When or is the death penalty alright?

[diggerdomer]

Each person’s right to live only extends to the point where they become a danger to those around them.

Is there a place we can find this in Catholic teaching? Note, I’m asking about what you say – right to life – not right to liberty or something else. Thanks.

 

[Ender]

You seem to focus on the history. I thought the OP was looking for guidance here and now, today, on the Tradition taught by the Church.

I don’t think we have the same definition of the word Tradition. What it means is something inherited from the past; something handed down. It does not mean something that was invented fifteen years ago. The traditional teaching of the Church, which was virtually unchanged for nearly 2000 years, was that the accepted penalty for murder was death.

You seem to hang on to some statement(s) of Pius XII as if that was the fullness of Church teaching, and nothing else can be said.

This is a somewhat ironic statement in that there is only one argument for 2267: JPII said it. That is, there is no document from anyone in the Church for the previous 1995 years that supports it (that I am aware of). On the other side, I can quote not just several popes (Pius XII, Pius X, Leo XIII, Innocent III, and Innocent I) but catechisms (Baltimore, Catechism of Pius X, Trent), as well as Doctors of the Church (Augustine, Aquinas). If you want the fullness of Church teaching you have to look elsewhere than the current Catechism.

Speaking of the current Catechism, it is at odds with itself. As Portrait has been pointing out, the Church’s position on capital punishment comes from Genesis 9:6. This was the basis for the positions laid out in the Catechism of Trent that understood that passage to mean what it obviously says: “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed.” That is, the penalty for murder is death. Lest you think that this is some Old Testament interpretation the Church has moved away from you should look at section 2260, which quotes Gen 9:6 and then adds: “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

I understand people’s incredulity when I suggest that there is a problem with the current Catechism but I simply see no way to balance what is said in 2267 with what is said in 2260 and 2266 (let alone all that has been said before it).

Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe.
(R. Michael Dunnigan J.D., J.C.L. (canon lawyer) 2003)

Ender

 

[Ender]

I will read some more of St. Aquinas’ thoughts on capital punishment since his writings have greatly shaped my life and I was confirmed with his name. It’s just very hard for me to accept capital punishment since I do not believe the government should regulate who lives and who dies and I really believe in Cardinal Bernardin’s Consistent Ethic of Life.

If you’re serious about reading what Aquinas said I may be able to help with that. There is a lot more involved, however, than just his thoughts on capital punishment as you I think you need to investigate interrelated ideas like justice, punishment, expiation, retribution, and mercy. Anyway, here are some specific areas to start with from the Summa Theologica:
newadvent.org/summa/index.html

Part I, 21 The justice and mercy of God (3 ad 2)
Part I/II, 21 The consequences of Human action (3, 4)
87 The debt of punishment (3 ad 1&2&3; 4, 6, 7)
96 The power of human law (6)
Part II/II 25 Charity
30 Mercy (3, 3 ad 1, 4)
33 Fraternal correction (1, 2)
58 Justice (1, 11 ad 1, 12)
62 Restitution (2, 2 ad 1)
64 Murder (2, 2 ad 2, 3, 8)
66 Theft and robbery (6)
99 Sacrilege (4)
108 Vengeance (1, 1 ad 1&2)
157 Meekness and Clemency (2 ad 1)
158 Anger (1, 1 ad 3)

And if you find others you think are relevant I would appreciate knowing what they are.

Ender

 

[MacMarauder]

If you’re serious about reading what Aquinas said I may be able to help with that. There is a lot more involved, however, than just his thoughts on capital punishment as you I think you need to investigate interrelated ideas like justice, punishment, expiation, retribution, and mercy. Anyway, here are some specific areas to start with from the Summa Theologica:
newadvent.org/summa/index.html

Ender

I haven’t cracked open the Summa Theologica since university but I am getting back into Aquinas’ work this winter. I was going to start with the “Shorter Summa” and “Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox” by G.K. Chesterton. I’ll keep this conversation in mind as I get back into Aquinas’ theology, as you mention there are a lot of interrelated ideas like justice and punishment contained in his work.

Mac

 

[diggerdomer]

I understand people’s incredulity when I suggest that there is a problem with the current Catechism but I simply see no way to balance what is said in 2267 with what is said in 2260 and 2266 (let alone all that has been said before it).

I think that’s a good summary of your position, you have a problem with the Catechism, and so, Church teaching. I am sure Dunnigan’s position is worthy of consideration, but in the end Catholics have to choose whom to follow. So be it.

 

[Portrait]

In Ephesians 5 Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Just one example. The Church no longer teaches that.

Dear diggerdomer,

You appear to be overlooking a fundamental distinction between slavery and capital punishment. Slavery was a long-established man-made institution and was accepted by all as a normal feature of the social fabric in N.T. times, but it was never of divine institution. Capital punisment, however, is a* divine* and perpetual mandate (Gen. 9:6) and therefore has continuing validity. Moreover as I have stated in my previous postings, the N.T. presupposes this continuing validity for nontheocratic socities.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[mangy_dog]

I’ve often opposed the death penalty my whole life, believing that we have a right to life and there are people like Stephen Truscott who are given the death penalty even though they are innocent (Truscott’s death sentence was commuted, thank God) but more recently, I’ve been following the news about Khalid Shiekh Mohamed and how he will get the death penalty if found guilty. There’s a part of me thinking “he deserves it” and another part of me thinking “put him in prison and make his life a living Hell”. Could the death penalty be applicable for people who commit heinous crimes such as terrorism?

We are the victims of our own laws, however perfect or imperfect we percieve them to be.

Only God can bring “a good” from our bad decisions. Which is why the laws that put Jesus on the cross under the Pontius Pilate, were used and abused by the “politicos” of the time…yet God brought salvation to all of humanity by His Sons death on that cross.

Our laws are praised when we percieve that “justice has been served”. But we fall into the pit of doubt when we put someone to death and turns out he was innocent.

Our “cherished” separation of church and state, is what creates this love hate relationship with our imperfect system.

We know that absolute power corrupts absolutely but a little bit of power is also conmensurate to a little corruption and manipulation. Lawyers (bless their souls) will do everything in their legal power to get their clients off even if deep down they know their client is guilty. It’s the system we have chosen…they just make use of it.

Do we really put people to death out of a sense of equitable justice or is there a little bit of revenge in there?

Do we advocate the death penalty for the sake of “closure” or “healing” for the grieveing family or do we do it for the morbid pleasure and power and control the “righteousness” of the law gives us? An eye for an eye - a tooth for a tooth.

If my rantings have anyone confused as to what my stand is…I oppose the death penalty for the amibiguity and ambivalence I’ve mentioned above.

Can God bring something good out of someone’s death? Yes. For whom? For that soul, condemned to death and for the people who come in contact with that soul…but only if they do not resist God’s grace. Otherwise it’s just another execution.

 

[d97c]

DOshea. You must look into the statistics on the race of persons who are on death row AND the percentages of the people who COMMIT MURDER. Look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics (US Dept of Justice Stats–for 30 years since the death penalty was re-instated) and you’ll see that Blacks COMMIT 52.2 % of the murders COMMITTED in this country…far more (proportionally) than their approx 13 % of their population. So, since they COMMIT 52.2 % of the murders in this country, it is not odd that there are 40-some % of them on death row. This is a stat that people forget to use in playing the race card.
Here’s the cite for the stats.
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

 

[Ender]

I think that’s a good summary of your position, you have a problem with the Catechism, and so, Church teaching. I am sure Dunnigan’s position is worthy of consideration, but in the end Catholics have to choose whom to follow. So be it.

You continue to mischaracterize my position as being at odds with what the Church teaches without addressing the argument I’m making. I do not have a problem with Church teaching on this subject; I believe that I am following it. As I said, I accept 2260 and 2266 without reservation. What I have also said is that one cannot agree with those sections and with 2267, nor can one reconcile 2267 with what the Church has taught for 2000 years about other related issues.

We all have to choose between accepting either 2267 or 2260, 2266 and 2000 years of constant teaching on the issues of punishment, justice, expiation, restitution, et al. You have chosen 2267. I have chosen everything else.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Do we really put people to death out of a sense of equitable justice or is there a little bit of revenge in there?

Do we advocate the death penalty for the sake of “closure” or “healing” for the grieveing family or do we do it for the morbid pleasure and power and control the “righteousness” of the law gives us? An eye for an eye - a tooth for a tooth.

Do not deprecate people who have opinions that differ from yours; there is no justification for implying that those of us who support capital punishment do so from mere “morbid pleasure.” Aside from the inappropriateness of such innuendo, the charge is irrelevant. If you think your position is correct you should be able to defend it without insulting those who disagree with you and if you can’t do that you should perhaps rethink why you believe it in the first place.

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

she had never tied the use of capital punishment to the protection of society.

Hi Ender,

Just a request for clarification on the above. Can you explain more what you mean that the Church has never tied the use of capital punishment to the protection of society?

Thanks,
VC

 

[ahollars]

Is there a place we can find this in Catholic teaching? Note, I’m asking about what you say – right to life – not right to liberty or something else. Thanks.

Are you saying you believe that those who are responsible for restraining the convicts must risk their own right to life because the dignity of the prisoner must be protected, even at the their own expense while performing the duty of ensuring that protection? What about their right to life?

Allow me to clarify: I support the death penalty because there is no such thing as complete containment. All prisoners are afforded basic rights, and the most dangerous prisoners in the system will exploit those rights solely to exact revenge at any opportunity they can find.

Those who say that the death penalty is immoral usually also say that solitary confinement is immoral, even if it is for the safety of those who must have contact with prisoners. There are prisoners who are not be broken by isolation. It is unrealistic to think that we can have it both ways.

But even when that is not the case, it is stubbornness to refuse to admit that the Church throughout Her history has allowed a place for capital punishment. Yes, it’s justification has been adjusted over the years as conditions allow, but banning it is akin to banning war.

Throughout time, there have always been individuals who believe they are wiser than all their predecessors. Today, it’s the death penalty. I doubt that the Vatican was thinking about America when defining the death penalty teaching. We are nowhere near the top of the list where you account for per captia and rates of other crimes and sentences.

Who are any of us to say that the death penalty is revenge? One could say that life without parole is also revenge, or even 100+ year sentences as well. Anyone who is permanently denied a second chance would fall into this category. Life in prison is torture for jihadists who would rather have martyrdom. Why are those penalties not considered revenge, but the death penalty is? (I’m not being sarcastic)

I was born in raised in OKC, and I didn’t blink an eye when McVeigh met his departure. Even though it was obvious he saw his error and dropped his appeals, the price for his crime had already been determined, and the death penalty is not about repentance. It’s legitimately plausible to think we shall see him on the other side.

Final note: I do agree that the death penalty is carelessly overused on people who can be contained by life sentences, but yes, the most heinous of crimes do warrant an extra measure of justice.

 

[Brendan]

I was born in raised in OKC, and I didn’t blink an eye when McVeigh met his departure. Even though it was obvious he saw his error and dropped his appeals, the price for his crime had already been determined, and the death penalty is not about repentance. It’s legitimately plausible to think we shall see him on the other side…

Actually, it is very likely, almost certain even.

McVeigh (who was raised Catholic), requested a priest to hear his confession while on death row. And just before his execution, he recieved Last Rites, which includes an absolution, reception of Communion and the Apostolic Blessing ( a plenary indulgence).

So it very much seems that his time on death row resulted in repentance and an active desire to seek absolution in order to die in a State of Grace.

 

[joe_clark]

Some have suggested that the Death Penalty is morally neutral when the identity and the guilt of the suspect are confirmed, the crime is severe and there are no other nonlethal ways to do justice.

This would be wrong. I can, if you want, and you know there are numerous cases were the defendant was found GUILTY as sin and was sentenced to death and resided on death row. The family of the deceased were smiling saying we recieved JUSTICE today and the police were thankful that the animal was off the street and will get what he deserved.

Thankfully it takes a long time to kill’em. These cases I speak of are the ones where DNA was checked say after 10 to 20 years and guess what, they were telling the truth and were innocent. In some cases they located the right person for the crime.

Now here is the obvious problem. If the sentence was carried out quickly, the justice system to include law enforcement, the court, the jury and all in society who condone the death penalty, all would have murdered a innocent man, without intent. Hey who cares, he had a lawyer, right? I’ve heard it all before.

I was in the affirmative for the death penalty at one time, but have since changed my position and have controlled my feelings and anger toward a alleged criminal. Peace is the peace I give you and the peace you accept.

 

[Portrait]

You continue to mischaracterize my position as being at odds with what the Church teaches without addressing the argument I’m making. I do not have a problem with Church teaching on this subject; I believe that I am following it. As I said, I accept 2260 and 2266 without reservation. What I have also said is that one cannot agree with those sections and with 2267, nor can one reconcile 2267 with what the Church has taught for 2000 years about other related issues.

We all have to choose between accepting either 2267 or 2260, 2266 and 2000 years of constant teaching on the issues of punishment, justice, expiation, restitution, et al. You have chosen 2267. I have chosen everything else.

Ender

Dear Ender,

You are quite correct in stating that the current teaching in the Catechism is a mess - it should be revisited without delay and the confusion resolved. It is incredible that so many posters either cannot see this or are in denial regarding it.

It is incontrovertible that there has been a radical shift in our Chruch’s understanding of capital punishment in recent years. Indeed it could be characterised as a major u-turn. As Karl Keating (Founder of Catholic Answers) has stated:

the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgement (the only such one in the Catechism on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.
(Karl Keating’s E Letter 2nd March 2004)

People really do need to face up to the fact that there is a problem harmonising our Church’s current position on the death penalty with what has been held hitherto. That there has been a shift can easily be seen from comparing para. 2267 with what, for example, Fathers Rumble and Carty (the “Radio Priests”) wrote back in 1940:

“The State possesses the right on the same principle as an individual who may kill an unjust aaggressor, if there be no other efficacious way in which to preserve his own life. Those whose crimes gravely threaten the well-being of society may be put to death by social authority when lesser penalties prove inefficacious as a control upon them. God Himself sanctioned this law in Hebrew society, and it is entirely reasonable. If the extreme penalty could not be lawfully inflicted by the State upon the enemies of the common good, much greater and more widespread evils would ensue”.
(Radio Replies, Vol. 2, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books & Publishers Inc, 1979, p. 300.).

This is the sort of clarity that is required in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Actually, it is very likely, almost certain even.

McVeigh (who was raised Catholic), requested a priest to hear his confession while on death row. And just before his execution, he recieved Last Rites, which includes an absolution, reception of Communion and the Apostolic Blessing ( a plenary indulgence).

So it very much seems that his time on death row resulted in repentance and an active desire to seek absolution in order to die in a State of Grace.

Dear Brendan,

Some excellent observations which domonstrate that the death penalty does not have to be a tragic ending but can be the gateway to a blissful new beginning, at least for the sincere and earnest penitent dying in a state of grace.

Rather than foreclosing the possibility of eternal salvation, the reality of the death penalty forces the one convicted to ponder eternal realities and consequently can even be seen, as in Mc Veigh’s case, as beneficial. The prospect of the death penalty serves to remind the murderer, in a way that incarceration for life cannot, of the grim but inescapable truth that “it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgement” (Heb. 9: 27).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[diggerdomer]

Dear diggerdomer,

You appear to be overlooking a fundamental distinction between slavery and capital punishment. Slavery was a long-established man-made institution and was accepted by all as a normal feature of the social fabric in N.T. times, but it was never of divine institution. Capital punisment, however, is a* divine* and perpetual mandate (Gen. 9:6) and therefore has continuing validity. Moreover as I have stated in my previous postings, the N.T. presupposes this continuing validity for nontheocratic socities.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Capital punishment is NOT a divine and perpetual mandate, at least the Catholic Church doesn’t teach it is. You can believe it is if you want to, that’s fine, but it’s not part of the Catholic faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

You continue to mischaracterize my position as being at odds with what the Church teaches without addressing the argument I’m making. I do not have a problem with Church teaching on this subject; I believe that I am following it. As I said, I accept 2260 and 2266 without reservation. What I have also said is that one cannot agree with those sections and with 2267, nor can one reconcile 2267 with what the Church has taught for 2000 years about other related issues.

We all have to choose between accepting either 2267 or 2260, 2266 and 2000 years of constant teaching on the issues of punishment, justice, expiation, restitution, et al. You have chosen 2267. I have chosen everything else.

Ender

Sorry if I mischaracterized your position. I apologize, I am trying to understand.

I thought you were saying the Catechism is wrong.

Are you?

 

[diggerdomer]

Are you saying you believe that those who are responsible for restraining the convicts must risk their own right to life because the dignity of the prisoner must be protected, even at the their own expense while performing the duty of ensuring that protection? What about their right to life?

I admit I am vastly uninformed about the actual status of prison guards (I assume that’s whom you are referring to?), I don’t live near a prison and don’t know anyone who works at one. I understand that there may be risks involved for those who voluntarily choose to have such jobs (as their are risks with so many jobs, including that of losing one’s life).

But the death penalty is not instituted to protect prison guards, is it? If prisons cannot be managed safely, then, as the Church (and John Paul II) notes, there may be a morally acceptable circumstance for recourse to the death penalty. As an average citizen in the U.S., though, I really don’t get the sense that the prison system here is so ineffective that employees routinely lose their lives.

 

[diggerdomer]

Dear Ender,

You are quite correct in stating that the current teaching in the Catechism is a mess - it should be revisited without delay and the confusion resolved. It is incredible that so many posters either cannot see this or are in denial regarding it.

It is incontrovertible that there has been a radical shift in our Chruch’s understanding of capital punishment in recent years. Indeed it could be characterised as a major u-turn. As Karl Keating (Founder of Catholic Answers) has stated:

the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgement (the only such one in the Catechism on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.
(Karl Keating’s E Letter 2nd March 2004)

People really do need to face up to the fact that there is a problem harmonising our Church’s current position on the death penalty with what has been held hitherto. That there has been a shift can easily be seen from comparing para. 2267 with what, for example, Fathers Rumble and Carty (the “Radio Priests”) wrote back in 1940:

“The State possesses the right on the same principle as an individual who may kill an unjust aaggressor, if there be no other efficacious way in which to preserve his own life. Those whose crimes gravely threaten the well-being of society may be put to death by social authority when lesser penalties prove inefficacious as a control upon them. God Himself sanctioned this law in Hebrew society, and it is entirely reasonable. If the extreme penalty could not be lawfully inflicted by the State upon the enemies of the common good, much greater and more widespread evils would ensue”.
(Radio Replies, Vol. 2, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books & Publishers Inc, 1979, p. 300.).

This is the sort of clarity that is required in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Radical shifts are not unknown in the Christian tradition. Jesus caused quite a few of them.