The "Catholic Church against Death Penalty" Myth

[whatevergirl]

As Catholics, we believe all human beings have intrinsic value, right? So, why would a murderer have no value because he murdered someone? Is it not possible he/she could be born again, through a newfound relationship in Christ? While the CCC offers insight and counsel in dealing with extreme cases of murderers and violent offenders who cannot be contained under normal means…The Church takes the stance above all else, that all humans have intrinsic value. If we start turning to the DP more often than not, we are saying that people only have value based on their actions.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

When Christ chose not to stone it was not a failure of authority. When PP12 spoke of the authority to use capital punishment he was not referring to a requirement to use capital punishment. The Catechism does not conflict on this issue it is when one assumes that capital punishment must be used that one conflicts with whether the proper standard is met for the use of capital punishment.

 

[Ender]

If we start turning to the DP more often than not, we are saying that people only have value based on their actions.

This is not about the value of an individual’s life, it is about the requirements of justice. When a person does something for good or ill he is owed retribution either in the form of a reward for a good act or punishment for a bad one and the extent of the retribution must, to be just, be commensurate with the action. This is what the Church has always taught.

Ender

 

[Ender]

When PP12 spoke of the authority to use capital punishment he was not referring to a requirement to use capital punishment.

True. There is nothing in Romans 13:4 that demands capital punishment; it says only that the state may justifiably resort to it. Nor is there anything there linking punishment with protection.

The Catechism does not conflict on this issue

The conflict in the catechism is between what is said in 2266 and what is held in 2267. 2266 says that redressing the harm caused by the sin is the primary objective of punishment but 2267 (essentially) outlaws capital punishment based on … a secondary objective without even addressing how that prohibition relates to the primary goal. That is the conflict.

it is when one assumes that capital punishment must be used that one conflicts with whether the proper standard is met for the use of capital punishment.

Capital punishment may not be needed to protect society (although even that claim seems doubtful) but surely the claim that it is necessary for the just punishment of some crimes does not conflict with 2267 since that section is entirely silent on this issue. There is clearly no conflict between that claim and what is said in 2266 … or pretty much anything else written by the Church prior to 1995.

Ender

 

[notsmart]

I just can’t help but think about that man next to Jesus on the Cross on one side, and the other on the other side.

It seems some of you feel a proper punishment is what the state will deliver here and now. When its just a temporal life here. Jesus will have the final say on the man’s life anyway.
I trust he will be just.
I don’t trust men here to be.
I agree with Thistle, for the same reasons he/she states.

Because I don’t want on my conscience a death of an innocent, or redeemable.

By the way, many people minister to those in Jail. Paul told us to in the bible right?
Isnt that a act of mercy or something in the church? Visit the sick, visit those in jail, ect and so on??

 

[Verbum_Caro]

When a person does something for good or ill he is owed retribution either in the form of a reward for a good act or punishment for a bad one and the extent of the retribution must, to be just, be commensurate with the action.

Ender,
I agree with you regarding the principle of and necessity of retribution, especially (as I stated above) that the other three ends of punishment stand or fall depending on whether or not the retributive end is met.

However, I don’t think that commensurate in this case means “of equal measure” but rather a proportional. In other words, I do not think the Church teaches that the state has an absolute obligation on how and to what extent it punishes, rather that the state, who has authority to decide and execute punishment, do so in a way that is proportional to the offense.

Absolute justice is impossible in this life, given our limitations. Temporal justice is an approximation of Divine Justice.

Thoughts?
VC

 

[Tellme_my_rites]

I’ll tell you what I think the biggest myth is, IT IS THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANS THINK CHRISTIANITY IS ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO BE PEACEFUL! Call a spade a spade! The Catechism states: “more than necessary violence is unlawful” That means necessary violence is necessary! That in turn means violence is necessary to be a Christian! How can we love are neighbor if we’re led to believe we shouldn’t protect them with the violence we’re CALLED to use!

 

[notsmart]

I’ll tell you what I think the biggest myth is, IT IS THE MYTH THAT CHRISTIANS THINK CHRISTIANITY IS ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO BE PEACEFUL! Call a spade a spade! The Catechism states: “more than necessary violence is unlawful” That means necessary violence is necessary! That in turn means violence is necessary to be a Christian! How can we love are neighbor if we’re led to believe we shouldn’t protect them with the violence we’re CALLED to use!

I took the out of context quote to simply mean self defense.
And, yes that is necessary at times.
Your conclusion is not warranted without substantiation.
Jesus did say he did not come to bring peace, but I think you need to state what your specific concerns are so everyone knows what they are.

I would like to help if I can?

 

[whatevergirl]

This is not about the value of an individual’s life, it is about the requirements of justice. When a person does something for good or ill he is owed retribution either in the form of a reward for a good act or punishment for a bad one and the extent of the retribution must, to be just, be commensurate with the action. This is what the Church has always taught.

Ender

The Church teaches though that it should be used rarely.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think that commensurate in this case means “of equal measure” but rather a proportional. In other words, I do not think the Church teaches that the state has an absolute obligation on how and to what extent it punishes, rather that the state, who has authority to decide and execute punishment, do so in a way that is proportional to the offense.

This is a reasonable argument. In making it, however, we are left ignoring 2267 since, even though that is the section that limits the use of the death penalty, it doesn’t touch on this question so we have to look elsewhere to answer it.

Clearly the Church has from the beginning of its existence held that the state has the right to execute criminals in retribution for their crimes so I think there can be no question that the Church believes that, even proportionally, execution is just for certain crimes.

Absolute justice is impossible in this life, given our limitations. Temporal justice is an approximation of Divine Justice.

Certainly, but surely you aren’t arguing that we should behave unjustly simply because we cannot impose perfect justice. I think we should always do the best we can even if we know it is imperfect, so if we believe the just punishment is execution then we have an obligation to use it.

whatevergirl:

The Church teaches though that it should be used rarely.

Yes. Essentially the argument is that it does more harm than good and so as a practical matter it should not be used. That is different than the moral question of whether justice otherwise obliges the state to use it.

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Ender,

This is a reasonable argument.

Thank you.

In making it, however, we are left ignoring 2267 since, even though that is the section that limits the use of the death penalty, it doesn’t touch on this question so we have to look elsewhere to answer it.

Could you explain which question upon which it does not touch? I agree with you, though, that 2267 is somewhat confusing. One of the most confusing parts, to my mind, is that is lends itself to the notion that the death penalty is somehow justified as defense against an aggressor, somehow analogous to self-defense. That is quite problematic, though, and to my mind, very difficult to reconcile with the traditional teaching.

Clearly the Church has from the beginning of its existence held that the state has the right to execute criminals in retribution for their crimes

I agree.

so I think there can be no question that the Church believes that, even proportionally, execution is just for certain crimes.

I suppose that would follow. Although, I’m not sure that it would only be a matter of “just for certain crimes”, in the sense that given crime x, punishment x is just. I think*, possibly*, that the calculus would have to be somewhat broader and take into account various other elements. That is why I am loathe to say categorically that the State has an obligation to impose the death penalty. . . since I could conceive of an aggregate state of affairs where it would be imprudent, and not in keeping with the good of the state or its people. Furthermore, I wonder if, although we can say the state, in its authority, may have recourse to the death penalty morally, that the state may chose never to apply it – so long as justice is not marred.

Certainly, but surely you aren’t arguing that we should behave unjustly simply because we cannot impose perfect justice.

Not at all. Thank you for not attributing that to me.

I think we should always do the best we can even if we know it is imperfect, so if we believe the just punishment is execution then we have an obligation to use it.

Yes, that seems to me quite clear. And since the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, there are conceivable times when it would be the most just, all things considered.

I welcome any comments you may have!
Thanks,
VC

 

[Ender]

Could you explain which question upon which it {2267} does not touch?

2266 explains Church teachings that have been consistent since the beginning and says two things that are relevant to this discussion:

• the state has the right and duty to impose a punishment commensurate with the crime, and
• the primary objective of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the crime.

2267 says that capital punishment is justified only when needed to protect society which, in modern society, is essentially never. The problem with this is that it doesn’t address either the primary objective of punishment or the need to impose a punishment commensurate with the crime. That is, having made two clear statements about punishment in 2266, the restriction in 2267 ignores both of them. I cannot see any way to reconcile what is said in 2267 with what is said in 2266.

One of the most confusing parts, to my mind, is that is lends itself to the notion that the death penalty is somehow justified as defense against an aggressor, somehow analogous to self-defense.

I think you see the problem. Interestingly, 2267 also creates the weird situation where, if it was deemed necessary to protect society, a person could be executed for what he had not yet done but, if he actually carried out the threat to society, we could not execute him for having done it.

That is quite problematic, though, and to my mind, very difficult to reconcile with the traditional teaching.

I cannot reconcile it either which is why I continue to support capital punishment.

I wonder if, although we can say the state, in its authority, may have recourse to the death penalty morally, that the state may chose never to apply it – so long as justice is not marred.

I’ll grant this possibility; in fact I believe this is the Church’s position today: she accepts that the state has the moral right to execute a criminal but she believes that it does more harm than good and should therefore not be used - not because it is immoral but because it is harmful.

Ender

 

[notsmart]

Do we have a wise Solomon as judge today?
Led by wisdom?

If there is a shadow of a doubt of the reliablility of the judge, can we still presume to put our faith in their decision when it comes down to life?

Do we even want to considering how they have already with the unborn?

(just thinking out loud)

 

[Just_Lurking]

We are not, however, obliged to assent to prudential opinions.

I’ve seen dissenters state this again and again, but I’ve never seen the Catholic Church’s magisterium state any such thing.

Do you have a magisterial reference that says Catholics are not obligated to assent to prudential opinions? Paragraph 2032 of the CCC seems to state the exact opposite.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks for the continued discussion Ender. We are substantially on the same page, but I welcome the exchange of perspectives and ideas, hopefully refining both of our thinking on this matter in attempt to discern the truth and think with the mind of the Church.

2266 explains Church teachings that have been consistent since the beginning and says two things that are relevant to this discussion. . .2267 says that capital punishment is justified only when needed to protect society which, in modern society, is essentially never. The problem with this is that it doesn’t address either the primary objective of punishment or the need to impose a punishment commensurate with the crime.

Thanks for the clarification. I see it similarly. On a side note, I’d urge you to adopt the term “proportional” in place of “commensurate” even though the English translation of the Catechism uses “commensurate”. The official Latin text uses the term *proportionatas. “*Commensurate” carries with it the notion of strict equality, which seems problematic.

That is, having made two clear statements about punishment in 2266, the restriction in 2267 ignores both of them. I cannot see any way to reconcile what is said in 2267 with what is said in 2266.

I think there is a solution (although I can’t offer a cogent one at this time). I have hopes that the Church will clarify this issue in the future.

I’ll grant this possibility; in fact I believe this is the Church’s position today: she accepts that the state has the moral right to execute a criminal but she believes that it does more harm than good and should therefore not be used - not because it is immoral but because it is harmful.

Right. That seems to be a sound position to take, one which gives deference to all the data. I’m not sure, though that this position (one we both seem to hold) would necessarily lead one to say that they “support” the Death Penalty, per se, if you see my meaning. The odd thing is that one is sometimes put in a situation where one feels obliged to defend the Death Penalty against allegations that it is intrinsically immoral or evil, even if one is against its use.

VC

 

[Ender]

VC - I think we hold, if not the same positions, at least similar ones. The good news is that it makes for a civil discussion but the bad news is that, since there is no great disagreement between us, there is little to drive the discussion along.

I’d urge you to adopt the term “proportional” in place of “commensurate” even though the English translation of the Catechism uses “commensurate”. The official Latin text uses the term *proportionatas. “*Commensurate” carries with it the notion of strict equality, which seems problematic.

The definition of justice is giving to each person what his actions deserve. If you think of rewarding someone for a good work would you also use the term proportionate rather than commensurate? Justice demands the same fairness whether the retribution is a reward or a punishment. Besides, if some killers already receive life in prison, what is proportionate for someone else whose crime was even more heinous? What about someone serving life without parole who kills again? In that case no further punishment is possible so there is no possibility of obtaining justice. Whether you say commensurate or proportionate I believe there are crimes for which the only just punishment is execution.

I’m not sure, though that this position (one we both seem to hold) would necessarily lead one to say that they “support” the Death Penalty, per se, if you see my meaning. The odd thing is that one is sometimes put in a situation where one feels obliged to defend the Death Penalty against allegations that it is intrinsically immoral or evil, even if one is against its use.

I started out simply rebutting what I felt were bad arguments against the use of the death penalty. That generated even more arguments which caused me to spend a fair amount of time researching the issue. The result is that I now not only defend the death penalty in theory, I support its application. I believe that justice demands it.

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

VC - I think we hold, if not the same positions, at least similar ones. The good news is that it makes for a civil discussion but the bad news is that, since there is no great disagreement between us, there is little to drive the discussion along.

I agree. Too bad we can’t be more contrarian.

Your points re: commensurate/proportional are well taken.

Thanks for the discussion. God bless,
VC

 

[goofyjim]

2266 explains Church teachings that have been consistent since the beginning and says two things that are relevant to this discussion:

• the state has the right and duty to impose a punishment commensurate with the crime, and
• the primary objective of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the crime.

2267 says that capital punishment is justified only when needed to protect society which, in modern society, is essentially never. The problem with this is that it doesn’t address either the primary objective of punishment or the need to impose a punishment commensurate with the crime. That is, having made two clear statements about punishment in 2266, the restriction in 2267 ignores both of them. I cannot see any way to reconcile what is said in 2267 with what is said in 2266.
I think you see the problem. Interestingly, 2267 also creates the weird situation where, if it was deemed necessary to protect society, a person could be executed for what he had not yet done but, if he actually carried out the threat to society, we could not execute him for having done it.
I cannot reconcile it either which is why I continue to support capital punishment.
I’ll grant this possibility; in fact I believe this is the Church’s position today: she accepts that the state has the moral right to execute a criminal but she believes that it does more harm than good and should therefore not be used - not because it is immoral but because it is harmful.

Ender

Now this Catechism quote makes it sound like the Church forbids one to oppose the death penalty. If that were the case I would have to defy Church teaching.

 

[TOME]

In the past I have gotten into discussions similar to the one here and I think it is best for me to state that I am opposed to the death penalty as it is used here in the USA. And yes part of my opposition is closely related to the question of abortion because I believe the fundamental principle of the sacredness of all human life must be for we Catholics the starting point of any discussion of the death penalty and abortion.

That said I would like to add a few commments on this issue. First, I must disagree with the question itself because the present teaching of the Church as proclaimed by Pope Benedict XVI and our late Holy Father John Paul II clearly state their opposition to the practice of the death penality as presently found in Western Society. This is not a myth in any sense of the word.

Here, as in other discussions, I have found and interesting line of thought by those who are proponents of the use of the death penalty here in America which includes (but is not limited to) such comments that the traditional teachings of the Church which includes the writings of Augustine, Thomas and several encylical letters of past popes allows for and justifies the use of the death penalty. And there always seems to be the teachings of the Church as found in the present and past catechisms of the Church.

I have to agree with those who state that the traditional teaching of the Church is that the death penality in and of its self may be justified under certain circumstances, however, I must disagree with those whose opinion says the present use of the death penalty as presently practiced in the USA is justifiable according to this tradition. The question is not whether the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI and before him Pope John Paul II condemns the death penalty in all cases (which they do not) but do they condemn the use of the death penalty as practiced here in the USA which they do.

To say that these two popes have gone against the tradition teachings of the Chiurch, I believe, displays a real ignorance of first their actual teachings, and the teachings of the Church herself ( one would just have to study Evangelium Vitae to understand why I say this).

I also find that those who are proponets of the death penalty, as practiced here in the USA, are ignorant of the warning Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) have expressed for decades but usually when their warnings were given it was towards a fundamental flaw in Wester Society today especiallly by those who have been so total influenced by the worst of the enlightment. This flaw however I see displayed here as well. The flaw is this; the inordinate stress on “Freedom”. In Western Society which stresses freedom there is all too often the failure to recognize responsibility as well especially if the exercise of responsibility seems in any way to infringe on ones freedom.

A society and the State which provides the political framework for a given society has the right to self defense and from this right should be the freedom to exercise this God-given right. However, what our Holy Fathers have been teaching us these past 25 plus years that this freedom is not without its limitations and popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been very explicit in the “What” and the “Why” the free exercise of a state to defend itself through the use of capital punishment must be extremely limited to when it is almost non existant. Again, John Paul II’s “Evangelium Vitae” expresses better than I am able but what is more important it is a Papal Encyclical and to be ignorant of this important teaching is unjustifiable for any orthodox Catholic (and any good Christian)

Another serious flaw I see in the arguments of the death penalty proponents is a sense I get of what I would say is a minimalist
attitude. Christianity is far more than just going to Mass on Sunday and advoiding sin. Rather, Christians have to be a dynamic element in the society in which they live or as Our Lord mandated we must become “yeast” or “leven” for that society.
Pope John Paul II clearly pointed out some extreme dangers Western Society faces not from without but from within itself. A dangerous if not the most dangerous aspect of western society today is the “Culture of Death”. Pope John Paul II in “Evangelium Vitae” amplifies this danger and the attitude we, as followers of Christ in response to the Love of The Father, must assume.

Extraordinary dangers demand extraordinary responses and in regards to the death penalty, I think of the teachings of St. Paul in his first letter to the Cortinhians, he tells them (and us) that he had rights as an Apostle that he did not exercise because in that given situation the better part for all was not to demand or exercise a right that was truly his. Based on the writing of Benedict and John Paul II, this is the same attitude we, as Catholics and Christians must take.

First, I think I stand on pretty solid ground

 

[Joejohn39]

Perhaps the teaching shifted over time due to new understandings regarding human life and state justice. This has happened in other areas. Church teachings sometimes shift and develop over time; they aren’t frozen in place.

Also the infrastructure of society has changed. In Classical Antiquity and the Middle Ages, they didn’t have maximum security prisons, or modern methods of police investigation and courts. I think the death penalty should be abolished on a state level because it is archaic for these reasons, and also because I have no interest in giving the government power of peoples’ lives.

Also it is more consistant with the life ethic regarding abortion and other such issues. You have more credibility if you oppose the death penalty as the outdated holdover it is than if you try to equivocate it. That whole seamless garment thing and all…