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

[yankeesouth]

but the teaching is that in the world today with our modern systems of detention, the death penalty is not acceptable.

I think the wording is ‘the death penalty is unnecessary’ but the reality is there are instances of modern systems of detention failing.

 

[Aquinas11]

Death penalty is great for mass incarceration

 

[yankeesouth]

Prison escapes are done by felons that are not on death row.

 

[Patri]

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

Exactly! Societies evolve and we deal with situations in different ways. The Jews of the time of Moses were not the same that Jesus met.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

The anti-death penalty stance in the West has more to do with the injustice and unevenness in how it has been carried out than it has the the death penalty in and of itself as a form of justice. Which we must add again, a divine justice approved by God Himself.

It is true that capital punishment has been handed down disproportionately to those with lesser means, i.e. the poor and uneducated, and even in terms of race. Such errors are unacceptable and do indeed bring to light shortcomings and grave errors in its use.

However, such errors can be remedied by requiring certain standards of evidence, i.e. a certain amount of witnesses to a crime, video evidence, DNA, etc. And I believe that juries for capital punishment cases should be made up of 15 jurors instead of twelve, and requiring unanimous approval for a death sentence. Using this criteria, I would expand the death penalty beyond murder to certain crimes against minors and retain it as well for treason and sedition.

The current mindset in the Church used for eliminating the death penalty seems to stem from a worldly rather than spiritual concern. Many bishops have adopted a way of thinking seen through the lens of class struggle. That is, they seem to view the criminals as “products of their environment,” so to speak; in some way or another, these criminals suffered injustice at the hands of those in the upper class, and as a result had no other recourse other than to a life of crime. As such, even those criminals committing the most heinous of acts are not fully culpable of their crimes, so the thinking goes, because forces outside of their own free will compelled them to perform these actions. Therefore, the very society which produced the conditions which fostered the criminal has no right to put him to death. Yet one wonders if the bishops would retain this way of thinking for say, a white supremacist who gunned down women and children at the border. My guess is that they wouldn’t.

 

[Rau]

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?

I had a go at explaining that in another post.

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.

 

[po18guy]

I would say that, in either case, one should not murder. Every thing else is:

Blah blah blah >
< Blah blah blah

 

[Ender]

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.

But this is what the church teaches. Punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence, and the primary one is retribution.

2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

After citing the primary objective the catechism goes on to say that “in addition” and “as far as possible” should rehabilitate the offender. Clearly rehabilitation is not the primary objective of punishment.

Nobody raised topics like retributive justice or whether the Holy Father’s teaching contradicts fathers and doctors of the Church.

Having read the arguments, however, can you at least understand why these issues have been raised?

I do not believe that the state has a legitimate authority to deprive human beings of life itself.

Do you recognize that this contradicts 2000 years of teaching by the church as well as scripture?

Is Pope Francis’s opinion also wrong?

First it is critical to understand that what he has written is in fact his opinion. It is not a new doctrine.

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.

As I just said, this is an opinion, not a new doctrine, and as such does not oblige our assent. To disagree with it does not constitute dissent from the church.

 

[Ender]

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?

Why should we assume this? Trent said:

Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder.

Does anyone really believe we see murder as all that wicked any more? Capital punishment when it is used is reserved for murder with “special circumstances” because, apparently, murder itself is not that awful. The church requires states apply a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime, but as the punishment for murder becomes less and less severe doesn’t that signal that we view murder as less and less serious?

Abandoning the death penalty simply reinforces the perception that the murder was not the problem and that the real concern is to rehabilitate the murderer. Thus the command in Genesis 9:6 is turned on its head. Where before it was understood that the life of the murderer was forfeit because the life of his victim was sacred (which is in fact what it says), we now interpret it to mean his life is secure because his life is sacred.

I don’t consider this a change for the better.

The current mindset in the Church used for eliminating the death penalty seems to stem from a worldly rather than spiritual concern.

The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

 

[Ender]

The nature of capital punishment has historically been understood first and foremost as “punishment”. The above says that is unacceptable (now and always).

The primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice. That has not changed, nor can it. Reread 2267.

Therefore, capital punishment in the past must really have been acceptable for another reason Eg. The defence of society from the criminal.

Nowhere in church history will you find any document stating this. You can find documents (Trent itself says this) that recognize the protection the death penalty provides as a benefit, but nowhere does anyone claim that protection justifies punishment. To accept this argument is to accept injustice.

Either the criminal deserves his punishment or he doesn’t. If the crime merits death then it is unjust not to apply it, but if the crime doesn’t merit death then it is even more immoral to apply it just to achieve our own security. Your approach disassociates punishment from justice, where we would punish people not as they deserve but for our own benefit.

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? unless, of course, I deserve it." (C.S. Lewis)

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

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.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

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.

I’m not following. Are you saying that something that the Church calls intrinsically evil can in fact be good in some conditions?

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I have heard it the other way in regards to when someone is faced with imminent death they often start to question and seek how to make things right with god.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) 1Lord1Faith:

“ought to” - according to who? The Church teaches differently. It teaches that the primary interest of penal sanctions are “rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal”.

I’m sorry, I used the wrong word in my post. I should have wrote “orientation” instead of interest. Here are the texts from the CDF document, which expounded on the changes in the CCC, and which correspond to the change in the CCC.

CCC
In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

CDF:
This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal.

I would find it hard to believe that the new paragraph in the CCC, 2267, is contradicting the unchanged paragraph 2266. If the primary orientation of penal sanctions is to be focused on rehabilitation, and the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense, then those two cannot be in conflict and must be focusing on two distinct aspects of a punishment.

After citing the primary objective the catechism goes on to say that “in addition” and “as far as possible” should rehabilitate the offender. Clearly rehabilitation is not the primary objective of punishment.

In the IntraText version of the CCC, on the Vatican website, the word “Moreover” is used at the beginning of the sentence instead of the phrase “Punishment then,”. The meaning of the word moreover is “also and more importantly”. But then, in the same sentence, the word “should” is used instead of “must”, to emphasize the aspect of rehabilitation. The word “must” is found in the standard version, not the IntraText version.

Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

Why would there be a conflict between the two paragraphs? If the primary orientation of penal sanctions is to rehabilitate, then unnecessarily putting a criminal to death would be in conflict with that orientation.

Also, there is this from the CCC 2264:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . .

Doesn’t this also apply to the State?

 

[Taras_Bulba]

Perhaps you should travel out of San Francisco more.

 

[OKComputer]

My friend said, “The Catholics have to worry about their own house. No one takes them seriously anymore.” To be clear, I do not agree with him but I’m afraid that many people do agree with him. It breaks my heart.

 

[Ender]

I would find it hard to believe that the new paragraph in the CCC, 2267, is contradicting the unchanged paragraph 2266. If the primary orientation of penal sanctions is to be focused on rehabilitation, and the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense, then those two cannot be in conflict and must be focusing on two distinct aspects of a punishment.

There can only be one primary objective, not two, and the meaning of 2266 cannot have been changed by “comments” from the CDF. The nature of punishment cannot be altered by fiat; it is part of the natural law. There is a clear conflict between 2266 and the assertion that rehabilitation is the new primary (or new co-primary) objective of punishment.

In the IntraText version of the CCC, on the Vatican website, the word “Moreover” is used at the beginning of the sentence instead of the phrase “Punishment then,”. The meaning of the word moreover is “also and more importantly”.

No, moreover means also, it assuredly does not mean more importantly, nor is that any kind of reasonable interpretation as it would mean primary doesn’t mean primary. You would have it mean secondary.

Why would there be a conflict between the two paragraphs? If the primary orientation of penal sanctions is to rehabilitate, then unnecessarily putting a criminal to death would be in conflict with that orientation.

The conflict arises because rehabilitation is in fact not primary; it is secondary. Also, no one is contending that it is good to do what is unnecessary. The whole debate is about the necessity of capital punishment, not simply defining it as unneeded.

Also, there is this from the CCC 2264:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…
Doesn’t this also apply to the State?

No, vengeance (understood as punishment for crimes) is forbidden to the individual, but is the duty of the state. What applies to the former in no way applies to the latter.

It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St Thomas)

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

I have traveled plenty, mostly in countries that do not have the death penalty. I attended grad school in England for two years and tried to visit as many European countries as I could while I was there. I’ve also visited our northern and southern neighbors, neither of which have the death penalty. I also visit my family in New York, a state that hasn’t executed anybody since 1963. I have to say, I meet very few Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans, or New Yorkers who support capital punishment the way that several people on here seem to. I guess I don’t travel enough in the South, the Midwest, or communist or Islamic countries.

 

[CatholicSooner]

I do not like the death penalty. I wish it wasn’t used. But I do not like the changes that the Church made to the Catechism either.

Simply put, the reason they give in the new wording of the Catechism makes it all about the dignity of the human person and that the death penalty should not be permitted because of that dignity.

This is the main reason given. This seems to imply that it never should have been permitted. Because the human person has always had this dignity.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

There can only be one primary objective, not two, and the meaning of 2266 cannot have been changed by “comments” from the CDF.

That’s why I said that there must then be two distinct aspects of punishment being commented on. 2266 is referring to the primary scope of punishment. 2267 is referring to the primary orientation of said punishment. See the distinction?

So if the primary orientation of “penal sanctions” is rehabilitation, then the death penalty cannot fit into that space.

Moreover, “redressing the disorder” does not have to include the death penalty. It’s not necessary.

The whole debate is about the necessity of capital punishment, not simply defining it as unneeded.

If it’s a necessity, it’s not capital punishment.

 

[Ender]

That’s why I said that there must then be two distinct aspects of punishment being commented on. 2266 is referring to the primary scope of punishment. 2267 is referring to the primary orientation of said punishment. See the distinction?

It seems you are using two words to describe the same thing. How are they not synonyms? If the most important aspect of punishment is retribution how can the most important orientation be something else? Punishment has four objectives, and only one can be primary.

So if the primary orientation of “penal sanctions” is rehabilitation, then the death penalty cannot fit into that space.

I think this is wrong on two counts. The first being what I discussed above, but the second is that capital punishment is not contrary to a person’s rehabilitation. The catechism itself recognizes this in the endnote to 2266. Just after saying that punishment “should contribute to the correction of the offender” it references a punishment that does just that. It cites the example of the good thief, who’s execution led to his salvation.

Moreover, “redressing the disorder” does not have to include the death penalty. It’s not necessary.

This is an assertion. It’s what the argument is all about.