We’ve been bishops in 3 death penalty states. It’s time to stop federal executions for good

[Emeraldlady]

Maybe it is my fault but I read their statements saying it is intrinsically evil.

You need a crash course on the nature of intrinsic vs extrinsic evil.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

That basically means that an act that in one lot of conditions is good, can in other conditions be evil. When the tenet that the act serves ie. promoting the inviolable nature of human life, is serving to promote the antithesis of the tenet ie. who dies is subject only to the opinion of a human agenda… the act is no longer just in the eyes of God.

 

[Ender]

Really? I believe you are wrong. Innocent people. have been executed.

This is often alleged, but as I said, the truth of the matter is assumed.

Retribution? There seems to be a justification for everything.

This is church teaching; it is not my personal invention.

“Protecting society is not the primary purpose of punishment,” he said. “The primary purpose of punishment is retribution, by which we don’t mean revenge but by the society expressing its moral outrage, its outrage at the heinous gravity of a particular crime.” It is here where “prudence” determines the proper response to an offense. (Fr. Thomas Petri, Dean of the DominicanHouse of Studies)

 

[Rau]

I am not sure why you are so keen on finding faults with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty.

I think Ender’s concern is the teaching appears to have changed; that what is being said now appears to break with what was said in the past; and that this is not acknowledged or explained by the current day “teachers”.

 

[Rau]

The new text, following the footsteps of the teaching of John Paul II in Evangelium vitæ , affirms that ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes.

The nature of capital punishment has historically been understood first and foremost as “punishment”. The above says that is unacceptable (now and always). Therefore, capital punishment in the past must really have been acceptable for another reason Eg. The defence of society from the criminal. This then would admit reasoning that today’s penal system is a less “harm causing” means of defence and thus to be preferred.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

I don’t see how they can say this in one sentence and then in the next say this doesn’t contradict previous doctrine.

Well, what can I say? It made sense to me.

Yes, I do, as I laid out in my response, and to the specifics of which you didn’t respond to one of them.

The specifics were addressed at the time by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith acting on the personal authority of the Holy Father: Lettera ai Vescovi circa la nuova redazione del n. 2267 del Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica sulla pena di morte a cura della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede I did provide a link to this above. However, I suspect that it is going to be very difficult to convince you, because I don’t think you will accept what the CDF says.

A more insulting judgment hardly seems possible. Did you not even consider the possibility that I believe my understanding - based as it is on 2000 years of church teaching and the virtually unanimous consent of the Fathers and Doctors - is accurate? You can’t even imagine that I might believe what I say?

I do believe that you believe what you say. Of course I do. I just don’t understand why you believe it. It honestly does seem to me that you think that Pope Francis and the CDF between them do not understand the development of doctrine. That is not intended to be insulting. I honestly infer from what you say that you think that your understanding of this issue is superior to that of the pope and the CDF.

And when it fails to do that should the death penalty be allowed?

In the United States today there is no circumstance in which society does not have the means of protecting itself.

The primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice, not protection or deterrence.

That is not my understanding. I regularly work with offenders in my job. The last thing that those people need is retributive justice. The main objective of punishment is the rehabilitation of the offender.

In my opinion, which probably doesn’t count for anything, the state has no legitimate business killing people. I also don’t think that killing ever serves the ends of justice. I find it quite chilling that somebody would think that it is ever the place of the government to kill.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

I don’t know what “a false sense of mercy is”, still less how it can be “despicable”. I think the state killing people in cold blood is what is despicable.

My bishop was not one of those who signed it. However, my archbishop here in San Francisco did issues this excellent statement on the moratorium on the death penalty in California: https://www.cacatholic.org/moratorium

I have to admit that I am absolutely flummoxed by this thread. I posted the article from America thinking that it was a story about three of our bishops doing something really positive that everyone would want to applaud. But instead of people focusing on the great thing that the bishops are doing, a handful of people have turned this into a long discussion about the development of Catholic doctrine on the death penalty. Is it always like this around here? When I was talking about this open letter from the bishops with some friends from my parish here in San Francisco I think everyone took it as a given that Catholics would see this as a good thing. Nobody raised topics like retributive justice or whether the Holy Father’s teaching contradicts fathers and doctors of the Church.

 

[Irishmom2]

Some people go by “Thou shall not kill.”

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Is Pope Francis’s opinion also wrong?

Perhaps I don’t understand or perhaps I am not Catholic enough, but I think that there are limits on the legitimate powers of the state. I accept that the state has the legitimate power of depriving people of liberty or property in exceptional circumstances prescribed by law and following due process. But I do not believe that the state has a legitimate authority to deprive human beings of life itself. Interestingly, most countries around the world no longer claim this authority. In Europe, Latin America, and much of the British Commonwealth, including many Catholic countries such as Brazil and Italy, the state no longer asserts the authority to take human life.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Okay, well that certainly clears up a lot of things.

 

[Maelstrom1]

1. Claiming the death penalty unduly affects the poor and should be abolished thusly is a weak argument based more on financial resources than anything theological. 2) The Bishops as a group wonderfully show the difference between education and intelligence. Five university degrees does not necessarily correlate with “smarts”, agressive imperiousness and a certainty of superiority but not necessarily intelligence. 3) We have to consider this in totality with current proclamations concerning incarceration in general. D.P. is wrong and so are life without parole, a life sentence, extended sentences, solitary confinement etc. We must show mercy and, what, open up all prisons? 4) The Bishops must be obeyed when speaking of issues regarding our Faith. The rest of the time, and as isolated as they are in their palaces, I see no good reason to listen. And I see no good reason to obey.

 

[Maelstrom1]

Of course, note that I am not in favor of a death penalty but church hierarchy does have a real love for placing all aspects of existence into a nice neat package which is devoid of any reality. If only they would walk among the people like Jesus did…

 

[Aquinas11]

Listening to Trent Horn and Timothy Gordon on this. Great talk! You guys should check it out

Counsel of Trent podcast episode #226

 

[Neithan]

I think you can dissent from this if you really feel that you must, but the teaching is that in the world today with our modern systems of detention, the death penalty is not acceptable. This doesn’t reject any teachings of the Fathers or Doctors, but recognizes the change in circumstances, which affects the legitimacy of something that is not, per se, contrary to the natural law (neither is slavery, inherently), but is contrary to mercy and unnecessary. Therefore the Pope has advised that we eradicate it. Doctrine develops.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Can you tell us what your opinion is of the rest of the world who have abolished the death penalty without censure from the Church? Are we not as holy as America? Are the Vatican failing in their duty to guide us against this trend to abolish the death penalty over the last century and a half?

 

[Aquinas11]

“Protecting society is not the primary purpose of punishment,” he said. “The primary purpose of punishment is retribution, by which we don’t mean revenge but by the society expressing its moral outrage, its outrage at the heinous gravity of a particular crime.” It is here where “prudence” determines the proper response to an offense. (Fr. Thomas Petri, Dean of the DominicanHouse of Studies)

Yes Gordon emphasized this in the Trent Horn debate, emphasizing the retributive aspect is strongest teaching in support, especially because the “danger to public” is a utilitarian argument (even if only 10% are danger to public, it’s ok to kill 100% to make sure the 10% threat is eliminated) and thus not permitted by Catholic teaching

Gordon even cites LATimes article that 73% convicted murderers in California are released on street and have 10% recidivism rate , thus 7.3% of convicted murderers in California go on to kill or harm society again. Despite this, Gordon maintains the utilitarian argument that it’s ok to kill 100% of convicted murderers to make sure the 7.3% are eliminated goes against Catholic teaching and thus the retributive teaching (based on nature of offense , not whether each one will reoffend) is proper basis for death penalty

 

[Patri]

. I find it quite chilling that somebody would think that it is ever the place of the government to kill.

That is exactly my feeling. It perturbs me existing options the way people hold on to the death penalty.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

The Venn diagram has an enormous overlap between “justice” and “revenge or retribution.” In face, the latter is often the only option consistent with justice. No justice system that considers revenge and retribution ipso facto inadmissible is worthy of the name.

 

[yankeesouth]

Some people go by “Thou shall not kill.”

Some go by 'Thou shall not murder".

 

[Ender]

I think Ender’s concern is the teaching appears to have changed; that what is being said now appears to break with what was said in the past; and that this is not acknowledged or explained by the current day “teachers”.

Here’s the problem: this citation is from the Vatican and purports to explain the change.

All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.

So, if the new version of 2267 does not contradict the earlier version then capital punishment cannot be intrinsically evil, despite the fact that this is the assumption a great many people have made. But if it is not intrinsically evil then what, exactly, has changed?

It is claimed that the death penalty is now “inadmissible” because it violates man’s dignity, but if it violates man’s dignity than how can it not be intrinsically evil? And if it is not intrinsically evil then (as a moral concern) how can it be inadmissible?

If it is not intrinsically evil then its use is still the prudential judgment it was before, and nothing has really changed, so what is the “change” really about? That’s the problem no one is willing to address. The question (what does “inadmissible” mean?) was raised at this fall’s bishops’ meeting in Baltimore. The response? It was explained as “eloquent ambiguity”. Think about that for a moment, and then tell me we shouldn’t be concerned about this.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Can’t ending Capital Punishment be a good symbol of working towards restorative justice and criminal justice reform, isn’t mass incarceration a problem in society and more can be done to reduce recidivism, why not let ending the Death Penalty be a symbol for changing the system - for the better?