The Death Penalty from a different angle

[Ender]

Pope John Paul II said that it was a sure norm for teaching the faith and was offered for anyone who wanted to know what the Catholic Church teaches.

This statement about the Catechism in general does not apply to that teaching in particular inasmuch as it is clearly an opinion. There in nothing in Church teaching that allows one to theologically conclude anything at all about the capabilities of modern penal systems. We are quite free to disagree on this point.

Ender

 

[Swiss_Guy]

This statement about the Catechism in general does not apply to that teaching in particular inasmuch as it is clearly an opinion. There in nothing in Church teaching that allows one to theologically conclude anything at all about the capabilities of modern penal systems. We are quite free to disagree on this point.

Ender

So your view is that the catechism is stating an opinion that "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.” Correct?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I don’t see any other way to look at it. The CCC not only changes when it should be applied, it changes why. Previously established moral doctrine states that the Death Penalty can be legitimately used by the state for the reason of justice.

Please understand, as I stated earlier, I do agree with the more current interpretation of the Death Penalty on the part of the Church, but to suggest that nothing was changed, when it is entirely obvious that this particular area in the CCC is different, would be wrong. Pope Benedict knows this which is why he has stated more than once that Catholics cannot be held as bound to this opinion. In addition, even under the idea of capital punishment as a matter of justice, there are still issues of prudential judgement. The just war doctrine has not changed at all that I can see, and yes there are issues of prudential judgement there as well. However, Catholics are bound to follow it.

I don’t see a change, just a development. As far as I can tell justice is still the number one reason to use the death penalty. It’s just that we can serve justice in ways other than the death penalty and as the Church enters into modern times she thinks that it is a good idea to use the death penalty rarely so that the prisoner has a better chance at redeeming himself.

The Church doesn’t change doctrine. It can’t, because the Truth doesn’t change and Jesus Christ is Truth and one with the Church.

 

[jwinch2]

The Church doesn’t change doctrine. It can’t, because the Truth doesn’t change and Jesus Christ is Truth and one with the Church.

Agreed. That is why I do not see the alterations if the Church’s thoughts on the Death Penalty as doctrinal in nature.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Agreed. That is why I do not see the alterations if the Church’s thoughts on the Death Penalty as doctrinal in nature.

So you’re saying what the Church says about the dp isn’t doctrinal?

 

[Ender]

So your view is that the catechism is stating an opinion that "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.” Correct?

Correct. Assessing the capabilities of a nation’s penal system is no different than assessing the capabilities of anything else. It is a conclusion based on an evaluation of data and has nothing to do with moral reasoning.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I don’t see a change, just a development. As far as I can tell justice is still the number one reason to use the death penalty.

What makes any penalty just is that it is of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime so if capital punishment was just in the past it is equally just today inasmuch as the severity of the crime of (e.g.) murder cannot change. Given that retributive justice is the primary objective of punishment, and we know from her past position that the Church considers the death penalty a just punishment, it is hard to understand why - if her position has not changed - justice should not require capital punishment today.

It’s just that we can serve justice in ways other than the death penalty and as the Church enters into modern times she thinks that it is a good idea to use the death penalty rarely so that the prisoner has a better chance at redeeming himself.

No, the reason given is not to redeem the prisoner but to protect society. Both by the way are valid objectives of punishment but neither is primary.

The Church doesn’t change doctrine. It can’t, because the Truth doesn’t change and Jesus Christ is Truth and one with the Church.

Either the Church’s doctrine has changed regarding capital punishment or that section of the Catechism is a prudential opinion that holds society shouldn’t use capital punishment for practical reasons, not that it mustn’t for moral ones.

Ender

 

[jwinch2]

So you’re saying what the Church says about the dp isn’t doctrinal?

If A) doctrine does not change; and B) there are indeed changes between previous teaching and the latest CCC; then C) those changes cannot be doctrinal. The Vatican did not get rid of Capital Punishment until 1969. Either the Church had been wrong for its entire history, in which case we are all in big trouble, or in 1969 she exercised prudential judgement in getting rid of what had been previous practice.
newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm

Either the Church’s doctrine has changed regarding capital punishment or that section of the Catechism is a prudential opinion that holds society shouldn’t use capital punishment for practical reasons, not that it mustn’t for moral ones.

This.

And please remember that my own prudential opinion is in line with the Church’s current prudential opinion on the matter. As I have outlined above, I favor very strict oversight and narrow area in which the death penalty can be used. However, because of immutable Church doctrine which differs from that personal opinion, I cannot say that someone who disagrees with the current prudential judgement of the Church and holds to established doctrine is wrong.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Correct. Assessing the capabilities of a nation’s penal system is no different than assessing the capabilities of anything else. It is a conclusion based on an evaluation of data and has nothing to do with moral reasoning.

Ender

Maybe, but to me it just seems like common sense that "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.” Just like it’s common sense that Canada isn’t a threat to America. While that might be more extreme, that’s kind of where I’m at.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

What makes any penalty just is that it is of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime so if capital punishment was just in the past it is equally just today inasmuch as the severity of the crime of (e.g.) murder cannot change. Given that retributive justice is the primary objective of punishment, and we know from her past position that the Church considers the death penalty a just punishment, it is hard to understand why - if her position has not changed - justice should not require capital punishment today.

No, the reason given is not to redeem the prisoner but to protect society. Both by the way are valid objectives of punishment but neither is primary.

Agreed.

Either the Church’s doctrine has changed regarding capital punishment or that section of the Catechism is a prudential opinion that holds society shouldn’t use capital punishment for practical reasons, not that it mustn’t for moral ones.

Ender

The latter. But I guess what I’m saying is why shouldn’t we agree with what the Church says in the Catechism even if it is prudential judgment?

I know Cardinal Ratzinger, now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, said:

*3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
*

But I take that to mean individual circumstances, not just disregarding what the Catechism says because it is prudential judgment.

 

[jwinch2]

But I take that to mean individual circumstances, not just disregarding what the Catechism says because it is prudential judgment.

And in doing so you are exercising your own prudential judgement.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

And in doing so you are exercising your own prudential judgement.

So is it ok to disregard what the Catechism says in 2267?

 

[jwinch2]

So is it ok to disregard what the Catechism says in 2267?

Is it doctrinal, or not? What do you think?

If it is doctrinal, then we have no choice in to accept it completely. If it is not doctrinal, I would suggest that we should still take it very seriously and use it to form our conscience on the matter, but that we are free to disagree on the matter as long as we are in line with established Church doctrine.

So again, I ask, is it doctrinal or not?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Is it doctrinal, or not? What do you think?

If it is doctrinal, then we have no choice in to accept it completely. If it is not doctrinal, I would suggest that we should still take it very seriously and use it to form our conscience on the matter, but that we are free to disagree on the matter as long as we are in line with established Church doctrine.

So again, I ask, is it doctrinal or not?

The first part of 2267 seems like it is doctrinal. The rest not as much.

I guess I just don’t understand how a Catholic can go against the Catechism of the Catholic Church, even if it is prudential.

 

[jwinch2]

The first part of 2267 seems like it is doctrinal. The rest not as much.

I guess I just don’t understand how a Catholic can go against the Catechism of the Catholic Church, even if it is prudential.

Can’t two people, with the best of intentions, read the same material, give it very serious consideration, and still come to different conclusions on how and when to apply that material? If something is not defined as doctrine or dogma, then we are to go through that process. In this case, we have the foundation of the doctrine to work from, and also have been given additional guidance that we must weigh carefully.

It should help to remember that the CCC was not designed with the laity in mind, it was created for Bishops and was to be used to develop country specific catechisms. This is not to say that the laity cannot read it, of course they can. It is to say however, that there is a level of nuance that the bishops, who should understand how to put each statement within the context of the Tradition of the Church, can deal with in ways that the laity, who might not have as much education in the Faith, cannot.

As such, if you are going to use the CCC as your personal catechism, I strongly suggest reading about the topics from older sources, in a similar fashion to how Pope Benedict has indicated that the documents of Vatican II should be read, so that you are able to put things in their proper context.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ender]

The first part of 2267 seems like it is doctrinal. The rest not as much.

2267 expresses three ideas, the first of which, regarding the tradition of the Church, is actually incorrect. It says that traditionally the Church supported capital punishment if it was necessary to protect society but no such restriction ever existed. The 1992 version talks about the traditional view as well but simply states that the Church recognizes the right of nations to employ capital punishment.

I guess I just don’t understand how a Catholic can go against the Catechism of the Catholic Church, even if it is prudential.

Cardinal Dulles addressed this topic in this context:*Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.
*Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

The New Testament death penalty support is overwhelming.

There is a 2000 year record of Catholic Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church, religious leaders, biblical scholars and theologians speaking in favor of the death penalty, a record of scholarship, in breadth and depth, which overwhelms any position to the contrary.

The very recent changes (EV,1995 & CCC, final amendment 2003) in the Catholic position are based upon a wrongly considered prudential judgement which finds that “defense of society”, a utilitarian/secular concern, not a moral or theological one, very rarely, if ever, requires execution.

This change in teaching is based upon the Church’s switch to utilitarianism - defense of society - when the teachings have been and must be based upon justice, biblical and theological teachings and tradition - all of which conflict with the newest teachings based upon utility – as utility and justice may, often, have conflicts.

In addition, the evidence is overwhelming that execution offers greater defense of society than does a life sentence. Dead unjust aggressors are infinitely less likely to harm and murder, again than are living unjust aggressors.

Living unjust aggressors murder and harm in prison, after escape and after improper release. The cases are well known and are daily occurrences.

It is a mystery why the Church chose a utilitarian/secular prudential judgement over eternal teachings based upon justice and chose to spare more murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, but that is, precisely what She has done.

It is also a mystery why the Church didn’t review the available evidence, that execution offers a greater defense of society. There is no evidence that She did.

Thankfully, as the recent Church’s teaching is a prudential judgement, such means that any Catholic can support more executions and remain a Catholic in good standing.

 

[april32010]

Well, if you carry it out to the logical end, anyone convicted of a crime that they receive a prison sentence for should be executed, in the name of “officer safety.” Is that what you’re thinking?

that is not the logical end.

 

[dudleysharp]

Catholics should inquire, why is removal of the death penalty option “preferred”.

How does it become “preferred” when

1. 2000 years of Church teachings are in conflict with a secular/utilitarian “defense of society” foundation. Why aren’t the prior 2000 years of teachings “preferred” and/or Why aren’t those 2000 years of teachings “preferred” over a secular prudential judgment?
2. “Defense of society” is, at best of tertiary importance, even within the recent CCC ? Why aren’t the primary or secondary reasons for sanction, individually and/or collectively, “preferred”? and
3. The facts support that the death penalty must be a greater defender of both society and innocent individuals, than is incarceration? Why is a lesser defense of society, which allows more innocents to be victimized, more "preferred’? This is in the context of death penalty eligible crimes, in proportionality and within Church teachings.

THE DEATH PENALTY: A GREATER DEFENSE OF SOCIETY

Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1. The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html
2. Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

 

[dudleysharp]

The current Catechism confirms within CCC 2260:

“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

“This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

Necessary for all time. Yet, the Church is trying to make the sanction all but extinct,

Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey confirms:

" . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect." (p. 111-113). Prof. Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” (p. 116).“A Bible Study”, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit, God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

For murder, there is no mitigation from a death sentence.