Teaching on the Death Penalty

[Victoria33]

That’s Old Testament to say the least.

 

[AlNg]

That’s Old Testament to say the least.

Of course it is the OT. Just as the Ten Commandments are from the OT. But did God change His mind from then to now? In the case when the woman was the wife of another man, was it against human dignity to kill the man and the woman he was found sleeping with ?

 

[karanzale]

Thanks for sharing.I will surely go through it.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

A lot of people will twist themselves into knots explaining how the Pope’s new directive for the catechism for capital punishment is not a contradiction but a development of doctrine, or that it is in line with church teaching. It’s pretty simple though. The Pope has issued a teaching in direct opposition to the constant teaching of the church. It is nothing more than a prudential judgment that should be ignored.

Don’t expect any answers to your questions. That would provide clarity, and teaching with clarity is not in vogue these days.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

The form of slavery that took shape in the America’s was indeed a new form of slavery that treated people as chattel, or animals. The slavery mentioned in the gospel was more compelled servitude, usually as a result of capture in war. It was not a system of perpetual slavery that tried to breed more slaves and kept one and one’s family in a slave caste for all eternity.

 

[Cathoholic]

This concept will probably eventually be extended to jailing people in general. At least by SOME people.
Especially as it concerns life sentences.

This from back in 2014 . . . .

Pope Francis blasts life sentences as ‘hidden death penalty’​

Pontiff slates countries facilitating torture and says using prisons to fix social problems is like treating all diseases with one drug

Thu 23 Oct 2014

Pope Francis has branded life-long prison terms “a hidden death sentence” in an attack on “penal populism” that included severe criticism of countries that facilitate torture.

In a wide-ranging speech to a delegation from the International Association of Penal Law, the pontiff said believers should oppose life-long incarceration as strongly as the use of capital punishment.

“All Christians and men of good faith are therefore called upon today to fight, not only for the abolition of the death penalty – whether it is legal or illegal and in all its forms – but also to improve the conditions of incarceration to ensure that the human dignity of those deprived of their freedom is respected.

“And this, for me, is linked to life sentences. . . . .

Pope Francis blasts life sentences as ‘hidden death penalty’

Pontiff slates countries facilitating torture and says using prisons to fix social problems is like treating all diseases with one drug

www.theguardian.com

 

[Cathoholic]

Ender . . .

Self defense does not permit preemptive killing (except perhaps in the most extreme circumstances)

This is what I am alluding to. “The most extreme circumstances” concerning an unjust aggressor, in the sense of defense.

 

[Cathoholic]

Some people have been saying for a long time now, something to the effect of . . . .

“We have water-tight incarceration available. And we can keep the bad guy there for the rest of his days. Unable to harm again. Therefore there is now no need for the immoral death penalty.”

.

I wonder what those people have to say now with even life sentences taken off the proverbial table?

.

I see printed just today, Pope Francis just recently reaffirmed the position that life sentences ALSO are in “the same” boat as the death penalty.

. . . that the death penalty is always inadmissible because it violates the inviolability and dignity of the person.

IN THE SAME WAY, the Magisterium of the Church understands that perpetual punishment, which removes the possibility of moral and existential redemption, for the benefit of the condemned and for the community, is a form of hidden death penalty . . .

(Emphasis mine)

Pope Francis: Former popes ignored mercy in using ‘inhuman’ death penalty - LifeSite

‘The acceptance of this form of punishment was the consequence of a contemporary mentality, more legalistic than Christian, which sacralized the value of laws lacking in humanity and mercy.’

www.lifesitenews.com

.

 

[Ender]

This is what I am alluding to. “The most extreme circumstances” concerning an unjust aggressor, in the sense of defense.

I wrote “perhaps in the most extreme circumstances” to leave open the possibility that such a situation could conceivably exist, certainly nothing occurs to me that would justify preemptively killing someone who was not a direct threat. This is why the self defense argument seems to fail: someone in custody is not a direct threat and the conditions allowing killing in self defense do not apply.

Again, one of the chief requirements that permits such a killing is that it not be intended, even if it is known the act will result in death, that cannot be the objective, but with an execution the death of the prisoner is the entire objective.

 

[AlNg]

All Christians and men of good faith are therefore called upon today to fight, not only for the abolition of the death penalty – whether it is legal or illegal and in all its forms – but also to improve the conditions of incarceration to ensure that the human dignity of those deprived of their freedom is respected.

I agree with that. I think it is morally wrong to put children in solitary confinement. And in many cases solitary confinement can be a cruel and unusual form of punishment for adults.

 

[DMorgan56]

Not to put too fine a point on it Feanor2, but there was a time when the pope and most Bishops thought Arianism was perfectly sound. Thanks be to God that St. Athanasius and several other Bishops did not just agree to go along. We, in our almost 2000 year history have been here before. Hold fast to the perennial teaching of the Church.

 

[Ender]

I see printed just today, Pope Francis just recently reaffirmed the position that life sentences ALSO are in “the same” boat as the death penalty.

Morality, which is based on truth, does not change with time or place. It should be obvious that no pope can either invent or change what is true, so it cannot be that what was true and moral yesterday can be false and immoral today. If something was true in the past it cannot be false now, so if life sentences are condemned as immoral today, as is implied by the pope’s comments, then either the church erred in the past by allowing it, or Francis errs today by condemning it. There are no other choices.

If he has been caught committing blasphemy in public more than twice, he is to be compelled to stand for a whole day in front of the entrance of the principal church, wearing a hood signifying his infamy; but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. (Fifth Lateran Council)

 

[Cathoholic]

Ender . . .

If something was true in the past it cannot be false now, so if life sentences are condemned as immoral today, as is implied by the pope’s comments, then either the church erred in the past by allowing it, or Francis errs today by condemning it. There are no other choices.

Sure there are.

There IS another choice.

Another choice is seeing the statement for what it is. A prudential proclamation that reflects his personal opinions and can change with him, or can change with new popes in the future.

Prudential.

 

[Cathoholic]

Ender . . .

I wrote “perhaps in the most extreme circumstances” to leave open the possibility that such a situation could conceivably exist, certainly nothing occurs to me that would justify preemptively killing someone who was not a direct threat.

Nothing might not occur to me either. But that is irrelevant.

Why?

Because you and I do not have the comptence on our own to make such determinations.

That is the area of the state.

People in jail get killed by fellow prisoners. Guards likewise get murdered. Prisoners order “hits” on those outside.

And when the magnitude of these (and other crimes) are determined by the state to be unable to be controlled by the usual means, the state STILL has the
“DUTY” to protect others.

“Grave duty”.

The perpetrator MUST be “rendered unable to cause harm”.

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.

And when the usual means are not working, the state has competance to determine other means are necessary.

Not “competence” in an infallible manner (either way by the way - capital punishment or NOT capital punishment), but “competence”.

Using your own argument regarding life sentences and applying THAT principle to capital punishment . . .

It cannot be acceptable yesterday, and unacceptable today.

At least in an intrinsic evil sense.

Only in a prudential sense.

 

[Ender]

A prudential proclamation that reflects his personal opinions and can change with him, or can change with new popes in the future.

Yes, that this “position” is in fact a prudential opinion is pretty much the only reasonable conclusion. But let’s understand what this means: that this position is not doctrinal and therefore does not oblige our assent.

Because you and I do not have the comptence on our own to make such determinations.

That is the area of the state.

Yes, again, it is the State’s duty and obligation to make that determination, and not…um…the church’s.

The perpetrator MUST be “rendered unable to cause harm”.

I disagree with this. What must be rendered is justice, whether it provides protection or not. I think the earlier version of 2267 did us a disservice by suggesting that it was protection that determined the validity of a punishment, but this isn’t the case.

Above all, the punishment must be just, and that is not determined by whether or not it provides protection but by whether it is an appropriate punishment for the crime, being neither too harsh nor too lenient. A punishment may well be just even though it provides no protection against future crimes, and it can equally be just, harsh though it may be, even if the possibility of future crimes is virtually nil.

The necessity for protection does not make an unjust punishment just, nor does the absence of such a need render an otherwise just punishment unjust.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . . .

The perpetrator MUST be “rendered unable to cause harm”.

Ender . . . .

I disagree with this.

.

The Catholic Church . . . .

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.

.

Ender . . . .

What must be rendered is justice

.

“Justice” and “defense” are not mutually exclusive. (But ignoring a “grave duty” can be an “injustice” in and of itself.)

 

[mythbuster1]

What I want to know is what the Pope proposes to do with unrepentant murderers. Governments don’t have the luxury of ignoring cases where people incarcerated for life murder guards or other prisoners or solicit murders to be committed on the outside. If putting them to death is not an option, we are left with life in solitary without visitation rights (which is odious), housing murderers only among murderers (i.e. condemning them to live out their days knowing that everyone around them has killed people before and may kill them in their sleep), or letting them have free reign.

 

[Ender]

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 .

The section you cite deals with self defense and the defense of society; it does not apply to the imposition of punishment. If fact the very next sentence in 2265 says this:

To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]

What is explained there is why soldiers, police, and even individuals may kill in self defense and the defense of their community. It does not address killing as a preventative measure. Here’s an example: Al Capone was one of the most powerful crime bosses in the country and was responsible for any number of murders, but he was only found guilty of tax evasion and conspiracy to violate Prohibition laws. He was in his early 30’s. If your interpretation of legitimate defense extended to punishment then he could have been executed for tax evasion; that would guarantee he wouldn’t resume his criminal activities after his release (just 7 1/2 years later).

In fact that never was and never should be a possibility for the simple reason that such a punishment, while it would provide great protection, would be unjust. As I said, the only requirement for every punishment is that it be just. The question of whether it provides protection is irrelevant to that determination.

 

[Cathoholic]

Ender . . .

The section you cite deals with self defense and the defense of society; it does not apply to the imposition of punishment.

It ALSO deals with requiring “that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm”.

They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Cathoholic]

Ender . . .

If your interpretation of legitimate defense extended to punishment then he could have been executed for tax evasion; that would guarantee he wouldn’t resume his criminal activities after his release (just 7 1/2 years later).

This is the fallacy of equivocation you are employing here Ender.

My premise was determined by the state regarding someone who HAS been an “unjust agressor” that no other way can be “rendered unable to cause harm”.

Just like the Church teaches.

You RE-DEFINED my premise to include tax evasion (the ONLY finding from the state. Not that he wasn’t a threat. But that the state did not find him a threat. At least in the sense that he was rendered incapable of causing “harm”.)

You will argue, “Well Capone DID cause harm!” (And I would agree with you.)

But you and I do not get to decide the people that cannot be rendered incapable of continuing harm. That is not the purview of churchmen either.

It is the place of the state to make such determinations.