The Death Penalty is a 'mortal sin'

[Ender]

The Church has always taught that for protection of society that the death penalty was the right of the state to use. That teaching has not changed and as I have told family members if it did I would know that the Church is false.

This is what is at stake, as Archbishop Chaput stated (post #26). There is a great deal more in question here than merely abolishing the death penalty.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)
The question you asked is valid: if this doctrine can be reversed what can be believed with certainty? (I would contend that the church has not taught that capital punishment is reserved for the protection of society [at least not merely its physical protection] but was seen as a matter of justice - just retribution - but your other point is the important one to address here.)

Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The idea that the pope with or without the Magisterium is free to create moral truth is not something the church teaches.

What?

The Pope with or without the Magisterium?

Where on earth did you get your credential in theology?

The Pope can act solely and is the Magisterium. The Pope can allow the College to act under and with him and then, together, they are the Magisterium…IF he so chooses. Without the Pope, there is NO Magisterium.

The Catechism says it succinctly

*100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. *

 

[Don_Ruggero]

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

It is nothing short of unpardonable, intellectually speaking, to present a thought in such a way as not to do justice to what the person actually holds.

His Excellency, the Archbishop of Philadelphia, in 2012 wrote for his archdiocese and for the nation the following, which I reproduce in its entirety:

catholicphilly.com/2012/09/think-tank/weekly-message-from-archbishop-chaput/justice-terrance-williams-and-the-death-penalty/

*Even when a defendant is well defended, properly tried and justly found guilty, experience shows that capital punishment simply doesn’t work as a deterrent. Nor does it heal or redress any wounds, because only forgiveness can do that. It does succeed though in answering violence with violence — a violence wrapped in the piety of state approval, which implicates all of us as citizens in the taking of more lives.

Turning away from capital punishment does not diminish our support for the families of murder victims. They bear a terrible burden of grief, and they rightly demand justice. Real murderers deserve punishment; but even properly tried and justly convicted murderers — men and women who are found guilty of heinous crimes — retain their God-given dignity as human beings. When we take a murderer’s life we only add to the violence in an already violent culture, and we demean our own dignity in the process.

Both Scripture and Catholic tradition support the legitimacy of the death penalty under certain limited conditions. But the Church has repeatedly called us to a higher road over the past five decades. We don’t need to kill people to protect society or punish the guilty. And we should never be eager to take anyone’s life.** As a result, except in the most extreme circumstances, capital punishment cannot be justified. In developed countries like our own, it should have no place in our public life**.

Last month here in Pennsylvania, execution warrants were signed for four men. A judge stayed one of the execution warrants, but the three remaining warrants could potentially result in the first execution in our state in 13 years. One of the cases in which appeals seem to be exhausted involves Terrance Williams.

In October, Williams is scheduled to die by lethal injection for the murder of Amos Norwood in 1984, a crime committed when he was 18 and a college freshman. Williams is indisputably guilty of the crime. He’s also mentally competent. His defense attorneys argue that he was repeatedly sexually abused as a youth, including five years of abuse at the hands of the man he murdered, and that this helped motivate his violence. The state counters that all of Williams’ claims — including claims of sexual abuse — have had proper judicial review and been rejected.

Terrance Williams deserves punishment. No one disputes that. But he doesn’t need to die to satisfy justice. We should think very carefully in the coming days about the kind of justice we want to witness to our young people.

Most American Catholics, like many of their fellow citizens, support the death penalty. That doesn’t make it right. But it does ensure that the wrong-headed lesson of violence “fixing” the violent among us will be taught to another generation.

As children of God, we’re better than this, and we need to start acting like it. We need to end the death penalty now.*
We give thanks to God that the Holy Spirit is leading the Bishops on this issue, as their thought continues to evolve, particularly in the wake of the historical reality of World War II and its aftermath.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It is nonetheless invalid.

Ender

There is no place for the laity to judge the Magisterium of the Church. None.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Instead of the words right and wrong substitute the words moral and immoral.

That is correct. The purview of the Magisterium is both faith and morals.

If what you say is correct than they could say that abortion is right/moral and helping your neighbor is wrong/immoral.

No, actually.

Do you really believe that a doctrine can be changed? If so, what can be believed with certainty?

A change of doctrine is not in question.

The Church has always taught that for protection of society that the death penalty was the right of the state to use. That teaching has not changed and as I have told family members if it did I would know that the Church is false.

The State has the right to defend itself against unjust aggression – from within through its police powers and from without by its ability to wage war.

The Church, however, can overrule the State. For the Church is greater than the State. That must always be remembered.

Pope Saint Pius V famously, if tactically unsuccessfully, released all subjects of Queen Elizabeth I from allegiance to her. It was a tactic that would have worked politically even a century before.

The Church can determine that the criteria of a just war does not prevail and therefore she can invalidate the State’s claim that it is waging a just war. It can, similarly, determine that the State has not met the bar to take the life of a person through capital punishment in a way that is, actually, morally licit.

As Pope Francis has said: the penalty is, in fact, determined to be morally inadmissible.

 

[Ender]

What?

The Pope with or without the Magisterium?

Where on earth did you get your credential in theology?

The Pope can act solely and is the Magisterium. The Pope can allow the College to act under and with him and then, together, they are the Magisterium…IF he so chooses. Without the Pope, there is NO Magisterium.

The Catechism says it succinctly

*100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. *

Yes, the task of interpreting the Word of God is given to the Magisterium; that was not, however, the point I disputed. What I actually said was that neither the pope nor the Magisterium was free to *create *moral truth. Surely you don’t dispute that.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is nothing short of unpardonable, intellectually speaking, to present a thought in such a way as not to do justice to what the person actually holds.

There was nothing in the entirety of his speech that changed the meaning of the comment that I cited. If you think he later repudiated his own statement then extract the part where, after saying A, he goes on to say not-A.

Yes, he personally opposes the use of capital punishment. Yes, he would like to see the practice ended. That said, neither of those desires affects in any way his assertion that for the church to call capital punishment intrinsically evil would in effect be to repudiate herself.

Finally, I have no obligation whatever to present a person’s position on every point he raises to justify excerpting one particular point and dissecting it. So long as the meaning of the phrase I cite is not distorted from the original, I have done all that is required.

Archbishop Chaput said that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. Do you dispute this claim? He then said that both Scripture and Christian tradition acknowledge its legitimacy under certain conditions. Do you dispute this one? Finally he said that for the church to repudiate these positions would be to repudiate herself. Is this the one you dispute?

So, if you don’t dispute any of the statements above how is it you dispute my citations of them? You’ve really taken your disapproval of me to a new level.

Ender

 

[Ender]

There is no place for the laity to judge the Magisterium of the Church. None.

I was responding to a question asked by Tim_D about himself (“So, is my position really that far out of the ordinary?”). Are you trying to get me in trouble with the moderators?

Ender

 

[Ender]

A change of doctrine is not in question.

If going from “You may” (use capital punishment) to “You may not” doesn’t constitute a doctrinal change the phrase would seem to be rather meaningless.

The Church can determine that the criteria of a just war does not prevail and therefore she can invalidate the State’s claim that it is waging a just war. It can, similarly, determine that the State has not met the bar to take the life of a person through capital punishment in a way that is, actually, morally licit.

Then again, maybe not (specifically regarding war, but by extension it would seem applicable to capital punishment as well). Theoretically your claim may be true, but it would have to be a pretty egregious case to trigger such an intervention.* 2309 The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.*

As Pope Francis has said: the penalty is, in fact, determined to be morally inadmissible.

Given that all of his predecessors appear to have held the opposite position, what are we to make of this assertion? Is he saying that capital punishment is now held to be intrinsically evil? Yes or no - is that what “morally inadmissible” means here?

Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was responding to a question asked by Tim_D about himself (“So, is my position really that far out of the ordinary?”). Are you trying to get me in trouble with the moderators?

The moderators are quite capable of arriving at their determinations independently.

 

[exnihilo]

The Church can determine that the criteria of a just war does not prevail and therefore she can invalidate the State’s claim that it is waging a just war. It can, similarly, determine that the State has not met the bar to take the life of a person through capital punishment in a way that is, actually, morally licit.

As Pope Francis has said: the penalty is, in fact, determined to be morally inadmissible.

For both war and the death penalty it must be that neither is intrinsically evil. This must be because we know sometimes both are justified. There are then criteria by which a judgment is formed as to when either is justified.

Regarding the death penalty it seems the criterion invoked to judge it not necessary is that modern society can supposedly isolate prisoners in a way that makes them no longer a threat. While there is some truth to this. For instance in the US we have a powerful government and almost inescapable prison system. It is also not an absolute truth. Prison guards and other prisoners are frequently assaulted or even killed.

I then wonder how a judgment can be made in such a blanket way. It would be like saying war is now morally inadmissible. But this can’t be true. Because individual wars are judged just or unjust based on particular facts and judgments. Likewise the use of the death penalty depends on circumstances including the facts or judgments regarding a particular criminal and his crimes.

Also, any judgment that the death penalty is unjust based on a judgment on modern state’s ability to protect others from criminals would be temporal. It would have to be because the ability of states to protect others could be degraded over time due to either the power of the state or the attributes of a particular criminal.

 

[Richca]

Quote: Don Ruggero
As Pope Francis has said: the penalty is, in fact, determined to be morally inadmissible.

Quote: Ender
Given that all of his predecessors appear to have held the opposite position, what are we to make of this assertion? Is he saying that capital punishment is now held to be intrinsically evil? Yes or no - is that what “morally inadmissible” means here?

I don’t believe capital punishment can be considered intrinsically evil otherwise we would have God commanding the Israelites of the Old Testament to sin (other than it being a just and good act) for imposing the death penalty for certain crimes and sins, and this is inadmissable. Secondly, we cannot admit that all instances of capital punishment in the Christian era have been sins especially since the Church has taught otherwise in its long history concerning the moral legitimacy of capital punishment under the right circumstances and end.

I think we need to make a distinction between the object, the circumstances, and the end, intention, or motive that make up the sources of morality of human acts. Capital punishment as the object of a human act I think is morally indifferent, that is, in itself, capital punishment is neither good or bad. If capital punishment is not morally indifferent in its object, then it would have to be considered intrinsically good since it is definitely not intrinsically evil for the reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph of this post and also because an intrinsically evil act by reason of the object cannot be made good by circumstances or intention. For a human act to be morally good it must be good or at least indifferent by reason of the object, and the circumstances and the end must be good too. A defect in one of these sources of morality causes a human act to be morally evil and sinful.

Assuming that capital punishment is either morally indifferent or possibly intrinsically good as to the object, than the evaluation of the morality of capital punishment in particular instances would revolve around the circumstances and the end or motive. Accordingly, in today’s world, what the catechism, some popes and other clergy and maybe some laity too are possibly saying is that the circumstances surrounding capital punishment in today’s world are such that the given circumstances do not justify in general the use of capital punishment except maybe in rare or extreme cases. By today’s world, I mean in the more developed countries. I’m not sure that in all the world and in all countries and nations, the circumstances surrounding capital punishment are such that in any given country or nation such circumstances would be bad in general and not legitimately justify the use of capital punishment except only in rare or extreme cases. Of course, the end or motive can also be good or bad in the application of capital punishment.

 

[pnewton]

Your reading comprehension skills certainly do leave a lot to desire

You’re judgment is in grave error. If you are going to descend into this sort of petty insults, I am done. I do not want to engage uncharitably, or tempt another.

Besides, you are just repeating yourself with more condescension. My answer to your question has not changed and is still on this thread.

 

[PluniaZ]

There is no place for the laity to judge the Magisterium of the Church. None.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You’re judgment is in grave error. If you are going to descend into this sort of petty insults, I am done.

You know, at the end of the day, definitions regarding both faith and morals is are the prerogative of the Magisterium…that is to say either the Pope acting alone or the College of Bishops acting in concert with the Pope. No one else. And no one gets to judge that or question that.

The only legitimate response on the part of everyone is docile acceptance and assent.

 

[PluniaZ]

You know, at the end of the day, definitions regarding both faith and morals is are the prerogative of the Magisterium…that is to say either the Pope acting alone or the College of Bishops acting in concert with the Pope. No one else. And no one gets to judge that or question that.

The only legitimate response on the part of everyone is docile acceptance and assent.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Is he saying that capital punishment is now held to be intrinsically evil? Yes or no - is that what “morally inadmissible” means here?

You are in error to think the matter impinges upon intrinsic evil…at all.

To posit such is a fundamental error I would not accept from a first year theology student.

Morally inadmissible means exactly what it says…

*in·ad·mis·si·ble
ˌinədˈmisəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: inadmissible

1.
(especially of evidence in court) not accepted as valid.
synonyms:	unallowable, not allowed, invalid, unacceptable, impermissible, disallowed, forbidden, prohibited, precluded
"inadmissible evidence"
2.
not to be allowed or tolerated.
"an inadmissible interference in the affairs of the Church"*

 

[ShrodingersCat]

More ambiguous double speak.

Perhaps someone should ask Francis “Holy Father, did you just make capital punishment a mortal sin?”

Anyone here think the pope would give a straight answer of ‘yes’?

There’s your answer.

---

When the good thief was on the cross and scolded the other saying that they both deserved such a punishment I don’t remember Jesus stepping in to correct him that neither did they deserve such a punishment.

Instead Jesus blessed Him and through his reflectful admission promised Him a place in his Father’s house of paradise.

I would not say I am for or against capital punishment. I can think of examples both ways in which having or not having such a law would cause evil.

Blanket or ambiguous statements one way or the other do not help discussion and that goes also for the church.

Popes don’t make moral issues like this mortal sins. They are already grave matter. The pope just enlightens people to the fact now that our society is more advanced.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

What the Catechism says:
*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.*

I knew it was something like that; thanks Father!

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Then again, maybe not.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles, 2002)

*”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.” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

*The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion *(Archbishop James Gomez, 2016)
Ender

None of these quotes contradict the Pope or catechism on the death penalty. They are referring to a blanket statement that capital punishment is objectively evil, which it obviously isn’t. Just like Hitler was wrong to invade Poland but England was right to declare war on Germany.