Traditionalism and the Death Penalty

[TylerM]

Hi, thanks in advance for responses. I am in the final stages of discerning conversion to the Catholic Church from protestantism. On the whole, I am very traditional in my theology and liturgical views. As such, I find the Church’s apparent reversal on the death penalty, while not a problem of dogma, to be misguided and provoked by modern thought. Are there many traditionalist who hold this view? Furthermore, from a traditional perspective, what is the position of a lay person who disagrees with non-dogmatic moral teaching?

 

[JReducation]

Hi, thanks in advance for responses. I am in the final stages of discerning conversion to the Catholic Church from protestantism. On the whole, I am very traditional in my theology and liturgical views. As such, I find the Church’s apparent reversal on the death penalty, while not a problem of dogma, to be misguided and provoked by modern thought. Are there many traditionalist who hold this view? Furthermore, from a traditional perspective, what is the position of a lay person who disagrees with non-dogmatic moral teaching?

The moral teachings of the Catholic Church are never up for debate, unless the Holy See itself opens up the floor for such debates. Even though there are man moral teachings which have not been assigned the character of infallible statements, they are still to be obeyed.

You see, even if the moral teaching itself is not an infallible statement, such as the teaching on artificial birth control, the fact that it is a moral teaching that comes to us from the authority of the magisterium it commands our obedience and assent in faith.

In other words, we obey because obedience is also a moral teaching and it is an infallible teaching. We must obey all legitimate authority unless such authority commands sin.

In the case of the death penalty, we are not being commanded to do something sinful. We are commanded to do something good. We are commanded to respect all life and to remember that even though the State has the authority to punish those who break the law, even by imposing the death penalty, there are other considerations which did not exist in the past.

The Church reminds us that the State has an ogligation to exercise its authority with justice and with the guidance of moral principal. How does this translate when it comes to the death penalty?

It means that the State can legitimately use the death penalty. But the key word is legitimacy. The death penalty is only legitimate when there are no other means of protecting the innocent and in today’s technologicaly advanced society there are many ways of protecting the innocent.

The Church, in her wisdom also knows that to give the State the right to use the death penalty without moral guidance is a dangerous thing, because the death penalty has been used in many societies very unjustly, including our own.

If the State (this applies to any nation) had the freedom to use the death penalty without moral judgement, what was mean to protect the innocent can be used against the innocent as has been the case many times.

Therefore, to avoid the unjust application of the death penalty, the Church directs the world to remember that there are other options, including repairing our demaged judicial systems which allow criminals freedom. No State may impose the death penalty before it ensures that its judicial system is fair and that all alternatives have been carefully considered without prejudice.

It is also important for the Church that the death penalty never be used as a means of retribution, for God calls us all to forgive. The Church does not support the death penalty to make happy the family of the victims of crimes. True happiness never comes from vengance. True happiness comes from love.

The Church does not deny the State’s authority to use the death penalty. It simply acknowledges that there are very few situations when its use is justifiable.

If we think about it this way, then we can see how there is a moral truth here. States cannot be trusted with the freedom to impose the death penalty without moral judgement and guidance from the faith. States do have ther resources to protect the innocent. The first of those resources is to fix broken legal systems around the world. How can we trust the judgement of a legal system that is so often wrong and unjust? This can be said about the legal system in the USA or any other nation in the world.

This is a moral truth. This moral truth cannot be debated. The human legal system is flawed in ways that can be fixed. Societies have abused the death penalty. Death penalty is not a means for vengance, but to protect the innocent. The victim of the crime is usually dead and the death penalty will not return his or her life. To make a family happy by killing the murderer of their beloved is not true happiness. To kill is usually not the solution. In fact, it rarely solves anything. Therefore it is a moral teaching that must be obeyed because there is no much logic behind it and it is based on doctrine. Man is not the author of life, therefore man cannot have absolute authority over the life of another. Such authority must be regulated by moral reason and doctrine.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

Many traditional Catholics support the death penalty. Don’t worry.

The Ordinary Magisterium has always taught that the death penalty was just and good.

It Pope John Paul II 's opinion that the death penalty should not be used. Pope John Paul II and the new Catechism never said that the death penalty is morally evil or wrong. They just said it shouldn’t be used.

Any Catholic is free to disagree with the opinions of Pope John Paul II and modern Churchmen. The tradituional Church teaching on the goodness of the death penalty has been clear for centuries.

The modern liberal Churchmen have no authority to overturn what has been the constant fixed teaching of the Church.

There is much confusion because many Catholics believe that the opposition to the death penalty is official teaching when it is really just opinion.

Don’t pay attention to the USCCB because they are misguided and the Church in America has become a Modernist wasteland.

Come on home because Catholicism is the greatest gift any man can recieve. It is so much joy and holding the true faith helps one put up with the liberalism that has hurt so many people.

 

[Just_Lurking]

When John Paul II promulgated the Catechism, he called it a “sure norm of faith”, not a “bunch of really interesting opinions.”

 

[anamchara]

Many traditional Catholics support the death penalty. Don’t worry.

Well that is very sad.

Don’t pay attention to the USCCB because they are misguided and the Church in America has become a Modernist wasteland.

 

[saint_rafael]

When John Paul II promulgated the Catechism, he called it a “sure norm of faith”, not a “bunch of really interesting opinions.”

He wrote opinion into the Catechism because the official teaching of the Church is clear: that the death penalty is a just punishment for muder based on retribution. This has been held from Augustine, to Aquinas, and all the Popes.

The teaching of Pope John Paul II contradicts the constant teaching of the Church and therefore is not official but an erroneous opinion.

TylerM and anyone else should read this apologetic website that defends and demonstrates the traditional teaching of the Church on the death penalty from the Church herself:

catholicapologetics.info/morality/deathpenalty/index.htm

 

[JReducation]

Many traditional Catholics support the death penalty. Don’t worry.

The Ordinary Magisterium has always taught that the death penalty was just and good.

It Pope John Paul II 's opinion that the death penalty should not be used. Pope John Paul II and the new Catechism never said that the death penalty is morally evil or wrong. They just said it shouldn’t be used.

**Any Catholic is free to disagree with the opinions of Pope John Paul II and modern Churchmen. **The tradituional Church teaching on the goodness of the death penalty has been clear for centuries.

The modern liberal Churchmen have no authority to overturn what has been the constant fixed teaching of the Church.

There is much confusion because many Catholics believe that the opposition to the death penalty is official teaching when it is really just opinion.

Don’t pay attention to the USCCB because they are misguided and the Church in America has become a Modernist wasteland.

Come on home because Catholicism is the greatest gift any man can recieve. It is so much joy and holding the true faith helps one put up with the liberalism that has hurt so many people.

This is very poor advice and contrary to our journey toward holiness. We cannot journey toward union with the Divine while not in communion with the Holy Father and the Bishops.

You may want to reword this and express it as your opinion, not as a fact that one can dismiss the Popes or the Conference of Bishops. That is not the teaching of the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Just_Lurking]

The teaching of Pope John Paul II contradicts the constant teaching of the Church and therefore is not official but an erroneous opinion.

The teaching is quite official, being contained in the Catechism as well as a papal encyclical.

Just FYI, the Vatican has already addressed the proper response to erroneous Church teachings (see here):

1. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

Interestingly enough, this document does not call upon those who disagree with the Catechism to proclaim all over the Internet that they are right and the Catechism is wrong.

 

[saint_rafael]

This is very poor advice and contrary to our journey toward holiness. We cannot journey toward union with the Divine while not in communion with the Holy Father and the Bishops.

You may want to reword this and express it as your opinion, not as a fact that one can dismiss the Popes or the Conference of Bishops. That is not the teaching of the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

How is disagreeing with the opinions of Popes and bishops breaking communion with them?

We break communion when we disagree with dogma and doctrine. Opinion is opinion and not binding on anyone.

When Pope Benedict wrote the book “Jesus of Nazareth”, he told the world the book contained his own personal opinions as a theologian, and that any Catholic was free to agree or disagree with the contents of the book.

It is a truth and fact that no Churchman may overturn prior Church teaching on dogma and doctrine.

A couple of years ago at one of their endless meetings that all bishops attend, they put out a document urging all to oppose the death penalty which was contrary to tradition.

Conferences of bishops have no authority. They put out advise and recommendations. The only real authority is the Pope and bishops united to him, which is the local bishop of a diocese.

 

[Joannm]

Please show in Church documents where it states the the death penalty is “a good.” Taking a human life is NEVER a good. It may be a necessary evil in certain cases (defending oneself or others, just war, etc.) but it is still an objective evil.

 

[thistle]

Many traditional Catholics support the death penalty. Don’t worry.

The Ordinary Magisterium has always taught that the death penalty was just and good.

It Pope John Paul II 's opinion that the death penalty should not be used. Pope John Paul II and the new Catechism never said that the death penalty is morally evil or wrong. They just said it shouldn’t be used.

Any Catholic is free to disagree with the opinions of Pope John Paul II and modern Churchmen. The tradituional Church teaching on the goodness of the death penalty has been clear for centuries.

The modern liberal Churchmen have no authority to overturn what has been the constant fixed teaching of the Church.

There is much confusion because many Catholics believe that the opposition to the death penalty is official teaching when it is really just opinion.

Don’t pay attention to the USCCB because they are misguided and the Church in America has become a Modernist wasteland.

Come on home because Catholicism is the greatest gift any man can recieve. It is so much joy and holding the true faith helps one put up with the liberalism that has hurt so many people.

Re the highlighted part that’s just rubbish. Show us where the Church teaches that.

Secondly the CCC does not contain opinions. The CCC contains a summary of ALL the Church teachings (doctrines and disciplines) and all Catholics (including you) are obliged to agree with and accept everything in the CCC, even if you do not fully understand one or more of the teachings.
Are you denying this?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Hi, thanks in advance for responses. I am in the final stages of discerning conversion to the Catholic Church from protestantism. On the whole, I am very traditional in my theology and liturgical views. As such, I find the Church’s apparent reversal on the death penalty, while not a problem of dogma, to be misguided and provoked by modern thought. Are there many traditionalist who hold this view?

I agree with you 100%.

Furthermore, from a traditional perspective, what is the position of a lay person who disagrees with non-dogmatic moral teaching?

Well, there is nothing immoral about the death penalty. It was sanctioned by God in the old Testament as a positive good, and has always been an acceptable teaching of Christianity.

There would be a problem if someone disagreed with something that was intrincically immoral, but the death penalty is not.

Even today, when a lot of high ranking Churchmen are against the death penalty, it is still not said to be intrincically immoral. They just say that it is not necessary in our day and time. That is simply an opinion, and a Catholic is free to disagree with it.

Actually, if anyone says that the death penalty is immoral, they would be the ones who are in error, since that is exactly contrary to what the Church has always taught.

Catechism of Trent: "The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)

 

[bilop]

Hi, thanks in advance for responses. I am in the final stages of discerning conversion to the Catholic Church from protestantism. On the whole, I am very traditional in my theology and liturgical views. As such, I find the Church’s apparent reversal on the death penalty, while not a problem of dogma, to be misguided and provoked by modern thought. Are there many traditionalist who hold this view? Furthermore, from a traditional perspective, what is the position of a lay person who disagrees with non-dogmatic moral teaching?

I am a traditional-leaning Catholic, and I agree with you.

Issues like the death penalty and just-war are prudential issues which the Church leaves to competent civil authority. Papal statements on the need (or lack there of) for the death penalty or the justness of a particular war, are opinions and not binding on the laity.

This quote from (then Cardinal) Ratzinger spells it out rather clearly.

1. 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.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

God Bless

 

[JuanCarlos]

The death penalty is a licit way to prevent dangerous criminals from committing more crimes- but given the advent of modern jailing systems it is now possible to detain criminals for life. As well, what also must be considered is the salvation of the criminal- if he is given a lifetime of prison it is more likely he will one day be saved in light of the fact he will have more opportunity (ie a longer life) for conversion

 

[JReducation]

How is disagreeing with the opinions of Popes and bishops breaking communion with them?

We break communion when we disagree with dogma and doctrine. Opinion is opinion and not binding on anyone.

When Pope Benedict wrote the book “Jesus of Nazareth”, he told the world the book contained his own personal opinions as a theologian, and that any Catholic was free to agree or disagree with the contents of the book.

It is a truth and fact that no Churchman may overturn prior Church teaching on dogma and doctrine.

A couple of years ago at one of their endless meetings that all bishops attend, they put out a document urging all to oppose the death penalty which was contrary to tradition.

Conferences of bishops have no authority. They put out advise and recommendations. The only real authority is the Pope and bishops united to him, which is the local bishop of a diocese.

You have to look at three things.

1. The CCC is not a compendium of opinions. It is a compendium of the faith of the Church.
2. Pope John Paul II and the CCC does not say that the death penalty is immoral, he says that it is rarely justifiable. There is a difference. If you stop and think about it, the circumstances are such that if you leave the death penalty to the State without any moral guidance, you open the possibility of abuse. Look at how many countries the State puts people to death for things that are unfair. I remember a few years ago (maybe two) one of the Mid-East nations publicly executed homosexuals, because their law is that homosexuality is deserving of the death penalty. Like this, there ae many examples of the death penalty being immorally and unjustifiably applied. This is what is being addressed.

There are nations where the death penalty is allowed for political dissenters. This is not a justifiable application of the death penalty.

There is nothing in Church teachings, past or present, that allows governments free reign to apply the death penalty unfairly. The clarification that is made by the Church today is that the death penalty can ony be used to protect the innocent when this can be done through no other means. This is rarely the case.

The CCC and John Paul II did not contradict previous teachings on this subject.

1. The previous teachings on the death penalty were not dogmas or infallible any more than they are today. They were moral positions of the Church. The infallible dogma is what is behind these positions, all life is sacred and all men are redeemable.

There is nothing here that contradicts what has been taught in the past. There is further clarification in light of today’s circusmstances. The Pope and the CCC show us how to apply traditional teaching to today’s world. There is nothing to disobey here.

One can say that a particular situation cannot be prevented unless the offender is executed. In that case, there may be a legitimate disagreement between Church and State.

**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 are 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 non-existent.” (CCC) **

Please read this carefully and you will find no change, but further claification and a better understanding for today’s world.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

The death penalty is a licit way to prevent dangerous criminals from committing more crimes- but given the advent of modern jailing systems it is now possible to detain criminals for life. As well, what also must be considered is the salvation of the criminal- if he is given a lifetime of prison it is more likely he will one day be saved in light of the fact he will have more opportunity (ie a longer life) for conversion

There are two examples of this in the Church. One is the murderer of Maria Goretti who later became a Capuchin and the other is Brother Jim Townsend with whom I had the privilege of living for a year, a very holy Capuchin Franciscan Friar who was also a murderer.

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jul2007/books.asp

Fraternally,

JR

 

[TNT]

Please show in Church documents where it states the the death penalty is “a good.” Taking a human life is NEVER a good. It may be a necessary evil in certain cases (defending oneself or others, just war, etc.) but it is still an objective evil.

A Necessary evil !
What in the world !
Evil and it’s “necessity” is an oxymoron.
There is a “lesser” of 2 or more evils, but never a “necessary” evil.
Here is the Church spoken by St Paul in his infallible verses:
Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist purchase to themselves eternal damnation. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for** he beareth not the sword in vain**. For he is the minister of God: and avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil (Rom. 13:2-4).
Notice that word good several times…

I’m certain that somewhere in the modern CCC, and the USCCB, these verses are addressed in any section on the Death Penalty…Yes??

 

[TNT]

if he is given a lifetime of prison it is more likely he will one day be saved in light of the fact he will have more opportunity (ie a longer life) for conversion

There is no proof of this. It’s just an antidotal comment.
The Death Penalty takes an average of 17 years to be completed in the USA.

75% of all murderers have a serious history of convicted crimes and were released early.
So much for repenting.
Prisons are more likely to be a source of criminal hardening than reform.

BTW:
Here’s a video of 2 caught after a sensless double murder: (Some profanity).
In Part:

According to both teens, Cummings never fired a shot. While professing his innocence of murder, Cummings explained what his cousin did that night. “He pulled the pistol out and then opened fire; ya know what I’m saying. He shot the first dude one time and then the second dude, he shot him one time and he fell and then he went back and shot the other dude again.”

They didn’t even know the victims; 2 muscians closing shop for the evening.
Vote:
Life or death penalty?

 

[bilop]

The death penalty is a licit way to prevent dangerous criminals from committing more crimes- but given the advent of modern jailing systems it is now possible to detain criminals for life. As well, what also must be considered is the salvation of the criminal- if he is given a lifetime of prison it is more likely he will one day be saved in light of the fact he will have more opportunity (ie a longer life) for conversion

I disagree with you on both points.

1. We can imprison for life, but that does not prevent crimes. Violent offenders can, and do, victimize guards and other prisoners. Once the death penalty is off the table, how do you deter those already facing life without parole from killing guards or other prisoners? Also, gang leaders have been able to order murders outside of prison.
2. As Samuel Johnson said “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” I think the prospect of imminent execution is much more likely to lead a prisoner to repentence than a long life in the sinful environs of a prison. In prison he is likely to fall into drug use, sodomy, and violence, while when he knows death is impending, he has every incentive to get right with the Lord.

God Bless

 

[thistle]

I disagree with you on both points.

1. We can imprison for life, but that does not prevent crimes. Violent offenders can, and do, victimize guards and other prisoners. Once the death penalty is off the table, how do you deter those already facing life without parole from killing guards or other prisoners? Also, gang leaders have been able to order murders outside of prison.
2. As Samuel Johnson said “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” I think the prospect of imminent execution is much more likely to lead a prisoner to repentence than a long life in the sinful environs of a prison. In prison he is likely to fall into drug use, sodomy, and violence, while when he knows death is impending, he has every incentive to get right with the Lord.

God Bless

Why is it America seems to have this constant drive to kill people through execution.
The European countries have long abolished capital punishment and the level of murders and violent crimes has not risen because of that. There is no evidence that capital punishment serves as a deterrent.