The Church's Stance On Execution

[Everyman]

Growing up an American evangelical, I was taught that capital punishment was a necessary consequence for those that committed crimes so heinous that they gave up their own right to live.

Now that I’m in RCIA, I’ve been told that the Church believes executing a criminal is to be placed right alongside sins like abortion, murder, euthenasia, etc.

But recently in an article by Avery Cardinal Dulles, he makes the case that being against capital punishment is only a modern popular opinion. Traditionally, the church, from Augustine to Aquinas, affirmed that crimes like murder demanded the justice of execution.

So it’s not the case that the Church is officially against it, right? What do you guys think about it?

 

[AndyF]

Everyman:

Growing up an American evangelical, I was taught that capital punishment was a necessary consequence for those that committed crimes so heinous that they gave up their own right to live.

Now that I’m in RCIA, I’ve been told that the Church believes executing a criminal is to be placed right alongside sins like abortion, murder, euthenasia, etc.

But recently in an article by Avery Cardinal Dulles, he makes the case that being against capital punishment is only a modern popular opinion. Traditionally, the church, from Augustine to Aquinas, affirmed that crimes like murder demanded the justice of execution.

So it’s not the case that the Church is officially against it, right? What do you guys think about it?

Catechism:

‘If … 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. 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’"

Andy

 

[Della]

AndyF:

Catechism:

‘If … 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. 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’"

Andy

Indeed, but the paragraph that precedes it is just as important:

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.

So, it is a case of mercy balancing, not canceling, justice.

 

[Toni]

However the late Pope John Paul II said in one of his books “I have not seen a case that deserved capital punishment” and that was after Ted Bundy etc. My feeling if you fight for life then fight for all life. Capital Punishment costs the tax payers so much more money than keeping them in prison for life.
Note: Just my opinion

 

[mlchance]

Everyman:

Now that I’m in RCIA, I’ve been told that the Church believes executing a criminal is to be placed right alongside sins like abortion, murder, euthenasia, etc.

You have been told incorrectly. Abortion, murder, and euthanasia are all intrinsically evil and can never be committed under any circumstances. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil and, under certain circumstances, is morally permissible.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

The CCC has been quoted and the plain language is pretty clear. It is a prudential judgment reserved to the laity.

Current papal teaching is that it is imprudent to execute in the west since we can safely jail a person most of the time. However, some individuals can not be held in jails and commit murders and escape and cause mayhem. Just recall the “Texas 7”

These individuals, because of their deficient reason may need to be executed for the safety of society.

 

[Everyman]

mlchance:

You have been told incorrectly. Abortion, murder, and euthanasia are all intrinsically evil and can never be committed under any circumstances. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil and, under certain circumstances, is morally permissible.

– Mark L. Chance.

Okay, sorry, it wasn’t exactly in those words. What happened was one night we studied Catholic Social Thought and watched a video on it. In it, they talked of the sanctity of human life and showed pictures of a baby (abortion), an elderly person (euthenasia), and an electric chair (capital punishment). This, of course, led one to believe that all of these things are thrown into the same category.

 

[mlchance]

Everyman:

Okay, sorry, it wasn’t exactly in those words. What happened was one night we studied Catholic Social Thought and watched a video on it. In it, they talked of the sanctity of human life and showed pictures of a baby (abortion), an elderly person (euthenasia), and an electric chair (capital punishment). This, of course, led one to believe that all of these things are thrown into the same category.

That may very well have been the desired impression, but let’s avoid the sin of rash judgment.

I too have heard from well-meaning Catholics, including a deacon, that capital punishment is contrary to Church doctrine. Well-meaning people make mistakes. Those of us who know better probably ought to correct them when it seems prudent.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[dulcissima]

AndyF:

Catechism:

‘If … 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. 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’"

Andy

I would think the possible exceptions might include someone who escaped or attempted to escape from prison or someone who harmed or threatened to harm fellow prisoners.

By and large though, I don’t think our society has shown itself to fairly carry out the death penalty. There have been too many cases where people were wrongly convicted and too many examples where the death penalty is not fairly applied.

I do think there are many people who deserve the death penalty, but I just don’t think our justice system is really able to administer it in a way that is truly just.

Also, I don’t see where the death penalty provides any great benefit to society.

 

[AndyF]

Della:

I don’t see it as cancellation, but as a condition.

“If this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”

AND

“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined,”

THEN

“the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty”

Today’s advances in security makes the current incarceration facilities adequately effective.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

dulcissima:

I would think the possible exceptions might include someone who escaped or attempted to escape from prison or someone who harmed or threatened to harm fellow prisoners.

By and large though, I don’t think our society has shown itself to fairly carry out the death penalty. There have been too many cases where people were wrongly convicted and too many examples where the death penalty is not fairly applied.

I do think there are many people who deserve the death penalty, but I just don’t think our justice system is really able to administer it in a way that is truly just.

Also, I don’t see where the death penalty provides any great benefit to society.

For sure.

Also in consideration is DNA testing. I was shocked to see the attitudes of prosecutors when the new DNA tests were just being introduced to forensics. That is what perked my curiosity. At that time 60 Minutes interviewed well know prosecutors and the consensus was that it would be too “costly” to do every inmate. So much for the value of human life. Inmates were offering their savings,(some took decades to save up pittance) to have themselves tested, and even these were dragged on.

As it turned out, these tests are being carried out in secret now, with “compensation” payouts made out with taxpayers money, and gag orders as a condition of payment, if they’re lucky. It turns out the percentage of innocent cases is much more than the 1% predicted, as if that were tolerable.

I gathered this stuff years ago, but I no longer have reference to this material.

Andy

 

[2shelbys]

This has already been beaten to death (no pun intended) in other threads. The Church does not oppose the death penalty in cases where it is the only way to protect the innocent. Contrary to what some people believe, our prison system is not the wonderfully effective protection the Church seeks. It is not even close. A perfect example is the case of Clarence Ray Allen. While on death row in California he ordered the murder of three young people who he thought might be called to testify against him in further proceedings. If his life had not been prolonged for so long those three innocent teenagers would not have been murdered. And I will not even go into the fact that over 85% of the convicted murderers who are released kill again WITHIN ONE YEAR of release or that roughly the same percentage of all murders are committed by repeat offenders. The undeniable fact is that there are people in our society who will continue to kill until they are killed. To deny this is to ignore reality.

To say that the Church opposes the death penalty is simply wrong. To say that there are no cases where it is necessary is simply wrong. To say that we end up executing people who do not meet the church criteria of being a threat is of course true, but that does not make them innocent and what part of our government does follow Church teaching?

 

[wjp984]

is it alright to support the death penalty if you only think of it as revenge. For the first 20 years of my life I have been all for the death penalty but have recently questioned my stance on it. If it would be morally alright to support it for the aspect of jsutice and revenge then I can keep supporting it but if that is not morally right then I would have to no longer support it.

 

[mlchance]

wjp984:

is it alright to support the death penalty if you only think of it as revenge.

If you want to oppose the death penalty, you may. If you want to not oppose the death penalty, you may.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[FightingFat]

I oppose the death penalty. Historically, in some instances it has been seen as the only way to protect innocents from violent murderers. We have better options today so killing people is wrong.

 

[Donna_P]

Capital Punishment, when there is inadequate means of makeing sure the criminal will not be a harm to society is justified.

However, in America, we have th means to keep criminals locked up. It is then our duty as Christians to allow everyone a chance to have a change of heart and ask for forgiveness. We are all called to help each other attain heaven. How is that possible if we kill the criminal before he/she has a chance to redeem themselves with remorse and confession?

 

[mikew262]

mlchance:

You have been told incorrectly. Abortion, murder, and euthanasia are all intrinsically evil and can never be committed under any circumstances. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil and, under certain circumstances, is morally permissible.

– Mark L. Chance.

Concerning your statement on CP, is this written down somewhere or is it your opinion?

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Concerning your statement on CP, is this written down somewhere or is it your opinion?

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.

This CCC paragraph would suggest that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil but could be employed in certain circumstances that in the U.S. should be rare. Capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil (meaning impossible to do under any circumstance at any time). Versus abortion, euthanasia and murder that are intrinsic evil and are immoral under any circumstance at any time.

 

[Della]

mikew262:

Concerning your statement on CP, is this written down somewhere or is it your opinion?

If you are referring to the permissibility of the death penalty, see post #3.

As for the intrinsic evil of abortion and euthanasia, see these links within the online Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Della]

Flaws in our justice system are not impediments to applying the death penalty if all that can be reasonably be done to assure only guilty people are executed is done. But, to expect perfection in this world is unrealistic and not necessary, if everything humanly possible is done to try to bring about true justice that is all we can hope for.

The issue really isn’t about our justice system but whether or not governments have the right to apply the death penalty in those cases that deserve it.

The state cannot punish offenders in the next life. The only part they can exact justice upon is the physical part of the person. It is the duty of the state to ensure justice for its people, and ours does it better than most. The state has to have justice to satisfy the law, but it can show mercy and usually does. There are thousands who spend only a few years in prison after killing another human being. Only those who deliberately and with malice kill others ought to get the death penalty, under the conditions I cited above, for the overall good of society and the protection of our citizens.

The Church has not and will not tell the state that it cannot apply the death penalty because it isn’t true–that is the crux of the matter when all is said and done.