Teaching on the Death Penalty

[Cathoholic]

leonhardprintz . . .

I didn’t ask you to comment, so why did you post this?

Actually I DIDN’T comment. That was the point. No comment.

Why did I NOT comment?

Because you said THIS to ME . . .

leonhardprintz . . .

What Pope Francis says . . . appears to me muddled, confused . . .

And you and I are not the only readers here.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Actually I DIDN’T comment.

I know, you made a comment about you not wanting to comment, on something I didn’t ask you to comment on. Which seems funny to me.

I guess I won’t comment any further on it.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Unfortunately, it is incoherent in a lot of ways. For example, it mentions it is taking into account a new understanding of the significance of penal sanctions that is being applied in most places, and yet, in the very preceding paragraph (2266) the more traditional significance for punishment is still given. In addition, death is still presented as an expiatory temporal punishment in par. 1473.

It seems something that could quickly and easily be cleared up, and which begs for such a clarification, especially in light of so many people already arguing that it implies that the death penalty is intrinsically evil.

Which is a position that I don’t believe the Catholic Church could ever consistently hold.

 

[angel12]

it implies that the death penalty is intrinsically evil.

But that’s not what the catechism says. Why do you want to read more into it than was said?

 

[leonhardprintz]

I’ve already stated my reasons in this thread. I see no reason to repeat them. Feel free to cite one and address it.

 

[Genesis315]

I tried to see how various bishops have received this. The first one that came up was the Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Gomez. He affirms the traditional doctrine:

The Scriptures, along with saints and teachers in the Church’s tradition, justify the death penalty as a fitting punishment for those who commit evil or take another person’s life. And the Church has always recognized that governments and civil authorities have the right to carry out executions in order to protect their citizens’ lives and punish those guilty of the gravest crimes against human life and the stability of the social order.

In addition, he notes:

The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral.

He then notes “from a practical standpoint” it should no longer be used.

He elaborates more on the prudential aspect–“in these times and in this culture”–while acknowledging disagreement of those of good will (there is no condemnation of those who disagree):

I respect that many good people will continue to believe that our society needs the death penalty to express its moral outrage and to punish those who commit the ultimate crime of taking human life.

But I do not believe that public executions serve to advance that message in our secular society.

We all need to consider how much violence has become an accepted part of American society and popular culture. There is not only the random violence we see every day in our communities. But we are also a society that permits our children to play video games that involve them “virtually” killing their enemies; much of our popular “entertainment” consists of movies and other programs that involve fictional characters committing heinous murders and other unspeakable acts.

In this kind of society, executing criminals sends no moral signal. It is simply one more killing in a culture of death.

The Church today is pointing us in a different direction.

Showing mercy to those who do not “deserve” it, seeking redemption for persons who have committed evil, working for a society where every human life is considered sacred and protected — this is how we are called to follow Jesus Christ and proclaim his Gospel of life in these times and in this culture.

https://angelusnews.com/voices/archbishop-gomez/catechismdeathpenaltystatement

 

[leonhardprintz]

Indeed, thanks for this argumentation. Again it falls along my sense of the Catholic faith.

 

[angel12]

I’ve already stated my reasons in this thread. I see no reason to repeat them. Feel free to cite one and address it.

Actually, you haven’t. So, never mind.

 

[Ender]

Its important to note that the official text uses the word inadmissible and not “intrinsically evil”. I think we are thus bound to accept that the Magisterium does not, at this time in history, allow Catholics to support the administration of the death penalty… but we are not bound to believe that it was necessarily an evil in times past.

If, as you say, capital punishment is not intrinsically evil then the determination of when it should be used is a prudential judgment, and the situation is unchanged from the comments of JPII. It all comes down to what justifies its use. That is, what justified its use in the past?

A lot of people have argued that it was permitted only when it was necessary to protect society, and as it is no longer necessary for that purpose, it is no longer permissible. The church, however, has never made that argument. She has always justified its use not as a matter of protection but as a matter of justice, and from that perspective nothing at all has changed. If it was a just punishment before it is equally just today.

 

[Ender]

It seems something that could quickly and easily be cleared up, and which begs for such a clarification, especially in light of so many people already arguing that it implies that the death penalty is intrinsically evil.

As you said, a number of Pope Francis’ statements are ambiguous. After the controversy surrounding communion for the divorced and remarried, and his unwillingness to clarify that teaching, it is hard not to suspect that this ambiguity is deliberate.

Which is a position that I don’t believe the Catholic Church could ever consistently hold.

This is true. The church cannot teach that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, nor has she. It is implied, but it is not now - nor ever will be - taught as doctrine.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)
[/quote]

 

[graciew]

It is kind of hard for us from other places to find our identity in death penalty.Quite the opposite,probably on practical and concrete terms and because it has been too long now since it was abolished.
Anyway ,here is data about CP.

Countries that carried out executions between 2013 and 2017:

Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Chad, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Territories, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Taiwan, Thailand (2018), United Arab Emirates, USA, Vietnam and Yemen. (Due to ongoing conflicts in Libya and Syria, Amnesty International is not able to confirm that judicial executions were carried out in these countries).

The 21 countries that did not carry out an execution in those years despite not having abolished the death penalty:

Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guyana, Jamaica, Lebanon, Lesotho, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

How many countries still have the death penalty, and how many people are executed?

Amnesty International recorded at least 993 executions in 23 countries in 2017, down by 4% from 2016 (1,032 executions) and 39% from 2015 (when the organization reported 1,634 executions, the highest number since 1989).

Most executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan – in that order.

China remained the world’s top executioner – but the true extent of the use of the death penalty in China is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least 993 excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out in China.

Excluding China, 84% of all reported executions took place in just four countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan.

During 2017, 23 countries are known to have carried out executions – the same as 2016.

Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) resumed executions in 2017. Amnesty International did not record executions in five countries − Botswana, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan and Taiwan − that carried out executions in 2016.

Executions noticeably fell in Belarus (by 50%, from at least 4 to at least 2), Egypt (by 20%) Iran (by 11%), Pakistan (31%) and Saudi Arabia (5%). Executions doubled or almost doubled in Palestine (State of) from 3 in 2016 to 6 in 2017; Singapore from 4 to 8; and Somalia from 14 to 24.

In 2017, two countries – Guinea and Mongolia – abolished the death penalty in law for all crimes. Guatemala became abolitionist for ordinary crimes only. Gambia signed an international treaty committing the country not to carry out executions and to move to abolish the death penalty in law.

At the end of 2017, 106 countries (a majority of the world’s states) had abolished the death penalty in law for all crimes and 142 countries (more than two-thirds) had abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

The Death Penalty in 2017: Facts and Figures

The Death Penalty in 2017: Facts and Figures

www.amnesty.org

 

[Feanor2]

Well, just do like many here on CAF and choose not to believe what the Church is teaching.

Cafeteria style. . . . .

 

[Ender]

Well, just do like many here on CAF and choose not to believe what the Church is teaching.

Cafeteria style. . . . .

Ah the fallback insult of those who are unable to argue the issue. You really need to be able to distinguish what the church teaches as doctrine from what the clergy (including the pope) teach as prudential judgments. Despite what is implied the church has in fact not repudiated the doctrines she has taught unchanged for 2000 years.

Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

 

[leonhardprintz]

Well, just do like many here on CAF and choose not to believe what the Church is teaching.

Cafeteria style. . . . .

If I believed it (that the Death Penalty has been declared to be intrinsically evil), I would conclude that the Catholic Church is false, as it would then have taught contrary to tradition and the scriptures. Something which it cannot do. It is litterally one of the tests of the validity of the Church. I’d just leave it in that case, as it litterally couldn’t be the Church if it did so.

This is unlike the cafeteria Catholics who openly say they believe that remarried should be allowed to communion, and homosexuality unions should be blessed and celebrated in the Church, all while remaining within the Catholic Church.

I pick the Catholic Church, and all that it stands for, all that it teaches and preaches.

That’s why this is an issue for me, one that I’m willing to struggle with. And one that I hope to be clarified. I’ve already said earlier that my main reading of the situation is that the Pope and the Church hasn’t made any clear statements yet on the matter.

This is also the position taken by Catholic Answers: The Church’s teaching regarding the death penalty are not clear yet, and the condemnation of the death penalty should be read as a prudential judgement.

It doesn’t sit easy with me, but I won’t leave the Church for a minor doctrine squabble. History is full of those.

 

[Feanor2]

The Church doesn’t have to call something an intrinsic evil for it to be seen as wrong. As has been said the Church IS saying that the application of the death penalty is wrong when applied today.

We know that advocating for the torture and execution of heretics is wrong but the Church has never called that “an intrinsic evil.”

The Churches thinking can evolve. It certainly has on slavery, for example.

 

[Ender]

The Church doesn’t have to call something an intrinsic evil for it to be seen as wrong. As has been said the Church IS saying that the application of the death penalty is wrong when applied today.

Let’s be very clear here: it is the pope who has claimed that the application of the death penalty - today - is wrong. The doctrines of the church have not changed.

We know that advocating for the torture and execution of heretics is wrong but the Church has never called that “an intrinsic evil.”

If capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil then its use is justifiable in certain circumstances, but if its use can be legitimate then it cannot be that it is “illegitimate”.

The Churches thinking can evolve. It certainly has on slavery, for example.

By this standard there is nothing on which the church cannot reverse herself.

 

[Cathoholic]

irenaeus1 . . .

How does the pope claim . . . to a teaching . . . (on) the condition and state of advancement of every criminal justice and detention system globally – in which the Church has no competency, authority, or expertise?

(Minor parenthetical addition mine for context)

Which is yet another reason we KNOW this teaching is prudential.

The Church does not claim competence to such degrees concerning the efficacy of a given prison building or bamboo “jail bar” prisons in far-away lands.

 

[Cathoholic]

Someone might look at what I wrote above in post 38 and think . . .

But the Church DOES claim competence in morals regarding killing another person!

But that is at best only partially irrelevant here. Why?

Because if society is carrying this out for self-defense, just because a guy is a murdering criminal does NOT mean society LOSES the right to self-defense.

Well the “self-defense” is still an attack on human dignity.

Yes but to that I would say two things.

1 - That still does not jettison the states right to defend itself against this killer.

2 - As Pope John Paul II stated (I quoted it above),
the FAULT (of this transgression against human dignity)
is on the perpetrator!

It is the perps fault that there has been a violation against human dignity here. Not the person (or Government) defending himself (itself).
You don’t BLAME the victim here!

 

[Ender]

Because if society is carrying this out for self-defense, just because a guy is a murdering criminal does NOT mean society LOSES the right to self-defense.

I think it is an invalid argument to hold that a State’s right to use capital punishment comes from its right to protect itself. It is not (societal) self defense that justifies capital punishment. The defense of society is a valid objective of punishment, but the extent of a punishment is never determined simply by whether it does or does not provide protection. What is necessary is not that it protect but that it is just.

Now for a penalty to be just must meet two criteria: that it be of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime, and that it not cause even more problems when it is imposed. As to the first one, it is unarguable that death is a just penalty for (at least) the crime of murder. If that was not true then the church would be guilty of supporting unjust behavior for two millennia.

The determination of whether capital punishment causes problems itself is a judgment, and it is on this point that it seems JPII and BXVI opposed its use. The argument to be made for capital punishment is not whether it provides security, but whether in the specific circumstance it is just.

 

[Cathoholic]

CCC 2265a Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.

If capital punishment is the only way a state can accomplish this, then it IS valid in that sense.

The “lives of others” the state has responsibility for here would especially be the guards and that of the other prisoners.