The death penalty - right or wrong

[goout]

Future_Catechum:

Pope Francis has changed the text of the Catechism to declare the death penalty as inadmissible . ‘Thou shalt not kill’ applies to everyone, even one who has committed murder. It is probably in our human natures to want capital punishment because of a desire for revenge . But, we are all sinners. And how can it be moral and ethical to hire an executioner to take another’s life? It does nothing to bring back the life of the victim .

The text is actually רָצַח, thou shalt not “murder” not “kill”…and they hold two separate meanings.

And, the end point of all of it is the sacredness of human life.
I hope this makes sense to everyone.

Morality is not a set of prohibitions that serve themselves as an end.
“we have a right to kill murderers”. No, you don’t. The allowance for the death penalty points to the protection of human life. It’s simply not necessary anymore, practically speaking.

 

[graciew]

Really? Morality changes with time and place? That’s not what the church teaches. Shall we no longer believe this as well?

Go to the point 3 you cited ( and you picked the Baltimore)
Now here is the definition of “ lawful”

Authorized, to which is not forbidden .( and there is more you can read)
So…there was an authorization, a permission…
Now , enough. What was admissible is inadmissible .
Why do you want to hold on to an authorization given forever?
When it is over , it is over…

lawful

Definition of lawful in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

 

[Ender]

show us where the Church did not uphold the sanctity of human life…

If your position is that capital punishment is now intrinsically immoral it would mean the church did not uphold the sanctity of human life until last year. You cannot claim that executions violate the sanctity of human life now without conceding that for over 2000 years what the church taught was in fact contrary to that position, and she obviously cannot be considered to have upheld the sanctity of human life.

 

[Ender]

The allowance for the death penalty points to the protection of human life.

I think this was the biggest problem with the earlier version of 2267: it implied that protection was the primary end of punishment, but capital punishment was never justified because it provided protection, although that was recognized as an additional benefit. It was always accepted because it was just, a concept that has apparently been dismissed.

 

[Ender]

Go to the point 3 you cited ( and you picked the Baltimore)
Now here is the definition of “ lawful”

Authorized, to which is not forbidden .( and there is more you can read)
So…there was an authorization, a permission…

“Lawful” as it was used meant not legally permitted, but morally permitted, and while civil laws can change moral ones do not. I used the Baltimore catechism as an example because it so clearly expressed church doctrine, but I could have cited any of the other half dozen that I’m familiar with. The language is different but the teaching is the same.

 

[goout]

goout:

show us where the Church did not uphold the sanctity of human life…

If your position is that capital punishment is now intrinsically immoral

Who said that?

You’re engaging in one giant confirmation bias. You have a conclusion that the Church is not consistent in it’s moral teaching and is therefore corrupt in some fashion, and you are fitting square pegs into round holes to prove your bias.

 

[YourNameHere]

Our prisons are over-crowded.
I believe that if we were to fine or to give home confinement to people who commit lesser crimes, there would be plenty of room to incarcerate the truly violent people who commit murder.
No need for the death penalty.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Ender:

goout:

show us where the Church did not uphold the sanctity of human life…

If your position is that capital punishment is now intrinsically immoral

Who said that?

You’re engaging in one giant confirmation bias. You have a conclusion that the Church is not consistent in it’s moral teaching and is therefore corrupt in some fashion, and you are fitting square pegs into round holes to prove your bias.

It’s possible that Ender doesn’t fully grasp the scope of ‘intrinsically’ hence the inability to understand the Church’s stance. To use the phrase “is now intrinsically immoral”, demonstrates this deficiency of understanding.

 

[Gabika50]

The death penalty is considered right in a society which advocates revenge for a life taken. And the end result is two or more lives are taken for the one (depending on a given legal system).

 

[graciew]

I do not mind you chose the Baltimore…I meant that the explanation is in your own pick, not that I looked for anything else but what you presented
And yes, I got it didn’t t mean “ legal” . What is “ legal “ in a country may make the hair stand on end in another one.
I got that. The Church speaks to every person in every place in every corner around the world.
Lawful as permissible, justifiable, authorized in the eyes of the Church that informs every aspect of our lives…

 

[Ender]

Who said that?

Then explain what your position is: is capital punishment intrinsically evil or not?

You’re engaging in one giant confirmation bias. You have a conclusion that the Church is not consistent in it’s moral teaching and is therefore corrupt in some fashion, and you are fitting square pegs into round holes to prove your bias.

I’m trying to understand your position, and - as I understand it - explain what difficulties it creates. No, I do not believe the church has been inconsistent in her moral teaching, but then I believe the teaching is the same now as it has always been.

 

[joseie]

Two relevant points in this regard
1.It is neither necessary nor is it of any use for the Church interfering in the amount of punishment for a crime prescribed by the laws of a country.
On the other hand church should be more concerned about the punishment after death for which it can do something.
2.Church did not have a view that death penalty is against God,nor Bible prohibit it.

 

[goout]

goout:

Who said that?

Then explain what your position is: is capital punishment intrinsically evil or not?

I adhere to the Church and it’s teaching. I don’t have a position. Nobody cares what my position is. It’s not the work of apologetics or catechesis to take positions, other than to get behind Christ and the Church. That is a position of obedience.

You’re engaging in one giant confirmation bias. You have a conclusion that the Church is not consistent in it’s moral teaching and is therefore corrupt in some fashion, and you are fitting square pegs into round holes to prove your bias.

I’m trying to understand your position, and - as I understand it - explain what difficulties it creates. No, I do not believe the church has been inconsistent in her moral teaching, but then I believe the teaching is the same now as it has always been.

Ok, not sure what we are doing here then.

 

[Brendan]

Thou Shalt Not Kill. The answer is very straight forward in my opinion.

The Church addressed that at the Council of Trent :On the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals​

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

 

[Ender]

I adhere to the Church and it’s teaching. I don’t have a position. Nobody cares what my position is. It’s not the work of apologetics or catechesis to take positions, other than to get behind Christ and the Church. That is a position of obedience.

We both feel we are adhering to the church’s teaching on the matter. What we disagree on is what that teaching is, so let me rephrase my question: does the church now teach that capital punishment is intrinsically evil? (Clearly she did not teach this before, so I am asking if you think this teaching has changed.)

 

[goout]

goout:

I adhere to the Church and it’s teaching. I don’t have a position. Nobody cares what my position is. It’s not the work of apologetics or catechesis to take positions, other than to get behind Christ and the Church. That is a position of obedience.

We both feel we are adhering to the church’s teaching on the matter. What we disagree on is what that teaching is, so let me rephrase my question: does the church now teach that capital punishment is intrinsically evil? (Clearly she did not teach this before, so I am asking if you think this teaching has changed.)

Where do you see this language “intrinsically evil”?
The teaching is that human life is sacred. The practical application is that in this time, capital punishment is inadmissible pursuant to that good end.

This is not that difficult.

 

[Ender]

Where do you see this language “intrinsically evil”?

I don’t see it and I don’t believe the church now teaches that it is.

The teaching is that human life is sacred. The practical application is that in this time, capital punishment is inadmissible pursuant to that good end.

I agree with this. That is, this is a prudential judgment about the advisability of using capital punishment at this time. What does this conclusion imply? First, if this is a prudential judgment then it does not require our assent; we may disagree with this conclusion without that being considered dissenting from the church.

Secondly and more significantly it means that nothing has really changed. This was essentially JPII’s position. He opposed the use of capital punishment as unwise, but he did not condemn it as immoral. That distinction exists today.

 

[Ender]

goout:

The teaching is that human life is sacred. The practical application is that in this time, capital punishment is inadmissible pursuant to that good end.

I agree with this.

I need to be more specific here: what I agree with is that this is the correct understanding of what the new version of 2267 is saying. I don’t necessarily agree that the judgment it expresses is accurate.

 

[Emeraldlady]

goout:

Where do you see this language “intrinsically evil”?

I don’t see it and I don’t believe the church now teaches that it is.

How is it possible you don’t understand intrinsic and extrinsic values? If something is not intrinsically evil… then it is extrinsically evil. If something was moral in the past and is immoral now, it is understood as extrinsically evil today. Like slavery and polygamy. So in the past when the Church spoke of the admissibility of the death penalty, it was to counter the argument that it was basically intrinsically evil. When the Church speaks today about the inadmissibility of the death penalty, it is not now saying it is intrinsically evil (because common sense tells you that if it was admissible in the past and is inadmissible now, that defies the whole meaning of intrinsic value), it is saying there are good reasons for inadmissibility that relate directly to a ‘culture of death’, that the death penalty is actually contributing to. ie that human beings have a divine right to decide life and death.

The irony is that that love affair with the death penalty that drives the resistance to abolition demonstrates the very hubris behind the culture of death. When nations around the globe have been naturally abolishing it and you hear the argument that it can never be abolished because we have a divine right to it, that is the very spectre that makes inadmissibility necessary.

 

[Ender]

When the Church speaks today about the inadmissibility of the death penalty, it is not now saying it is intrinsically evil (because common sense tells you that if it was admissible in the past and is inadmissible now, that defies the whole meaning of intrinsic value), it is saying there are good reasons for inadmissibility that relate directly to a ‘culture of death’, that the death penalty is actually contributing to. ie that human beings have a divine right to decide life and death.

If, as you concede, capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, then objections to its use can only be prudential, not moral. Unless it is used egregiously - like executing someone for stealing a loaf of bread - then while the decision to use it can be called unwise it cannot be called immoral. If I think it is a good idea to use it (as it was used in the past) then I might be making a mistake but I am not committing a sin.

That is precisely what “saying there are good reasons” for not using it means. It is a prudential judgment…an opinion.