Voting for pro death penalty president?

[Emeraldlady]

TheLittleLady:

We are to obey the Pope.

The church is reasonably clear on this point. We are to assent to doctrines, whether they be infallible or ordinary, but we have no obligation to assent to prudential judgments.

Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

If one is humbly confident that their own prudential judgement and knowledge exceeds that of the spiritual leaders and experts of the Church, I can see that. But considering that God forbids use of the death penalty if it does more harm than good to society, one would need to be very sure they own judgement is properly informed in order to dismiss strong Church teaching.

 

[Emeraldlady]

“ What does ‘inadmissible’ mean ?”

To the rest of the English speaking world it means ‘not allowed’. The American Bishops have to walk with this carefully until the shift in mentality is completed. The biggest problem the Church has to tackle is the claim falsely being made as ‘Catholic’, that the death penalty is intrinsically just and can never be ‘immoral’, only ‘unwise’. A ‘not so elegant’ ambiguous use of a word if there ever was one.

 

[Ender]

At this time, I think it is a safe bet for Catholics to oppose the death penalty… regardless of any ambiguity around the nature of the present teaching.

True. It is in fact a safe bet for Catholics to choose whatever they believe is best with regard to the use of capital punishment. That’s the nature of a prudential judgment.

 

[Metis1]

The Catechism is really quite clear on this, so the only real question is whether one chooses to accept it or not. Personally, I choose to accept it instead of fabricating excuses not to as there is simply nothing to be gained by having the death penalty in societies whereas there are jails and prisons as an alternative.

 

[Ender]

The Catechism is really quite clear on this, so the only real question is whether one chooses to accept it or not.

Asserting that the catechism is clear doesn’t make it so. As I pointed out, it isn’t clear to the US bishops who actually declared it ambiguous. But if it is so clear then explain this: does it declare capital punishment to be intrinsically evil? That should be easy to answer if there really is clarity here.

Personally, I choose to accept it instead of fabricating excuses not to as there is simply nothing to be gained by having the death penalty in societies whereas there are jails and prisons as an alternative.

The existence of good jails and prisons is an irrelevancy. You are supporting an argument that, if your understanding of the catechism is correct, has been repudiated. JPII wrote that capital punishment was acceptable if it was necessary, but that modern penal facilities made it unnecessary. Francis, however, closed that “loophole”. It is now “inadmissible” regardless of whether it is needed for the protection of society or not.

Nor is it just the teaching of JPII and BXVI that has been overturned. Your understanding represents a repudiation of every pope prior to Francis, every Father and Doctor of the church, and every bishop, Magisterium, and council that preceded him.

 

[Metis1]

I said my piece and explained why, plus I am not at all even the least bit interested in having this debate with you.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Most certainly, because every good catholic knows that this should not have been updated. I am not only referring to traditionalists but even to New rite conservative (“normal” Catholics). We are undoubtedly now in a crises in church history like never before, as Bishop Schneider Himself makes clear. We must be absolutely on guard like never before, and pray for the Pope now in particular all the time.

What the church has taught consistently and in ecumenical councils is catholic teaching. Catechisms are not as infallible and as binding as councils are and it is certain that the teaching of the constant magisterium is that the death penalty is valid. When Popes were involved in people’s deaths in the past, this was not immoral when done through the judicial system.

It would be incorrect to suggest that nobody knew the truth about the death penalty up until the reign of the 266th Pope and that the first 265 were all wrong. Any sane person knows this and not only “old rite” people. All of this will be cleared up very soon either by another Pope or by a council (or by our lord himself which will hopefully not be necessary.)

There are plenty of approved groups that have wrote about this Issue like the Dowry magazine which is wrote by the FSSP and defends the death penalty in light of catholic teaching and the current climate in the church. The FSSP accepts all Catholic teaching in its purest form and was approved by Saint John Paul II (who’s legacy is currently being undermined in many ways by high ranking prelates sadly).

https://fssp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-05-06-Dowry-42-ONLINE.pdf

 

[Emeraldlady]

Most certainly, because every good catholic knows that this should not have been updated. I am not only referring to traditionalists but even to New rite conservative (“normal” Catholics).

Why wouldn’t teaching be updated to address current issues? That’s the reason for the living Magisterium. The update was predictable for the last 30 years and 4 of the last 5 Popes. The USCCB wrote way back in 2005…

Under the leadership of our beloved Pope John Paul II, Catholic teaching on the death penalty has been articulated and applied with greater clarity and strength. Many people, especially Catholics, appear to be reconsidering their past support for the death penalty. The Supreme Court and some states, with our active support, have limited the use of capital punishment. Today, there is a serious re-examination of the death penalty—its fairness and effectiveness, its social and moral dimensions. We renew our common conviction that it is time for our nation to abandon the illusion that we can protect life by taking life. Ending the use of the death penalty would be one important step away from a culture of death toward building a culture of life.

 

[Chet1]

I, personally , prefer to be pro-life, anti-murder!

If I remember correctly, the scripture prohibits murder in Exodus 20:13, “thou shalt not commit murder,” this is the basis of the pro-life position. Scripture plainly says in Leviticus 24:17: “'Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.” So, if you follow scripture, (and the general rule is neither Magisterium nor tradition may ever contradict scripture,) then you must be both pro-life and pro-death penalty.

I’m not saying you cant oppose the death penalty, as Pope Saint John Paul II did, “in most cases,” but you cant justify it from scripture.

 

[godisgood77]

I’m not saying you cant oppose the death penalty, as Pope Saint John Paul II did, “in most cases,” but you cant justify it from scripture.

It’s a good thing that the magisterium is not scripture alone… that is a Protestant idea

 

[Chet1]

True, my point is, Pope Saint John Paul II, while saying that for the most part the death penalty was unneccessary, he didn’t rule it out completely. And while we dont subscribe to scripture alone, the church does subscribe to the rule I stated above, that, church teaching MAY NOT contradict scripture. The magisterium, Pope, Bishop, or council, can’t just “make it up as they go along”

 

[Grizzly1]

if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

I wonder how this would apply to violent groups. If you have a violent street gang and one of those gang members commits a murder in the course of normal gang “business,” would the death penalty be justified? I’m thinking it would because it could act as a deterrent against further life-threatening violence by that gang. You could apply the same logic to terrorist groups, drug cartels, child sex-trafficking organizations, etc.

For the record I’m generally supportive of the death penalty.

 

[otjm]

A President may have a platform, but does not make law - that is up to Congress. It is a far less important issue than is the issue of abortion - which laws again are up to Congress.

Further, the issue of the death penalty, while to a limited extent may be Federal, is far more likely to be a State issue. Since 1963, 3 people have been executed by the Federal Government (excepting the military), so it is not like there is much likelihood of change.

 

[Ender]

Why wouldn’t teaching be updated to address current issues?

Because morality does not change with time or place.

Under the leadership of our beloved Pope John Paul II, Catholic teaching on the death penalty has been articulated and applied with greater clarity and strength.

So how was the teaching updated? It was applied prudentially under JPII, and you believe (as do I) it is still a judgment as to whether it should be applied today. What’s changed? Others (and I think that would include Metis) believe it is now completely forbidden, which would be a reversal in doctrine and a repudiation of JPII and everyone prior to Francis.

It is one thing to call for an end to using it on prudential grounds (building a culture of life), and quite another to reverse a 2000 year old doctrine. The ambiguity in the recent change is that it suggests the latter but is in fact the former.

 

[Ender]

It’s a good thing that the magisterium is not scripture alone… that is a Protestant idea

The interpretation of scripture, however, is constrained.

…it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (1st Vatican Council)

The Fathers were in fact virtually unanimous in their understanding that Scripture permitted capital punishment. Most people recognize that point.

Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

In Scripture and the classical tradition the death penalty was approved primarily on the ground that retribution was needed for the moral health of society. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. (St. Bellarmine)

It’s a little late to suddenly decide that Scripture doesn’t say what everyone believed it said up until now.

 

[Genesis315]

The whole point of public authority is to defend and advance the common good of its subjects within the bounds of justice and the objective moral order (cf. CCC 1897-1904). Public authority’s power to inflict death as a punishment should be seen within this context.

This punishment contributes to the common good when it provides proportionate redress in the order of justice to the offense committed or security of life to the rest of the society served by the public authority. If there are better means to accomplish these ends or if using the death penalty would be accompanied by disproportionate evils (say, too high a risk of error or society treating executions as entertainment or spectacles, or decreasing rather than increasing the proper appreciation for life in a society), then it might be a net loss to the common good. This latter circumstantial analysis seems to be the common opinion of most bishops and the last few Popes.

However, since none of us are omniscient, there will always be disagreement about what measures best serve the common good in a particular set of circumstances given limited resources. Politics, at its best, should be about the process of reaching the best conclusion and course of action in such cases. When it comes to such political decisions, the Church hands on the fixed moral principles and values to apply, but “because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community” (CCC 2245). In light of this, “The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen” (CCC 2245, quoting Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes).

The principle of subsidiarity is especially important for political questions, since those closer to the community affect generally have better knowledge of its circumstances and needs.

So, to answer the OP’s question, one can vote for a politician who supports the death penalty–and even favor the use of death penalty–if you believe in good faith it would be most conducive to the common good. The Church encourages your freedom and responsibility in that matter.

The difference with abortion is that it is always by its very nature an attack on the common good, since by definition it denies a large class of people the most fundamental right (life), definitively excludes them from the opportunity to share in society’s temporal and spiritual goods, and provides them with absolutely no security or protection (not to mention each act introduces a grave injustice into the societal order without any redress).

 

[Ender]

Yours was a very good comment, but I do have one objection. You wrote -

This punishment contributes to the common good when it provides proportionate redress in the order of justice to the offense committed or security of life to the rest of the society served by the public authority.

This is surely true as regards the first part, but I disagree with the second part: punishment is not justified by whether it provides security to the public. Punishment is justified by whether it is…just, that is, if it is proportionate to the crime. We will accept a punishment that does not protect, but no one should accept a punishment that is not just, that is undeserved.

One of the problems with 2267 (prior to Francis’ change) was the ambiguity that suggested the death penalty could be used if it was necessary for protection without linking it to the teaching that it must first be deserved. If it is not deserved, that is if it is not just in the sense of being proportionate to the crime, then the question of protection is irrelevant.

 

[pnewton]

As I have not said this for a while, though I have said it often, I know that there are people who cannot be safely (95%) kept secure by being incarcerated. These people are very, very few. I supported St. JP2 that it should be virtually non-existent, and Pope Francis, that it is not a moral option today, not because I accept a premise that all can be safely incarcerated, but because the number of those who are a danger is so negligible as to not be worth the price of having a death penalty.

Abortion is worse, infinitely so. It exists because of our culture, what St. JP2 called the culture of death. All this talk of overturning Roe, pro-life judges, etc., miss the target. We will not make strides in abortion, back to 1960 levels, until we make strides in this culture of death. As long as the message of life is seen as inconsistent, Catholics will be seen as hypocrites trying to regulate morals. We must make visible and consistent the value and dignity of all life, for life’s sake alone, to change those in our communities. Therefore, because I want abortion to end, I will seek the end of the death penalty, along with the totality of Catholic social doctrine, rooted in human dignity.

 

[Genesis315]

I agree with that.

I had in mind CCC1925 which has “the peace and security of the group and of its members” as an element of the common good and the Roman Catechism which states of this punishment, “The end of the [5th] 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.”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

I wonder how this would apply to violent groups. If you have a violent street gang and one of those gang members commits a murder in the course of normal gang “business,” would the death penalty be justified? I’m thinking it would because it could act as a deterrent against further life-threatening violence by that gang. You could apply the same logic to terrorist groups, drug cartels, child sex-trafficking organizations, etc.

For the record I’m generally supportive of the death penalty.

As I understand what the Church teaches, (paraphrased)

if the criminal can’t be controlled, with the resources available, and threatens the lives of others as a result, the death penalty is the last resort but still a resort .