The "Catholic Church against Death Penalty" Myth

[Ender]

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.

One would normally expect this to be true but this is a bit of a misreading of 2267. First, note that it says that *"public authority **should *limit itself" to bloodless means. It does not say that it must. Second, several Church authorities have clearly indicated that this section of the catechism, taken from Evangelium Vitae, is JPII’s personal opinion and is not binding Catholics.

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004

*“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.” *Cardinal Dulles, 2001

It is not correct to say that we are obliged to assent only to what is taught infallibly; we are also obliged to assent to the teachings of the ordinary magisterium. We are not, however, obliged to assent to prudential opinions.

Ender

 

[bilop]

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.

A Catholic is not free to reject anything that is a statement of magisterial teaching on faith and morals.

A Catholic is free to accept or reject anything that is a prudential judgement.

God Bless

 

[thistle]

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

Read my earlier posts. I did not say the Church did not accept the death penalty might be necessary. I said that’s a whole lot different from being in favour of the death penalty. It is not in favour.

To answer a question in an earlier post about the Church rejoicing when a country abolishes the death penalty, when the Philippines abolished capital punishment a few years back the Church rejoiced and publicly praised the Government for taking this step.

You seem to take the position that even if the Church says executions should be so rare to be almost non-existent your attitude is you don’t care what the Church says, let’s kill as many criminals as possible?? That’s really some Christian attitude.

 

[BillP]

Welcome to the “Cafeteria” Brother!

 

[Matariel]

You seem to take the position that even if the Church says executions should be so rare to be almost non-existent your attitude is you don’t care what the Church says, let’s kill as many criminals as possible?? That’s really some Christian attitude.

I said nothing like that. All I said was, like Pope Benedict has stated, whether Catholics support the use of Capital Punishment in certain cases is not defined Catholic dogma, and therefore it is permissible to support the death penalty just as much as it is to not support it.

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” – Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004

 

[Matariel]

Welcome to the “Cafeteria” Brother!

I’m not a Cafeteria Catholic! (I’m technically not even a Roman Catholic yet. I’m Anglican, about to convert.)

 

[goofyjim]

The Church is not for it or against it. The Church leaves this one for us to decide. For either the opponents or proponents to discredit the opposing argument based on Church teaching is tantamount to labelling one side or the other as sinners. We do not sin in supporting it and we do not sin in opposing it. I oppose it because I don’t feel it is consistent with prolife principles.

 

[Matariel]

The Church is not for it or against it. The Church leaves this one for us to decide.

I oppose it because I don’t feel it is consistent with prolife principles.

That’s interesting; I believe in it’s implementation because I feel it is supported by pro-life principles. I believe in the life of the victim.

 

[Matariel]

The Church is not for it or against it. The Church leaves this one for us to decide.

I oppose it because I don’t feel it is consistent with prolife principles.

That’s interesting; I believe in it’s implementation because I feel it is supported by pro-life principles. I believe in the life of the victim’s right to life.

Like Pope Pius XII said, the criminal divested himself of his right to life, since he took away the life of another.

 

[goofyjim]

That’s interesting; I believe in it’s implementation because I feel it is supported by pro-life principles. I believe in the life of the victim’s right to life.

Like Pope Pius XII said, the criminal divested himself of his right to life, since he took away the life of another.

Then we will have to agree to disagree on its use. But we have to agree that we are not morally bound to support it or oppose it. That is purely a matter of conscience.

 

[Matariel]

Then we will have to agree to disagree on its use. But we have to agree that we are not morally bound to support it or oppose it. That is purely a matter of conscience.

You’re totally right. It’s just that many on this site were calling me a Cefeteria Catholic and a dissident. But it’s a permissible view for a Catholic. I just wanted to dispell the myth that the Church has infallibly stated that the death penalty is intristically evil, when it has not.

 

[thistle]

You’re totally right. It’s just that many on this site were calling me a Cefeteria Catholic and a dissident. But it’s a permissible view for a Catholic. I just wanted to dispell the myth that the Church has infallibly stated that the death penalty is intristically evil, when it has not.

I certainly was not one of the “many” calling you a cafeteria Catholic.
I don’t know if we are talking at cross purposes here.

Let me restate the point I was getting at.

First I agree with you that the Church has not declared capital punishment as intrinsically evil. As it accepts the death penalty (albeit in only rare instances) that would not make sense because the Church cannot accept an intrinsic evil.

Second, while the Church accepts the death penalty might be necessary on rare, almost non-existent instances that does not mean the Church is in favour of it. These are two different things.

Third, I agree with you that all Catholics are allowed by the Church to support or oppose the death penalty.

Finally, I personally oppose the death penalty.
Some argue that the death penalty makes no sense from a cost standpoint because the cost of executing someone exceeds the cost of imprisoning them for life. That’s not my reason as I don’t think cost should be a factor.
One of two reasons I have for opposing capital punishment is that we have the means to keep a violent criminal off the streets for life and even in solitary for life, if nexcessary (notwithstanding that there have been some violent incidents in prison) so there is no need to execute.
My main reason is that executing deprives someone of the opportunity of final repentence and salvation.

 

[Ender]

One of two reasons I have for opposing capital punishment is that we have the means to keep a violent criminal off the streets for life and even in solitary for life, if nexcessary (notwithstanding that there have been some violent incidents in prison) so there is no need to execute.

I understand this position but it completely misses the main purpose of punishment. The “need” for execution is not primarily about protecting the public but about punishing the guilty. Protection is a valid objective but it is secondary to “redress[ing] the disorder caused by the offense.” Inasmuch as the state has the obligation to impose a punishment comparable in severity to the nature of the crime - which is necessary to redress the disorder - severe punishment, including execution, becomes an obligation for a just state. This, at least, is what the Church taught in the past, despite the fact that at the present this perspective is ignored.

My main reason is that executing deprives someone of the opportunity of final repentence and salvation.

It is certainly valid to question whether a life spent in the company of degenerates is conducive of repentance or whether the prospect of one’s death does not better “concentrate the mind.”

As Aquinas said: "Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.”

Ender

 

[bilop]

The Church is not for it or against it. The Church leaves this one for us to decide. For either the opponents or proponents to discredit the opposing argument based on Church teaching is tantamount to labelling one side or the other as sinners. We do not sin in supporting it and we do not sin in opposing it. I oppose it because I don’t feel it is consistent with prolife principles.

Well stated. It is a prudential judgement.

The same should be said about the justness of any particular war. The Church leaves it up to competent civil authorities to decide. A Catholic can either support or oppose the war in Iraq (for example) in good conscience.

God Bless

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ender,

I have a couple of questions regarding some of your points, perhaps you can help me out?

The “need” for execution is not primarily about protecting the public but about punishing the guilty. Protection is a valid objective but it is secondary to “redress[ing] the disorder caused by the offense.”

While I understand that retribution must be the primary end in *all *punishment for it to be moral, it seems to me that it acts somewhat like a threshold question and it does not necessarily mean that the secondary ends would be less important. It would seem to me that in certain circumstances the retributive purpose in certain punishments could be, while still present, practically implicit. In other words, it seems that in some instances the other ends are rightly emphasized.

Inasmuch as the state has the obligation to impose a punishment comparable in severity to the nature of the crime - which is necessary to redress the disorder - severe punishment, including execution, becomes an obligation for a just state.

First, it seems to me that the sate does not have an absolute obligation to impose a punishment which is *comparable in severity, *but rather a relative obligation. It would have an absolute obligation not to impose punishment that exceeds the severity of the crime. Would you agree?

Secondly, given that the serious obligation for the state to impose retributive punishment that fits the crime, why would that necessarily mean that imposition of the death penalty is an obligation? Does it necessarily follow that the death penalty must be used in order to achieve the retributive end? Or are you saying that there are some crimes where only the death penalty would be just punishment?

Thanks.

VC

 

[Matariel]

My main reason is that executing deprives someone of the opportunity of final repentence and salvation.

I disagree. The wait can be up to 13 years before they actually execute the criminal. From the minute he is sentenced, don’t you believe he is thinking about making himself right with God? I can’t see how anyone would not be thinking of that. Life in prison, he may not think about it in quite the same way.

 

[Ender]

While I understand that retribution must be the primary end in *all *punishment for it to be moral, it seems to me that it acts somewhat like a threshold question and it does not necessarily mean that the secondary ends would be less important.

I think secondary ends are just that, secondary. A punishment that fulfills the secondary ends but fails the primary end is not just. I understand the place for mercy in the discussion but I have read nothing that indicates that the primary goal of punishment is ever other than … primary.

First, it seems to me that the sate does not have an absolute obligation to impose a punishment which is *comparable in severity, *but rather a relative obligation.

2266: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” There is nothing relative about that statement.

It would have an absolute obligation not to impose punishment that exceeds the severity of the crime. Would you agree?

An unjust penalty is one that is either too severe or too lenient and the state has the obligation to avoid both.

Secondly, given that the serious obligation for the state to impose retributive punishment that fits the crime, why would that necessarily mean that imposition of the death penalty is an obligation? Does it necessarily follow that the death penalty must be used in order to achieve the retributive end? Or are you saying that there are some crimes where only the death penalty would be just punishment?

Exactly: I believe that for some crimes the only just punishment is the execution of the offender. For me the issue of capital punishment does not revolve around the question of protection but around the concept of justice.

Ender

 

[whatevergirl]

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."

great post!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think secondary ends are just that, secondary. A punishment that fulfills the secondary ends but fails the primary end is not just.

Somthing is missing here- the proof imprisonment does not suffice for the primary objective

I understand the place for mercy in the discussion but I have read nothing that indicates that the primary goal of punishment is ever other than ... primary.

ditto

2266: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” There is nothing relative about that statement.

there is nothing showing a lack of the duty

…
Exactly: I believe that for some crimes the only just punishment is the execution of the offender. For me the issue of capital punishment does not revolve around the question of protection but around the concept of justice…

I am glad you ackowledge this as a personal belief. The problem is it clearly conflicts with the catechism. Just as the catechism clearly allows capital punishment, it also sets some standards for the proper use.

 

[Ender]

Somthing is missing here- the proof imprisonment does not suffice for the primary objective

We can start with the point that nowhere in the entire section (2267) is the question of retribution even discussed. The only aspect of punishment referred to is protection. There may be an argument somewhere that life without parole is a sufficient punishment but no one has even attempted to make it. One of my major objections to 2267 is that it fails to address this issue - except by ignoring it.

I am glad you ackowledge this as a personal belief. The problem is it clearly conflicts with the catechism.

No, it doesn’t conflict with the catechism. The difficulty is that the catechism conflicts with itself. My comments are based on 2266 (and writings from the previous 1995 years of Church history). It isn’t my fault that all of that conflicts with 2267.

Just as the catechism clearly allows capital punishment, it also sets some standards for the proper use.

Yes, that’s what is being discussed - whether those standards actually meet the requirements of just punishment.

Ender