The Vatican and the death penalty

[Ender]

My extensive post was an attempt to bring a summary of multiple church fathers and traditional teachings to the fore in order to show that those who support the DP do have a grounding in sound doctrine.

Just so, and for those who are interested in learning more about the nature of punishment, this is a fascinating document.

stjohns.edu/media/3/a994f063bc1b4543bde765a8209e006b.pdf

For those not inclined to wade through the entire 20 pages, here are some highlights:

• According to Catholic tradition, retribution is the principal and justifying aim of punishment.
• The primary end of punishment is to redress the disorder the offense introduced in the moral order as a whole. The secondary end of punishment is the restoration of the public and civil order. The tertiary end of punishment, which is closely related to the second, is the defense of public safety. Finally, punishment offers the rehabilitation of the offender himself, which is the restoration of the order within the criminal’s soul. {This is the weakness of 2267: it is based solely on the tertiary purpose of punishment.}
• all punishments, even in this life, must be retributive, not simply medicinal, for by its very nature punishment ceases to exist if it is not given according to what the criminal deserves. {Execution was the deserved punishment for Saddam’s crimes.}
• Finally, there is this terrific quote from C. S. Lewis: "There is no sense in talking about a ‘just deterrent’ or a ‘just cure.’ We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether. "
  Ender

 

[frommi]

Another problem with trying to isolate this as a mere political issue is that you deny the moral aspect of the argument, and that is when we look to the Church for guidance. To accuse pro-DPers that “they do not deserve to be called ‘pro-Life’ because they are hypocrites” has no moral basis.

I didn’t say anyone was a hypocrite…I said that the terminlogy wasn’t accurrate.

 

[frommi]

Are you saying that anyone here has actually CHEERED at an occurance of the Death Penalty?

If so, please back it up with proof, or take it back.

And if no one has actually “cheered”, then the quote does not apply, now does it?

And as for the Right to Life that we are truely so proud of, I have shown that Trent said that the DP might, on occasion be an excercise of the Right to Life. Do you disagree with the Catechism of Trent?

You support the death penalty…you are complicit in the cycle of violence that this country can’t quite seem to get itself out of…so you are cheering that cycle on and on and on.

 

[Windmill]

Just so, and for those who are interested in learning more about the nature of punishment, this is a fascinating document.

stjohns.edu/media/3/a994f063bc1b4543bde765a8209e006b.pdf

Ender

very good read. thanks for sharing.

 

[Brendan]

You support the death penalty…you are complicit in the cycle of violence that this country can’t quite seem to get itself out of…so you are cheering that cycle on and on and on.

I support having an armed police force, does that mean I “cheer” when a criminal dies at the hands of a police officer?

Using your logic, the only true “pro life” position means a country with unarmed police and no military. Anything else would mean State sponsored killing.

I, on the other hand, recognize the sad need for police with guns, and a well equiped military as it promotes a true pro-life mentality, one where the innocent are protected from the violent.

 

[frommi]

I support having an armed police force, does that mean I “cheer” when a criminal dies at the hands of a police officer?

Using your logic, the only true “pro life” position means a country with unarmed police and no military. Anything else would mean State sponsored killing.

I, on the other hand, recognize the sad need for police with guns, and a well equiped military as it promotes a true pro-life mentality, one where the innocent are protected from the violent.

Used correctly…a police force fires in self defense (and most officers never use their guns).

Used correctly…a military only takes action that is proportionate to the action of its enemies.

An officer shooting a criminal is not necessairly evil…but it does take a life…you can’t avoid that reality.

The death penalty is pre-meditated destruction of life. The other examples you offer are not in any, way, shape or form premeditated (or at least they should not be).

 

[Windmill]

I didn’t say anyone was a hypocrite…I said that the terminlogy wasn’t accurrate.

Webster’s defines a hypocrite as:
“a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings”

So, someone who would publically state they are “pro-life”, yet support the DP, is, according to you, a hypocrite. Am I wrong in what you imply? By saying someone is not Pro-Life, you would confuse many, mislead many, and irritate others unnecessarily. Much the same as if one were to say “Bill is gay,” and mean “BIll is happy.” In American English, regardless of the broader definition of the word, “gay” means homosexual. Try as hard as you might to explain yourself, Bill would want you to hold your tongue. “Pro-Life” stands for moral good while those outside are in the Culture of Death. Church teaching clearly gives us the right to stand up for the DP because of all the reasons cited above. This cannot be equated with loss of innocent life as seen in abortion.

BTW, I am still awaiting a rebuttal to Pius, Aquinas, Augustine, Trent, and the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

 

[Contarini]

The problem is believeing there is no other way to protect society. Once locked up, that statement is not true.

God forbid anyone in my family ever was murdered. I would hope I wouldnt call for the Dp, but I know one thing. I would never for the course of my life pray for that murderers salvation - or damnation. I’d be neutral and expect God to accept that as my exchange for not calling for that persons execution. Thats all I could or would give and I would hope thats enough cause it would have to be.

I think that’s a bad bargain–you’d be better off (for your own soul’s sake if nothing else) advocating the person’s execution but praying for their salvation.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I, on the other hand, recognize the sad need for police with guns, and a well equiped military as it promotes a true pro-life mentality, one where the innocent are protected from the violent.

Does “well-equipped” include equipment with weapons that could not possibly be used without killing innocent civilians?

I support a military that is well-equipped for defensive purposes but could not be used to wage an offensive war. The events of the last few years have shown that you simply can’t trust governments with offensive capability. They have a tendency to use it.

Edwin

 

[krokal]

Given these criteria, Catholics may differ in their prudential
judgments as to whether a particular society needs to employ capital
punishment for its own protection. To say that it is wrong per se or
never justified is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church.
A Catholicm may not add his prudential judgments to the list of Church
doctrines and enjoin them as obligatory. However, the state may always
choose to commute the deserved penalty.

You should read this post from a blog I frequent.

Prudential Judgment

Regarding the issue of “prudential judgment”, it seems to me that a number of factors must be considered before a Catholic disagrees with the Church on the death penalty:

1. Because a particular teaching may be based on “prudential judgment” does not mean that the teaching has no authority and carries no weight. Nor does it mean that the position may be wrong (remember that judgment is communicated by proposition, and that propositions are the bearers of truth and falsity). Just as a Catholic should not adopt the bombastic attitude that he/she is free to disagree with any fallible teachings (which compose the bulk of Catholic doctrine), a Catholic ought not to adopt the attitude that a prudential judgment is a mere suggestion or option for the faithful to assent to or reject at will.

1. The Catholic ought to attempt to bracket his/her preconceptions, political opinions and gut reaction so that they may responsibly consider the teaching and may actually think with (not against) the Church. Remember, prudential judgments of the magisterium are intended to form the consciousness of the faithful, not to provide fodder for discussion and evaluation. This is why the Church does not preface her prudential judgments with conditionals or delineate “prudential judgment” from “doctrine” or “dogma”.

1. Because the Church’s teaching on the death penalty since at least the pontificate of John Paul II has been remarkably consistent and has been expressed in various modes of teaching (e.g. encyclicals, curial documents, declarations, periodicals), a Catholic ought to seriously consider the teaching of the Church on the matter: “Why do I disagree? Could I be unclear on how the Church is inferring its teaching on the death penalty from its moral principles? Could I be making a theological or philosophical misstep along my own both path of inference? Do I presume to be more apt for extending moral teachings into the socio-political sphere?”

1. Having considered the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, a Catholic who refuses to accept the teaching on “prudential” grounds ought to realize that their disagreement must itself be “prudent”, i.e., their disagreement must be informed, clear, distinct, consistent and corresponding with the truth of matters. Too often a disagreement stems from the will rather than from reasoned principles. How often do we here a Catholic who disagrees on the teaching retort: “I have the right to disagree with prudential judgments.” Yet, a Catholic often fails to provide a prudent judgment himself/herself in defense of their disagreement. In other words, if a Catholic wishes to exercise their right, they must do so with prudence and informed judgment. Simply disagreeing because one has the “right” to do so is anything but prudent.

1. Should a Catholic disagree with a prudential judgment of the Church, that Catholic should next discern whether it is prudent in itself to publicly disagree. That discernment must be made on separate grounds than those with which the Catholic prudentially judged that he/she disagrees. It seems to me that publicly disagreeing can cause scandal among other Catholics who cannot understand why they should follow some teachings of the popes and bishops but not others. Many Catholics do not have the patience or the mind for understanding the difference between a dogmatic statement and a prudential judgment, and they may end up using your example of disagreement as a basis for their own disagreements on various other teachings. In my opinion, unless your audience consists of informed and educated Catholics, your “prudential” disagreement should be kept private lest you do more harm than good.

 

[krokal]

BTW, I am still awaiting a rebuttal to Pius, Aquinas, Augustine, Trent, and the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

What is there to refute? I’m not denying the principle of the death penalty itself, just the application in today’s society.

 

[Brendan]

Used correctly…a police force fires in self defense (and most officers never use their guns).

Used correctly…a military only takes action that is proportionate to the action of its enemies.

An officer shooting a criminal is not necessairly evil…but it does take a life…you can’t avoid that reality.

The death penalty is pre-meditated destruction of life. The other examples you offer are not in any, way, shape or form premeditated (or at least they should not be).

Is the the military action pre-meditated? The General doesn’t think and plan before he commits troops into battle?

And what about the SWAT sniper who shoots a gunman? That is surely pre-meditated.

So the very fact that it’s ‘pre-meditated’ obviously doesn’t make the action immoral.

And all of the above are still killing and sometimes pre-meditated. Don’t you find it illogical to support an armed police force and still call yourself ‘pro-life’?

 

[Brendan]

Does “well-equipped” include equipment with weapons that could not possibly be used without killing innocent civilians?

I support a military that is well-equipped for defensive purposes but could not be used to wage an offensive war. The events of the last few years have shown that you simply can’t trust governments with offensive capability. They have a tendency to use it.

Edwin

Define “defensive weapon” Is an M-16 an offensive or defensive weapon? How about a F-16?

 

[pnewton]

You should read this post from a blog I frequent.

I do not know who wrote this or what authority it has, but my opinion (only) is that it seems sound. I believe that my objection falls along those acceptable lines. I would add one thing, though. The Church has also taught that prudential judgement is often delegated to those outside the Church, as in governments. Recognizing her own limitations, the Church does not claim to possess expert knowledge of science, or detailed knowledge of military intellegence.

My principle objection has been always that the idea of safe incarceration is a myth in the case of the most violent. I will follow the principles the Church has laid down, but I have never seen anything to substantiate the belief that all murders can be safely incarcerated for life.

 

[Brendan]

You support the death penalty….you are complicit in the cycle of violence that this country can’t quite seem to get itself out of…so you are cheering that cycle on and on and on.

And just to clarify, I don’t “Support” the Death Penalty. My position is the same as that of the Church.

I recognize the need for it in very limited circumstances, and that’s its use in those limited cirumstances is an act of Justice.

 

[Ender]

You should read this post from a blog I frequent.

I think those comments about prudential judgments you posted are very reasonable. I also went to the blog and read much of what was posted there and found this comment from the Holy See:

“In this perspective, it is worth noting that the use of the death penalty is not just a negation of the right to life, but also an affront to human dignity."

For me this statement highlights the problem caused by 2267 because it has led to comments like this that appear to contradict what the Church has said previously:

Pius XII: Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.

How do we justify the statement that “the death penalty is a negation of the right to life” with the earlier statement that “the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life”? They are contradictory and eventually this contradiction must be resolved and I am betting that the resolution will result in 2267 being rewritten.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

IThey are contradictory and eventually this contradiction must be resolved and I am betting that the resolution will result in 2267 being rewritten.

I think this issue will be decades in resolution. One can not dismiss the Church’s historical stance permitting the death penalty as a change in discipline. We are dealing with an issue of moral theology, not discipline. Nor can we state that this a development of doctrine. It is a 180 degree reversal and doctrine can not reverse to develop.

So far, everything the Church has said has pointed to how change in society negated its need. We can not start theology over in a vacuum without acknowledging Church teaching and tradition in regard to this issue. For respect of currect Church teaching, I have restricted dissent to the question of whether the Church can safeguard society from our worst offenders with incarceratio for life. However, soon or later I would like to know how the current position fits into Church tradition in this matter.

 

[Windmill]

i agree with pnewton on this. it is an issue that the magisterium will need to finalize and square with previous pronouncements.

thankfully, this is not my job. there are curial officials in rome who are burdened with this stuff. they need prayers.

 

[krokal]

I’m glad some charity is finally starting to appear in this thread.

 

[Windmill]

from both sides