The "Catholic Church against Death Penalty" Myth

[Matariel]

I keep hearing over and over again, the myth that the Catholic Church is against the death penalty. This is clearly untrue, as Pope Pius XII states:

“Even when executing a condemned individual, the State does not have a right over the person’s life. The public authority is empowered to deprive a condemned man of his life to expiate his fault since by his own crime he divested himself from his right to life.”

It was also the opinion of the great philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Catechism also states:

1. 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. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

1. The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: As far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

1. Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

However, the myth that the Church is completely and vehemently against the death penalty, when it is, in fact, not. Quite the contrary. So why does this myth persist, even among some of the American bishops?

 

[CapIV]

Because JP II said that the death penalty was rarely justifiable in modern society.

 

[Matariel]

Because JP II said that the death penalty was rarely justifiable in modern society.

That’s contrary to the Magisterium though, as expressed by Pope Pius XII and the Catechism.

 

[thistle]

The Church’s acceptance that the death penalty may be resorted to “in instances so rare to be almost non-existent” does not mean the Church is in favour of it. These are two different things.
The Church is against the death penalty and rejoices when a country abolishes capital punishment.

I also wonder why you left out the last paragraph of CCC 2267. Is that an attempt to deceive?

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

 

[newbetx]

I think the myth comes from the pro-life line of “from conception to natural death.” This would seem to rule out the death penalty.

When I told my wife that the CC wasn’t against the death penalty, she balked too.

If there is no way to guarantee that the offender would not cause harm to others, then it might be a rare enough case to justify death. The very infamous might be a good argument. The guy that held up the gas station might not be. I know of no process by which the church would draw a line. It’s a fate that is left to us to determine and use our judgement whether the punishment of the person fits the situation or not.

 

[Matariel]

The Church’s acceptance that the death penalty may be resorted to “in instances so rare to be almost non-existent” does not mean the Church is in favour of it. These are two different things.

Where does the Church infallibly say “in instances so rare to be almost non-existent”? Nowhere, I believe. You can’t just dismiss Pope Pius XII, especially since what he says goes along with what the Church has always taught.

The Church is against the death penalty and rejoices when a country abolishes capital punishment.

Where has the Church rejoiced? You do know that the violent crime rate doubled since 1964 in Britain. 1964 was when they abolished Capital Punishment.

I also wonder why you left out the last paragraph of CCC 2267. Is that an attempt to deceive?

Of course not! I specifically left in the second paragraph just so I wouldn’t be accused of that! Why would I want to decieve?

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

This paragraph doesn’t appear in the original Catechism, as far as I can see online. Even if it is, the Catechism is only ordinary Magisterium, not extraordinary Magisterium (which, in the past, always favours the Death Penalty.)

 

[Matariel]

The Church’s acceptance that the death penalty may be resorted to “in instances so rare to be almost non-existent” does not mean the Church is in favour of it. These are two different things.

Where does the Church infallibly say “in instances so rare to be almost non-existent”? Nowhere, I believe. You can’t just dismiss Pope Pius XII, especially since what he says goes along with what the Church has always taught (especially the Fathers).

The Church is against the death penalty and rejoices when a country abolishes capital punishment.

Where has the Church rejoiced? You do know that the violent crime rate doubled since 1964 in Britain. 1964 was when they abolished Capital Punishment.

I also wonder why you left out the last paragraph of CCC 2267. Is that an attempt to deceive?

Of course not! I specifically left in the second paragraph just so I wouldn’t be accused of that! Why would I want to decieve?

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

This paragraph doesn’t appear in the original Catechism, as far as I can see online. Even if it is, the Catechism is only ordinary Magisterium. In the past the Church had always pointed out the need for capital punishment. You can’t just throw out Pope Pius XII, Thomas, Augustine, etc. and Catholic understanding out the window. I think Pope John Paul’s opinion was mistaken on this issue. It wasn’t an infallible statement, and seems to go against the grain of Catholic theology.

The death penalty is crucial in maintaining a peaceful society. I think it’s about time we pushed this myth aside.

 

[CapIV]

Matariel,

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

This is definitely in the Catechism. Respectfully, perhaps you need to recheck your sources.

The death penalty is only justifiable if it can be reasonably proven that such punishment would deter crime. The surgeon cuts of a limb to save the body. However, this was far more effective hundreds of years ago than it is today.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Matariel,

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

This is definitely in the Catechism. Respectfully, perhaps you need to recheck your sources.

The death penalty is only justifiable if it can be reasonably proven that such punishment would deter crime. The surgeon cuts of a limb to save the body. However, this was far more effective hundreds of years ago than it is today.

Pope John Paul II was talking about only one of the bases for the death penalty; bases which have long been accepted by the Church.

But let’s assume for a moment that deterrence is the only moral justification for imposition of the death penalty. That has to be looked at in two ways:

1. Does its use deter others who might otherwise commit the crime? Statistics do not seem to support the conclusion that it does.
2. Does it deter a repeat performance by the perpetrator? It certainly does that. The only other question is whether other means to deter a likely killer (for example) can be employed. Manifestly, killers also kill in prison and order murders on the outside from prison. (e.g., the various gangs such as the Crips, MS-13 and the Aryan Brotherhood, who do it quite a bit) So, it must be admitted that the Pope presumed a condition in which it was not possible. It is a fact that murder, for example, has a very low recidivism rate. That’s because most murders are specific to one victim only. Once the victim is dispatched, the murder is finished with murdering. However, some murderers are not finished murdering with one murder (or more). It seems the Pope was assuming it possible to distinguish among them. It might be, but it does not seem so under the present justice system in the U.S. (Let alone in the Third World, where gangs often run the prisons themselves.) Further, it seems to be assumed that incarceration can be so secure that even a psychopathic killer can be deterred from killing in or from prison. That might be possible with the expenditure of much greater funds so that, for example, such a person can be guarded more closely and with more guards and in greater isolation. But that isn’t the situation right now in the U.S. It might be so somewhere. I couldn’t say.

Having said that, I will say that I presently oppose the death penalty for the sole and only reason that JP II seems to have opposed it, (though he really didn’t fully explain his bases for that opposition) and I do so out of respect for him, and for that reason alone. But I truly don’t believe the conditions presently exist to make recidivism among certain kinds of inmates “rare or practically nonexistent”. I don’t know what JP II knew about U.S. prisons or any other prisons. But I am inclined to think he was talking about an ideal to be achieved, not a present reality.

 

[Matariel]

This is definitely in the Catechism. Respectfully, perhaps you need to recheck your sources.

How can this be reconciled with the teaching of all Church Fathers (except maybe Ambrose and a few others), Thomas Aquinas’ teaching, Pope Pius XII, and the way the Church has viewed it for the last 2,OOO years?

The death penalty is only justifiable if it can be reasonably proven that such punishment would deter crime. The surgeon cuts of a limb to save the body. However, this was far more effective hundreds of years ago than it is today.

We can see from statistics that the death penalty clearly deters crime, especially in country that aren’t arbitrary about applying it (like America does ). Also, fact that the death penalty is not Magisterium is made odvious by the fact that Pope Benedict said that one can be pro-death penalty and still recieve communion worthily, because the issue isn’t settled (although it appears he does not support the death penalty). He was contrasting it with abortion (which is cleary condemned in Magisterial teaching) and that one cannot worthily partake of communion while supporting abortion.

 

[Matariel]

1. Does its use deter others who might otherwise commit the crime? Statistics do not seem to support the conclusion that it does

On the contrary! Statistics show that, in countries where the death penalty is enforced in an un-arbitrary way, crimes rates reduce.

1. Does it deter a repeat performance by the perpetrator? It certainly does that. The only other question is whether other means to deter a likely killer (for example) can be employed. Manifestly, killers also kill in prison and order murders on the outside from prison. (e.g., the various gangs such as the Crips, MS-13 and the Aryan Brotherhood, who do it quite a bit) So, it must be admitted that the Pope presumed a condition in which it was not possible. It is a fact that murder, for example, has a very low recidivism rate. That’s because most murders are specific to one victim only. Once the victim is dispatched, the murder is finished with murdering. However, some murderers are not finished murdering with one murder (or more).

Like serial killers and murderous rapists.

It seems the Pope was assuming it possible to distinguish among them. It might be, but it does not seem so under the present justice system in the U.S. (Let alone in the Third World, where gangs often run the prisons themselves.)

I agree, the penalty is applied too arbitrary.

Further, it seems to be assumed that incarceration can be so secure that even a psychopathic killer can be deterred from killing in or from prison. That might be possible with the expenditure of much greater funds so that, for example, such a person can be guarded more closely and with more guards and in greater isolation. But that isn’t the situation right now in the U.S. It might be so somewhere. I couldn’t say.

The prison system and supporting numerous life-sentenced individuals are horrible, counting all the funds and money that go toward that. We can’t support all these criminals.

Having said that, I will say that I presently oppose the death penalty for the sole and only reason that JP II seems to have opposed it, (though he really didn’t fully explain his bases for that opposition) and I do so out of respect for him, and for that reason alone. But I truly don’t believe the conditions presently exist to make recidivism among certain kinds of inmates “rare or practically nonexistent”. I don’t know what JP II knew about U.S. prisons or any other prisons. But I am inclined to think he was talking about an ideal to be achieved, not a present reality.

What do you think about what Pope Pius XII had to say about it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

What do you think about what Pope Pius XII had to say about it?

I do not disagree with it. As I said, I oppose the death penalty out of respect for JP II, and for no other reason. I am personally unpersuaded that it is immoral.

If I was a judge deciding what to do with a serial killer, I cannot be sure my respect for Pope JP II would deter me from sending the killer to his death, as I would not likely feel assured he would not kill while in prison. I have, for reasons having nothing to do with the death penalty, not desired to be a judge. I often find myself being thankful for that.

As the Church’s Magisterium has not declared it immoral per se, a candidate’s favoring the death penalty would not dissuade me from voting for him or her. I would never, however, vote for a “pro-choice” candidate, and never have.

 

[Matariel]

I do not disagree with it. As I said, I oppose the death penalty out of respect for JP II, and for no other reason. I am personally unpersuaded that it is immoral.

Well, I really love John Paul II, but I also like Pius XII. I think the Holy Father was mistaken on this one.

If I was a judge deciding what to do with a serial killer, I cannot be sure my respect for Pope JP II would deter me from sending the killer to his death, as I would not likely feel assured he would not kill while in prison. I have, for reasons having nothing to do with the death penalty, not desired to be a judge. I often find myself being thankful for that.

Me too.

As the Church’s Magisterium has not declared it immoral per se, a candidate’s favoring the death penalty would not dissuade me from voting for him or her. I would never, however, vote for a “pro-choice” candidate, and never have.

Good! Neither have I (although I just became old enough to vote last year, and I’ve only voted for nominee so far) and I’m never going to vote for someone who’s pro-death. I wonder if we’re supposed to refrain from voting or vote third-party (with no chance of winning) or vote for the lesser of two evils if both nominees were to be pro-death?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, I really love John Paul II, but I also like Pius XII. I think the Holy Father was mistaken on this one.

Me too.

Good! Neither have I (although I just became old enough to vote last year, and I’ve only voted for nominee so far) and I’m never going to vote for someone who’s pro-death. I wonder if we’re supposed to refrain from voting or vote third-party (with no chance of winning) or vote for the lesser of two evils if both nominees were to be pro-death?

The late Cardinal O’Connor said this about it:

"In good conscience one could refrain from voting altogether. In some instances, this might be best, even though voting is normally a moral obligation. Or one could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. "

The organization “Priests for Life” put it this way:

" Where every candidate endorses positions contrary to non-negotiable principles, choose the candidate likely to do the least harm. If several are equal, evaluate them based on their views on other, lesser issues.

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.
A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”(EV 73; also CPL 4).
Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future."

In my opinion, voting for a non-viable candidate is the same as not voting. It might make me feel virtuous, but it does nothing except waste a vote that might have gone to the candidate who is more supportive of life.

 

[Matariel]

Thanks Ridgerunner, that is very helpful. I agree, voting for a non-viable candidate is seemingly the same as not voting.

 

[thistle]

Where does the Church infallibly say “in instances so rare to be almost non-existent”? Nowhere, I believe. You can’t just dismiss Pope Pius XII, especially since what he says goes along with what the Church has always taught (especially the Fathers).

Where has the Church rejoiced? You do know that the violent crime rate doubled since 1964 in Britain. 1964 was when they abolished Capital Punishment.

Of course not! I specifically left in the second paragraph just so I wouldn’t be accused of that! Why would I want to decieve?

This paragraph doesn’t appear in the original Catechism, as far as I can see online. Even if it is, the Catechism is only ordinary Magisterium. In the past the Church had always pointed out the need for capital punishment. You can’t just throw out Pope Pius XII, Thomas, Augustine, etc. and Catholic understanding out the window. I think Pope John Paul’s opinion was mistaken on this issue. It wasn’t an infallible statement, and seems to go against the grain of Catholic theology.

The death penalty is crucial in maintaining a peaceful society. I think it’s about time we pushed this myth aside.

Everything in the CCC must be accepted. It contains ALL the teachings of the Church.

I quote from the introductory letter to the CCC:

1. The Doctrinal Value of the Text

**The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. **I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. **This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. **It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.

At the conclusion of this document presenting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word and Mother of the Church, to support with her powerful intercession the catechetical work of the entire Church on every level, at this time when she is called to a new effort of evangelization. May the light of the true faith free humanity from the ignorance and slavery of sin in order to lead it to the only freedom worthy of the name (cf. Jn 8:32): that of life in Jesus Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, here below and in the Kingdom of heaven, in the fullness of the blessed vision of God face to face (cf. 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:6-8)!

Given 11 October 1992, the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the fourteenth year of my Pontificate.

 

[Ruthie]

Someone said earlier that the murder rate has doubled in Great Britain since the death penalty was abolished in the late sixties, implying that that’s the reason for the increase.

In fact, it had little to do with it. The real reasons are two-fold. First is the enactment of gun bans, taking away the deterrent that a criminal assaulting a citizen had a likelihood of getting shot. Second is the current legal climate, where a homeowner whose house is invaded by criminals can be charged with assault and/or murder for defending themselves! The government across the pond has turned their law-abiding citizens into sheep for the criminals to slaughter - especially when the maximum sentence the criminals can expect is 25 years.

Another misconception is that it’s cheaper (in the US) to execute someone than keep them in jail for life. What with automatic appeals, paid for by us taxpayers, the cost to execute one person runs to about 6 million dollars!

When a life sentence *really *means life without parole, and escapes can *absolutely *be prevented, then I’ll happily do away with the death penalty.

Ruthie

 

[bilop]

Everything in the CCC must be accepted. It contains ALL the teachings of the Church.

I quote from the introductory letter to the CCC:

1. The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. **This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. **It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.

At the conclusion of this document presenting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word and Mother of the Church, to support with her powerful intercession the catechetical work of the entire Church on every level, at this time when she is called to a new effort of evangelization. May the light of the true faith free humanity from the ignorance and slavery of sin in order to lead it to the only freedom worthy of the name (cf. Jn 8:32): that of life in Jesus Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, here below and in the Kingdom of heaven, in the fullness of the blessed vision of God face to face (cf. 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:6-8)!

Given 11 October 1992, the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the fourteenth year of my Pontificate.

But the Catechism itself is not magisterial. It is only binding in that it restates truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church.

Any new teaching in the Catechism, like the statement on the death penalty, would not be binding, especially as it contradicts previously established magisterial teaching.

God Bless

 

[thistle]

But the Catechism itself is not magisterial. It is only binding in that it restates truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church.

Any new teaching in the Catechism, like the statement on the death penalty, would not be binding, especially as it contradicts previously established magisterial teaching.

God Bless

The CCC contains a summary of ALL the Church teachings, be they doctrine or discipline. Catholics MUST ACCEPT everything in the CCC. A Catholic is not free to reject anything contained therein.

 

[Matariel]

But the Catechism itself is not magisterial. It is only binding in that it restates truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church.

Any new teaching in the Catechism, like the statement on the death penalty, would not be binding, especially as it contradicts previously established magisterial teaching.

God Bless

I totally agree. The death penalty is completely moral as far as existing Magisterium teaches.