is needed to satisfy the primary objective. That capital punishment is not needed for protection says nothing whatever about whether it is needed to satisfy the obligation of justice.

I think the citation you need to support your argument that the 1997 Catechism contradicts Pius XII is one in which Pius teaches that only capital punishment satisfies an objective of punishment.

The determination of punishment is always a prudential judgment, and the punishment is not always determined by what the criminal deserves.

But if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed, the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice. (Aquinas ST II-II 43, 7,1)

So, no, the church has never said that any particular punishment is just in every case. That said, she has stated that it ought to be the standard punishment (at least for murder) in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch13)

 

[o_mlly]

That capital punishment is not needed for protection says nothing whatever about whether it is needed to satisfy the obligation of justice.

That is the point. Capital punishment is not an absolute but conditional right of the state. Because the Church has never taught that capital punishment is necessary to satisfy justice but rather only that capital punishment can violate justice if conditions are not met (identity, guilt, no other means), 2267 does not contradict any prior teaching.

These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch13)

The Cardinal saint continues, “Lastly, it is proved from reason; for it is the duty of a good ruler, to whom has been entrusted the care of the common good, to prevent those members which exist for the sake of the whole from injuring it …” Sounds like 2267.

 

[Ender]

Capital punishment is not an absolute but conditional right of the state.

Is our free will conditional? Is it rather not the case that we are free to choose even if our choices are bad? This is also true of states. They have the right to choose capital punishment even when it is not warranted. The key of course is that we are all held accountable for our choices, but our choices are not conditioned on whether they are correct.

Because the Church has never taught that capital punishment is necessary to satisfy justice…

You keep asserting this without recognizing the problems. Justice is by its nature conditioned by circumstances so no particular punishment could ever be necessary for any crime. The church has, however, said the capital punishment is a just punishment for the crime of murder.

… but rather only that capital punishment can violate justice if conditions are not met (identity, guilt, no other means), 2267 does not contradict any prior teaching.

Every punishment can be unjustly used, that objection applies universally.

The conditions you set for capital punishment to be just (… no other means) conflict with what the church has always held: capital punishment is just because it satisfies the obligation that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. It is of its nature a just punishment for the crime of murder because of that, and this is not conditioned by whether or not such a sentence is necessary for protection.

The Cardinal saint continues, “Lastly, it is proved from reason; for it is the duty of a good ruler, to whom has been entrusted the care of the common good, to prevent those members which exist for the sake of the whole from injuring it …” Sounds like 2267.

The difference is that Bellarmine recognizes that the satisfaction of the primary objective (retributive justice) also satisfies the secondary objective of protection. He certainly doesn’t suggest that satisfying the valid concern for safety is sufficient to satisfy the primary objective of justice. He nowhere suggests that justice is not the primary concern, which is what your position implies.

Now, I understand you reject my last comment, but your belief that justice is satisfied with LWOP is based on the assumption that life in prison is a punishment comparable in severity with death. I don’t think you can find any direct support for that belief beyond more assumptions.

 

[Crocus]

Since this is thread started out as a poll, and looks like the topic has been hashed and rehashed to near submission
… I for one, would be interested to hear from those who have since changed their vote,
and from those who are undecided, can you identify remaining blocks to making a decision either way?

 

[tweedlealice]

Jesus would not perform an abortion or pull the switch. The church does not back the death penalty.

 

[o_mlly]

Is our free will conditional? Is it rather not the case that we are free to choose even if our choices are bad? This is also true of states. They have the right to choose capital punishment even when it is not warranted. The key of course is that we are all held accountable for our choices, but our choices are not conditioned on whether they are correct.

We are, of course, interested only in the moral right.

You keep asserting this without recognizing the problems. Justice is by its nature conditioned by circumstances so no particular punishment could ever be necessary for any crime. The church has, however, said the capital punishment is a just punishment for the crime of murder.

The Church has only said “may” and never “must” as it relates to the capital punishment. Since there is no teaching that requires capital punishment then 2267 cannot contradict that which does not exist.

Every punishment can be unjustly used, that objection applies universally.

The conditions you set for capital punishment to be just (… no other means) conflict with what the church has always held: capital punishment is just because it satisfies the obligation that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. It is of its nature a just punishment for the crime of murder because of that, and this is not conditioned by whether or not such a sentence is necessary for protection.

I do not see the conflict. There is no Church teaching that imposes CP for murder. “May” does not mean “must.” As she never taught “must” but only “may” 2267 does not contradict.

The difference is that Bellarmine recognizes that the satisfaction of the primary objective (retributive justice) also satisfies the secondary objective of protection. He certainly doesn’t suggest that satisfying the valid concern for safety is sufficient to satisfy the primary objective of justice. He nowhere suggests that justice is not the primary concern, which is what your position implies.

Bellarmine must be respected but his teachings are subordinate to all Magisterial teachings, i.e. Evangelium Vitae.

Now, I understand you reject my last comment, but your belief that justice is satisfied with LWOP is based on the assumption that life in prison is a punishment comparable in severity with death. I don’t think you can find any direct support for that belief beyond more assumptions.

I don’t claim that LWOP is comparable as a punishment to CP. As they are categorically different, I think it impossible to do so in any objective manner. The application of specific punishments for specific crimes is always somewhat arbitrary. Does the Church teach that LWOP does not satisfy justice? I think not. So the state has no moral impediment blocking its use.

 

[Ender]

We are, of course, interested only in the moral right.

Capital punishment, like going to war, is a prudential judgment, and the responsibility for making that judgment lies with the state. It cannot be automatically immoral to do something the church has always accepted.

The Church has only said “may” and never “must” as it relates to the capital punishment. Since there is no teaching that requires capital punishment then 2267 cannot contradict that which does not exist.

The contradiction in 2267 is that it now (according to you) says “must not.” “May” and “must not” are contradictory.

There is no Church teaching that imposes CP for murder.

There is no teaching that it must be used in every instance, but there are certainly a number of teachings that it ought to be used.

Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Pope St. Innocent I)

Bellarmine must be respected but his teachings are subordinate to all Magisterial teachings, i.e. Evangelium Vitae.

Bellarmine said nothing more than the church has said for centuries. That you recognize the conflict between him (and prior church teaching) and EV shows the contradiction in 2267 you earlier claimed didn’t exist. Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church, a title given to those who are proposed as “safe guides” for the exposition of church doctrine.

 

[rcwitness]

You really want this guy dead, huh?

 

[AlNg]

The church does not back the death penalty.

Was it always that way or has the teaching changed ?

 

[tweedlealice]

Blessings.
Well, back in the OT day, you were stoned if you murdered. An eye for eye thing. If it was a murder of passion, not premeditated, you could run to a certain town and live there and you’d be safe. HMMM A town of passionate ppl.
NT.
Jesus said,”I COME TO FULFILLTTHE LAW, NOT REJECT IT.” But, Jesus, on the cross, said, “FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.”
IN 1960’s, around VaticanII, theBishops decided to take Capital punishment off the table. I am strongly pro-life(over time).I was pro-death penalty. HMM! A debate w a person of exact opposite beliefs than mine, brought forth the agreement that life is life beginning and end. Would Jesus perform an abortion or flip a switch? NOPE!
There you go.
Now. A priest stated somewhere in NT, there is room for the death penalty. Ofcourse, I forget where?
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice

 

[AlNg]

Would Jesus perform an abortion or flip a switch?

So do you say that he would have opposed the Inquisition which was approved by the Pope?

 

[tweedlealice]

The church was not always operating on guidance from the Holy Spirit. That was a dark time for the church. It does go back to Peter. In the long run the gates of hell will not prevail against it but some Popes were Satan personified. One in particular is Borgia.
The first 3 centuries of persecution, there were no buildings to speak of, in which to worship.
The church was built on the blood of the Martyrs.
It still amazes me, that this exciting place to go after death helped them through their torture.
I haven’t researched how many Holy Popes vs evil Popes we had. It is a government w greed and subtrifuge.Personally, I wish they had destroyed writings w heretical leanings. We have these AHA moments when Gnostic Gospels come out. They were written after 2nd century and accuracy is in question. What did Jesus get for His living and preaching to us=torture and death! Did the apostles get a big stash of money. NOPE! Torture and death. What con was given here? Why not chart in regular gospels that Jesus married, etc. It doesn’t negate Jesus’s humanity or divinity, in my humble mind.
We are to keep eyes onJesus not on religion.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[o_mlly]

Capital punishment, like going to war, is a prudential judgment, and the responsibility for making that judgment lies with the state. It cannot be automatically immoral to do something the church has always accepted.

All wars are not just wars. The Church has not “always accepted” capital punishment without conditions. “Bloodless means” is the articulation of a condition which exists now and not before.

The contradiction in 2267 is that it now (according to you) says “must not.” “May” and “must not” are contradictory.

I did not say “may” or “must” is a contradiction but rather a distinction in historical teaching on the use of capital punishment. Because the Church never taught “must” in the state’s application of the death penalty, your argument that 2267 contradicts is defeated as there is no such teaching to contradict.

There is no teaching that it must be used in every instance, but there are certainly a number of teachings that it ought to be used.

Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Pope St. Innocent I)

Innocent’s citation does not further your argument and is in concert with the 1997 catechism “Not to condemn” merely retains the state’s conditional right to execute but does not mandate it.

Bellarmine said nothing more than the church has said for centuries. That you recognize the conflict between him (and prior church teaching) and EV shows the contradiction in 2267 you earlier claimed didn’t exist. Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church, a title given to those who are proposed as “safe guides” for the exposition of church doctrine.

And St. JPII was pope at the time he published EV. Doctors of the Church do not have the charism of infallibility.

 

[Ender]

Was it always that way or has the teaching changed ?

The church has always recognized the right of the State to employ capital punishment.

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism)

This teaching has not changed.

“You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. (Ratzinger)

This comment was made in 1995, before the release of the current catechism. The 1992 version did not contain the restriction that appears in the 1997 version.

 

[Ender]

The Church has not “always accepted” capital punishment without conditions.

We’ve covered this. Everything can be abused. Every punishment can be abused. The only condition the church attaches to punishment is that it be commensurate with the severity of the crime (viz. that it be just), and not cause more problems than it resolves. That’s all.

“Bloodless means” is the articulation of a condition which exists now and not before.

And this is the contradiction between 2267 and the previous 2000 years of doctrine.

Because the Church never taught “must” in the state’s application of the death penalty, your argument that 2267 contradicts is defeated as there is no such teaching to contradict.

The contradiction is not between must and must not, but between may and must not. As you just said above, this is something that “exists now and not before.” The church always taught that States “may” use capital punishment (without the restriction in 2267); now (according to your understanding) she teaches the State “must not” use it. Those are contradictory positions.

Innocent’s citation does not further your argument and is in concert with the 1997 catechism “Not to condemn” merely retains the state’s conditional right to execute but does not mandate it.

Yes, he affirmed a right you say the 1997 catechism has revoked.

And St. JPII was pope at the time he published EV. Doctors of the Church do not have the charism of infallibility.

First, no one has ever claimed that EV contains infallible pronouncements, but more significantly, it is not JPII I disagree with. It is your interpretation of what he said. The disagreement is not between Bellarmine and JPII, but between Bellarmine and you.

 

[rcwitness]

So do you say that he would have opposed the Inquisition which was approved by the Pope?

No. But some wrongful treatment, yes.

 

[o_mlly]

The only condition the church attaches to punishment is that it be commensurate with the severity of the crime (viz. that it be just), and not cause more problems than it resolves. That’s all.

When the punishment is capital punishment, a commensurate penalty is one in which the identity, guilt are fully determined and no other means of protecting society are available as 2267 clearly teaches. That you reject the this teaching does not reduce the teaching to so-much babble from Rome.

And this is the contradiction between 2267 and the previous 2000 years of doctrine.

Let’s be clear.
2267 teaches that capital punishment may be used if no other bloodless means are available to protect society.

Logically, the contradiction to the above would be:
Capital punishment may be used if other bloodless means are available to protect society.

All your citations do not demonstrate a contradiction.

The contradiction is not between must and must not, but between may and must not. As you just said above, this is something that “exists now and not before.” The church always taught that States “may” use capital punishment (without the restriction in 2267); now (according to your understanding) she teaches the State “must not” use it. Those are contradictory positions.

“Must” always implies “may”, “may” never implies “must”. Without a traditional teaching that the state must impose capital punishment, and with the development of bloodless means in the modern age, the Magisterium develops her historical teachings to apply to the current conditions. This development of teaching is not a contradiction but an extension.

Yes, he affirmed a right you say the 1997 catechism has revoked.

What revocation? The catechism explicitly affirms the state’s right:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty …

First, no one has ever claimed that EV contains infallible pronouncements, but more significantly, it is not JPII I disagree with. It is your interpretation of what he said. The disagreement is not between Bellarmine and JPII, but between Bellarmine and you.

If you disagree with the 1997 catechism then you disagree with St. JPII.

 

[Ender]

When the punishment is capital punishment, a commensurate penalty is one in which the identity, guilt are fully determined and no other means of protecting society are available as 2267 clearly teaches.

2266 discusses punishment in general, and it holds that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. This is true of all punishment, and the death penalty is not an exception because this is the definition of a just punishment. The determination of a need for protection is not part of the determination of what penalty is just except prudentially.

2267 teaches that capital punishment may be used if no other bloodless means are available to protect society.

Logically, the contradiction to the above would be:

Capital punishment may be used if other bloodless means are available to protect society.

All your citations do not demonstrate a contradiction.

That’s correct, and what you recognize as a contradiction to 2267 was in fact historically the case. Capital punishment could be used even if other bloodless means were available.

What the church allowed before - the State may use it even if not needed for protection, is now disallowed, because according to you the church no longer says it may be used but now says it must not be used. How can what was previously accepted and is now banned be other than a contradiction of the past?

If you disagree with the 1997 catechism then you disagree with St. JPII.

No, I disagree with your interpretation of it. I have no problem with what JPII said.

 

[o_mlly]

No, I disagree with your interpretation of it. I have no problem with what JPII said.

We banter on but neither of us are authorities.

The interpretation I advocate (besides being a literal interpretation) is in harmony with all the bishops who have offered comments on capital punishment since EV publication in 1995. In the 23 years ensuing, do you have one bishop that supports your interpretation?

 

[Crocus]

So do you say that he would have opposed the Inquisition which was approved by the Pope?

Inquisition, that was then, this is now, more to the point, it is a totally different issue than what this thread asks.

We are to apply the truth of our faith to our present times.

@tweedlealice
Jesus would not perform an abortion or pull the switch.

The comment above says rightly that Jesus would speak against abortion, against the death penalty, and to that I would add: against euthanasia. Undeniably, Jesus is pro-life on all counts.

We believe He is with us. Do our thoughts, words and deeds confirm that belief?