Traditionalism and the Death Penalty

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’m wondering if Cardnal Dulles is really arguing the abolition of the death penalty or the inconsistency in many modern societies and minds, that are against the death penalty because it’s inhumane.

I believe the Cardinal states the problem well. When you argue the death penalty from a purely humanistic point of view, you can do anything you want with other moral issues.

But when you look at it from the perspective of scripture and Church teaching, then you are committed to applying those same moral principles to ther issues, the biggest being abortion.

I don’t think that the Cardinal is arguing so much in defense of the death penalty, but in defence of Christian morality. The European Union is an example of a society where the death penalty was abolished, but abortion is almost mandated.

In many Middle Eastern countries the death penalty is their daily bread, while abortion is strictly condemned.

When you fall of the evangelical track, you have inconsistencies which are difficult to reconcile.

If one reads both the statements of Trent and the statement of the CCC, they don’t contradict each other. Neither abolishes the death penalty. Both call for a judicious application. The only new element that the CCC has added is the fact that today we have better and more resources to protect the innocent than ever before.

Both documents are very consistent with the scriptures and the interpretation that the Church has applied to the scriptures. Whereas, the “humanitarian” movement is guided by a false sense of morality, because it’s a fabricated sense of morality.

I’m not sure if I’m making sense. I hope so.

JR

Hi JR,

I agree that when you argue from a humanistic point of view, the death penalty makes no sense. Because if people actually believe in eternal life, then the death of the criminal is not his ultimate death. And then one can consider if it is better (as has been argued above) to have a set date for execution, and this could very well lead the criminal to think long and hard about his eternal destiny.

I also think the arguments concerning justice and expiation are strong. That it actually damages society if criminals do not receive just sentences. That actually cheapens life. To have just punishments for crime is actually healthy for society. I also think it can be fair for the family of the victim, who I don’t think are necessarily vengeful people, but want to have a sense that genuine justice has been done.

And the criminal can help expiate his crime by being like the thief on the cross and accepting the punishment for his crime.

Pope John Paul II’s prudential judgment (and Cardinal Dulles does refer to it as “prudential”) that we rarely if ever need to impose the death penalty because we have the means to incarcerate someone for life does seem to be new.

I don’t know of any previous Church teaching that argued that you should only use the death penalty if you can’t incarcerate for a long enough time. It does seem that the teaching would have to be developed further along the lines of what to me seem the strongest arguments for the death penalty: justice, expiation, and the conversion of the sinner.

God bless.

 

[thistle]

The Church says that executing someone deprives them of the chance for salvation? Where exactly does it say that? I have never even heard that one before.

CCC 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."

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

CCC 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.”

Thistle, and others who are opposed to the death penalty. Will you at least admit there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the death penalty, and that the state has the right to enforce it?

 

[thistle]

Thistle, and others who are opposed to the death penalty. Will you at least admit there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the death penalty, and that the state has the right to enforce it?

Yes I agree with that.

My point all along is simply that accepting that does not mean the Church is in favour of the death penalty. Many death penalty proponents say that because the Church accepts that the death penalty might on rare occasions be necessary that means they are in favour of it. That is not so and every time a country abolishes the death penalty the Church rejoices.

But again, yes I agree with what you say.

 

[ethelzguy]

This is often a quandry for me. From a secular point of view, I am a strong proponent of the Death Penalty. But, the Church views force me to temper that somewhat.

 

[palmas85]

CCC 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.”

This passage has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. For forgiveness one has to make a full and contrite confession and be absolved. How in the world can the death penalty stop that?

One doesn’t have to do a lifetime of penance in order to be forgiven Thistle.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Yes I agree with that.

My point all along is simply that accepting that does not mean the Church is in favour of the death penalty. Many death penalty proponents say that because the Church accepts that the death penalty might on rare occasions be necessary that means they are in favour of it. That is not so and every time a country abolishes the death penalty the Church rejoices.

But again, yes I agree with what you say.

Does anyone find it odd that the post Conciliar Church is against the state using the death penalty, even though the death penalty is neither immoral nor unjust; while at the same time it is in favor of, and promotes, the state allowing false religions - which are a mortal sin against first commandment, and as such, the worst kind of sin there is?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Does anyone find it odd that the post Conciliar Church is against the state using the death penalty, even though the death penalty is neither immoral nor unjust; while at the same time it is in favor of, and promotes, the state allowing false religions - which are a mortal sin against first commandment, and as such, the worst kind of sin there is?

I’ve also found it interesting that it seems impossible to find anyone who is pro abortion who isn’t also against the death penalty.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I’ve also found it interesting that it seems impossible to find anyone who is pro abortion who isn’t also against the death penalty.

That doesn’t surprise me one bit.

 

[NeedImprovement]

It’s important to look at the death penalty from these different perspectives, but if you look at it solely from the perspective of fatalities, compared to abortion, it’s like a drop of water in the sea.

Mother Theresa of Calcutta called abortion the “greatest destroyer of peace on earth”.

Canada aborts in excess of two thousand little babies per week.

On July 1, 2008 abortionist and abortion activist Dr. Henry Morgentaler was awarded, for his work, The Order of Canada - the highest honor a Canadian can receive. It is supposed to be awarded “… to those who exemplify the order’s Latin motto, taken from Hebrews 11:16, desiderantes meliorem patriam, meaning “they desire a better country.” Created in 1967, the Order was established to recognize the lifetime contributions made by Canadians who made a major difference to Canada…”

It has sparked some controversy, and several of the award’s recipients have decided to return their award because they feel it has been tarnished by being awarded to Dr. Morgentaler…(so far only a ripple in the big pond). Our prime minister would appear to want to distance himself from the mess and he is able to a point; seeing as the governor general’s office (operates fairly independent of the Prime Minister’s office) is responsible for the award.

Whatever… blah blah blah… try to cover it up with some type of verbal bs …the bottom line is that my country has awarded its highest honour to someone who’s had a hand in aborting over two million children in their mothers’ wombs to date.

There isn’t one Catholic in the world who shouldn’t be praying, at the very least for expectant mothers, to try and lessen this global onslaught. We are living the days Jesus prophesied…and not the “early” stages of it…or are there some among us who think it is by sheer coincidence that our dear Lord spoke these words while on his way to Calvary ?..:

[From NAB], Luke 23:27-31

**A large crowd of people followed Jesus, including many women who mourned and lamented him.

Jesus turned to them and said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children,

for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’

At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’

for if these things are done when the wood is green what will happen when it is dry?" **

 

[thistle]

This passage has absolutely nothing to do with what you said. For forgiveness one has to make a full and contrite confession and be absolved. How in the world can the death penalty stop that?

One doesn’t have to do a lifetime of penance in order to be forgiven Thistle.

If a person is sentenced to death and execution takes place before they have had the chance to repent and ask for forgiveness then the opportunity for salvation is taken away.
If the person is jailed for life then they may come to repent after, for example, 20 years and if they confess and are absolved they are saved (assuming no more sins before dying).
You don’t say oops I’m about to be executed so I’d better confess and be saved. There is a high chance that is not sincere.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

thistle:
If a person is sentenced to death and execution takes place before they have had the chance to repent and ask for forgiveness then the opportunity for salvation is taken away.
If the person is jailed for life then they may come to repent after, for example, 20 years and if they confess and are absolved they are saved (assuming no more sins before dying).
You don’t say oops I’m about to be executed so I’d better confess and be saved. There is a high chance that is not sincere.

Really? And did you become aware of this from your own personal experience on death row? And isn’t it far more likely criminals will feign a conversion in the hope of parole?

Also, people aren’t shot on the spot. There is plenty of time to repent. And so yes, knowing you are going to die on a certain date would make one think of their eternal destiny. And if it didn’t, I have no idea what would.

God bless.

 

[thistle]

Really? And did you become aware of this from your own personal experience on death row? And isn’t it far more likely criminals will feign a conversion in the hope of parole?

Also, people aren’t shot on the spot. There is plenty of time to repent. And so yes, knowing you are going to die on a certain date would make one think of their eternal destiny. And if it didn’t, I have no idea what would.

God bless.

I totally disagree with you. Repentence and Confession is not simply a mechanical process you know. Sincerity is required.
Also what if a person to be executed is a Christian but not Catholic or not any kind of Christian. Would you deprive them the chance to get to know our Lord through conversion to the Catholic faith or baptism as a Catholic.
St Paul spent years persecuting Christians who were tortured and killed. He supervised the killing of St Stephen. Jesus appeared to him and gave him the chance to repent which he did and became one of the greatest apostles. Jesus gives sinners the chance to repent and turn to him. Should we do less?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I totally disagree with you. Repentence and Confession is not simply a mechanical process you know. Sincerity is required.
Also what if a person to be executed is a Christian but not Catholic or not any kind of Christian. Would you deprive them the chance to get to know our Lord through conversion to the Catholic faith or baptism as a Catholic.
St Paul spent years persecuting Christians who were tortured and killed. He supervised the killing of St Stephen. Jesus appeared to him and gave him the chance to repent which he did and became one of the greatest apostles. Jesus gives sinners the chance to repent and turn to him. Should we do less?

thistle,

Thanks for letting me know sincerity is required in repentance and confession and it’s not a mechanical process. I had no idea .

No, I would not deprive anyone of the chance to become Catholic. Yet, as I’m sure you’re aware, it usually takes years for anyone to be executed and that is plenty of time to repent, confess, see a Priest and even become Catholic.

St. Paul, from what I understand, was persecuting Christians with the approval of his government. What he was doing was wrong, but it wasn’t illegal. Thus while he was forgiven by God for doing what he did after his repentance, he wasn’t facing any jail time and thus was able to go on to become a missionary.

 

[palmas85]

If a person is sentenced to death and execution takes place before they have had the chance to repent and ask for forgiveness then the opportunity for salvation is taken away.
If the person is jailed for life then they may come to repent after, for example, 20 years and if they confess and are absolved they are saved (assuming no more sins before dying).
You don’t say oops I’m about to be executed so I’d better confess and be saved. There is a high chance that is not sincere.

There is equally no guarantee that a request for forgiveness after being incarcerated for 20, 30 40 years would be any more sincere. Executions don’t take place the next day after the sentence. There is almost invariably a lag time of nay months to many years for the actual execution to take place. The condemned has ample time to mull over his crimes and reflect. If he chooses not to do so it is hardly the fault of the state.

 

[Tommy_Joe]

Thistle, and others who are opposed to the death penalty. Will you at least admit there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the death penalty, and that the state has the right to enforce it?

No, I can’t do that.

I understand in a sudden situation where your life or the life of another is in danger, and there is NO other alternative, the act of killing is justified. Perhaps if you’re shipwrecked on a deserted island and your small community is in danger of a murderer running around in the woods, you may have no choice,…but I have never been convinced by someone’s interpretation of scripture, (including in any Catechism), that the capitol punishment our legal system uses today is acceptable by God.

In today’s society there* is* an alternative. The murderer can be imprisoned in a cell, removed from society forever, period!

And don’t give me the “but he could get out” argument. That’s not life in prison.

 

[thistle]

There is equally no guarantee that a request for forgiveness after being incarcerated for 20, 30 40 years would be any more sincere. Executions don’t take place the next day after the sentence. There is almost invariably a lag time of nay months to many years for the actual execution to take place. The condemned has ample time to mull over his crimes and reflect. If he chooses not to do so it is hardly the fault of the state.

There is certainly no guarantee anyone will convert or if already a Christian repent and confess but in jail they still have the opportunity to do so. Its not up to you or anyone to say they should have repented by X number of years and if they have not done it by then that’s too bad for them.

 

[thistle]

thistle,

Thanks for letting me know sincerity is required in repentance and confession and it’s not a mechanical process. I had no idea .

**No, I would not deprive anyone of the chance to become Catholic. Yet, as I’m sure you’re aware, it usually takes years for anyone to be executed and that is plenty of time to repent, **confess, see a Priest and even become Catholic.
St. Paul, from what I understand, was persecuting Christians with the approval of his government. What he was doing was wrong, but it wasn’t illegal. Thus while he was forgiven by God for doing what he did after his repentance, he wasn’t facing any jail time and thus was able to go on to become a missionary.

Another person who thinks they are equal to God by determining how long a person should have before they should repent.

With regard to the death penalty there are three types of people. Those who are flatly against it, those who are against it but accept it is allowed (that’s me) and those who seem to simply want vengeance and are intent on killing as many convicted of a capital offense as possible.

 

[TylerM]

Wow, thanks for the responses. I see we have delved a bit deeper into the issue itself. To comment on that:
I really wonder why so many anti-DP advocates are attempting to make the state an instrument of charity. Sure, it is admirable and loving to spare an offender for the sake of his repentance, but this seems supererogatory. Indeed, what right do I, as a relatively unoffended party, have to force such supererogation on offended parties via force of law? Furthermore, do we make God a villain if we insist that neverending patience with offenders in a moral necessity? How could God ever judge? Rather, it has been appointed for a man to die and then to be judged.

Romans 13:3-4 NASB
“For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”

This is as much as to say that it seems that the State need not suffer capital offenders to live till natural death. What do make of this sort of argument?

===========

Returning to the original issue, let me posit a question for those who contend that I ought to submit to the Living Magisterium out of obedience. What would you do if the next Pope reversed the teaching? Would you consider the Living Magisterium compromised? Would you change your views?

 

[Matt33]

Another person who thinks they are equal to God by determining how long a person should have before they should repent.

.

You MUST be talking about the murderer not the state right, that is the only way that even makes sense. When they killed in a death penalty state the lit thier own fuse for thier death.