When or is the death penalty alright?

[fish90]

The Death Penalty is still acceptable under Church doctrine. I find no reason that a Catholic politician would be excommunicated for being a proponent of the Death Penalty within reason.

I find the position clear; capital punishment is acceptable as long as there are no other methods that can protect society without a lethal maneuver. However, with this country being bankrupt, capital punishment may be the best alternative instead of spending $40,000 a year for twenty-plus years.

The fact is I must follow Church doctrine on this issue and accept capital punishment is an acceptable method of protecting society.

Please argue with me if I have made a mistake.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Death Penalty is still acceptable under Church doctrine. I find no reason that a Catholic politician would be excommunicated for being a proponent of the Death Penalty within reason.

I find the position clear; capital punishment is acceptable as long as there are no other methods that can protect society without a lethal maneuver. However, with this country being bankrupt, capital punishment may be the best alternative instead of spending $40,000 a year for twenty-plus years.

The fact is I must follow Church doctrine on this issue and accept capital punishment is an acceptable method of protecting society.

Please argue with me if I have made a mistake.

You are mistaken if you think the Church’s qualified approval of the death penalty as a potentially morally acceptable practice is based on economics (money).

 

[fish90]

You are mistaken if you think the Church’s qualified approval of the death penalty as a potentially morally acceptable practice is based on economics (money).

I would find that the cost issue would be a sufficient excuse as to whether non-lethal means are available to society. This is certainly a tough issue that I am not qualified to take a position.

The issue of how capital punishment was acceptable in earlier times was because there was no availability of prisons to begin with. Lethal methods of punishment were then needed to protect society.

I do recognize that I must obey and submit to the authority of the bishops on this matter, however, I am curious that there has been significant reversal on this issue in recent times from the Church (if I am understanding some posts correctly).

 

[diggerdomer]

I would find that the cost issue would be a sufficient excuse as to whether non-lethal means are available to society. This is certainly a tough issue that I am not qualified to take a position.

The issue of how capital punishment was acceptable in earlier times was because there was no availability of prisons to begin with. Lethal methods of punishment were then needed to protect society.

I do recognize that I must obey and submit to the authority of the bishops on this matter, however, I am curious that there has been significant reversal on this issue in recent times from the Church (if I am understanding some posts correctly).

I don’t think there’s been a reversal (do you have any examples?) but there have been changes.

Again, I’m not aware that economics (money) has anything to do with the Church’s position.

 

[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.

Dear diggerdomer,

On the contrary our Church does consider the death penalty a divine and *perpetual *mandate and thus does consider it a part of the Catholic faith; after citing Genesis 9: 5-6 (the divine sanction for capital punishment) the Catechism states quite unequivocally:

“This teaching remains necessary for all time”.(para. 2260 emphasis mine).

This is hardly surprising since not even the Church can trump Sacred Scripture.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

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

Dear diggerdomer,

Radical shifts are clearly unaceptable if they are at variance with Sacred Scipture, divine mandates and the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the ages.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[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?

" the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense." (CCC 2266)

The primary objective of all punishment is retribution … justice. This is now and always has been the teaching of the Church and this applies to all punishment. The protection of society, deterrence, and rehabilitation are also proper objectives of punishment but they are all secondary. Capital punishment is not an exception to those teachings and nowhere prior to Evangelium Vitae in 1995 was the restriction included that the death penalty could only be used to achieve the secondary objective of protection.

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thank you Ender. I thought it benefited your argument to clarify what you meant. Your prior statement could have misconstrued to mean that protection of society never factors into any calculus (i.e that it is not and end of punishment).

VC

 

[joe_clark]

" the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense." (CCC 2266)

The primary objective of all punishment is retribution … justice. This is now and always has been the teaching of the Church and this applies to all punishment. The protection of society, deterrence, and rehabilitation are also proper objectives of punishment but they are all secondary. Capital punishment is not an exception to those teachings and nowhere prior to Evangelium Vitae in 1995 was the restriction included that the death penalty could only be used to achieve the secondary objective of protection.

Ender

But Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord? Where do we find a place for the Lord here? Does he get a seat at this table?

 

[d97c]

I can find no evidence that, prior to Pope JP 2, the primary consideration of whether to use the death penalty was whether the death penalty was the best way to protect society FROM THAT PARTICULAR PERSON (as it is discussed in today’s Catachism). There is plenty of language from other Popes and Catachisms that the primary purpose was the proportional response to a murder (proportionality.) Pope Pius XII and other Catachisms discuss it it terms of “reordering society” and other lines of discussion NOT associated with whether the individual defendant would escape. The older writings (Aquinas, Augustine, Pope Pius X11, older Catachisms) seem to say that once he is convicted, the state has the DUTY to execute.

 

[Brendan]

But Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord? Where do we find a place for the Lord here? Does he get a seat at this table?

Certainly, He has appointed the State as the agent of vengence

Romans 13:3b-4

Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

 

[joe_clark]

I can find no evidence that, prior to Pope JP 2, the primary consideration of whether to use the death penalty was whether the death penalty was the best way to protect society FROM THAT PARTICULAR PERSON (as it is discussed in today’s Catachism). There is plenty of language from other Popes and Catachisms that the primary purpose was the proportional response to a murder (proportionality.) Pope Pius XII and other Catachisms discuss it it terms of “reordering society” and other lines of discussion NOT associated with whether the individual defendant would escape. The older writings (Aquinas, Augustine, Pope Pius X11, older Catachisms) seem to say that once he is convicted, the state has the DUTY to execute.

With respect to “the older writings (Aquinas, Augustine, Pope Pius X11, older Catachisms) seem to say that once he is convicted, the state has the DUTY to execute”. Could this also be viewed as writings from a society that was not as educated and or, not as advanced. To say that in modern day and times, we now we have historical data and are educated and do not feel the need to be compelled to resort to primative behavior, which in the end is what the punishment of death today is. Nothing gained whatsoever. Let’s add another on another tragedy to another. No thought process, no betterment of society, only the need for retribution. Let us not forget the 10 or 20 people all found guilty, sentenced to death, lost 10 to 20 years of their life…DNA test…They are innocent and freed. And to think they were all THIS close to be innocently murdered, because retribution and primative behavior are powerful to overcome. ::

 

[jackinbox]

To me it’s not a gray area at all. This sounds pretty black and white to me:

"May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." - John Paul II at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

"A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." - John Paul II Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999.

 

[JimG]

The Death Penalty is still acceptable under Church doctrine. I find no reason that a Catholic politician would be excommunicated for being a proponent of the Death Penalty within reason.

I find the position clear; capital punishment is acceptable as long as there are no other methods that can protect society without a lethal maneuver. However, with this country being bankrupt, capital punishment may be the best alternative instead of spending $40,000 a year for twenty-plus years.

The fact is I must follow Church doctrine on this issue and accept capital punishment is an acceptable method of protecting society.

Please argue with me if I have made a mistake.

I have seen some reports that in most cases, it costs more to execute a prisoner than to provide for life in prison. It seemed rather astounding to me, but it has to do with the cost of appeals, which are often mandatory in death penalty cases, special prison housing for death row inmates, the cost of attorneys, etc. It’s quite expensive.

In Kansas, the death penalty was outlawed, and then reinstated about 10 years ago. Since its reinstatement, there have been probably 8-10 criminals sentenced to death. I don’t have the stats in front of me. It’s also true that no condemned prisoner in all that time has been executed. The average time from sentencing to carrying out a death sentence is somewhere from ten to 20 years, depending on the state. Kansas tends toward the higher end of that spectrum.

So the cost factor would actually argue against the death penalty.

It’s also true that prosecutors may file charges of something less than capital murder, in order to be more certain of obtaining a conviction. In those cases, a death sentence cannot be imposed. A life sentence can, but the life sentence is always subject to parole. And if a violent criminal is paroled, society is endangered.

 

[Portrait]

But Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord? Where do we find a place for the Lord here? Does he get a seat at this table?

Dear joe clark,

You do not appear to understand the whole concept of retributive justice in Sacred Scripture.

Your biblical quote is only applicable to* personal* vengeance on the part of the individual; it does not invalidate the God given authority of the State to administer the death penalty as the “…servant of God to execute his (i.e. God’s) wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13: 4). I have already discussed this in my postings above. Interestingly St. Paul speaks about the individual not taking personal revenge in the previous chapter (see Rom. 12: 19). Now clearly he would not have contradicted himself a few sentences later when he comes to discuss the Christians subjection to the “governing authorities” (Rom. 13: 1).

Thus God is very much invloved, since it was He who sanctioned the death penalty in the first place (Gen 9: 6) and now delegates the authority to the State to inflict it when necessary. In fact this Genesis passage is the whole basis for the retributive justice of the death penalty and also its entire raison d’ etre.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[d97c]

OK, so now we decide all these controversial issues by saying, “Well, what they said before John Paul 2 was wrong and now what is said after JP 2 is right?” Is that your theory of Catholicism? I disagree with JP2 and agree with centuries of prior Catachisms etc, which is valid Catholic teaching. He even said as much in Evan. Vitae by saying that the death penalty was moral. HE just didnt like it, so HE changed it. I think he is wrong, and I can think that, according to Pope Benedict XIV:

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Quoting:
“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

 

[Portrait]

To me it’s not a gray area at all. This sounds pretty black and white to me:

"May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." - John Paul II at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

"A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." - John Paul II Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999.

Dear jackinbox,

With the greatest respect to the late John Paul II, how can the death penalty be termed “an unworthy punishment…which is both cruel and unnecessary” when it was God who sanctioned it at the very beginning (Gen. 9: 6)? Moreover the latter statement would seem to be at variance with para. 2260 of C.C.C., which, when speaking about the divine mandate for capital punishment states: “this teaching remains* necessary* for all time”.
(emphasis mine).

Furthermore, the late Pope was only expressing his own personal opinion; he was not issuing any infallible pronouncement upon the death penalty.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[joe_clark]

To me it’s not a gray area at all. This sounds pretty black and white to me:

"May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." - John Paul II at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

"A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." - John Paul II Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999.

I always felt that John Paul II spoke from the heart. He called it as it was and not what people wanted it to be or interpreted to be. I find peace in his words The death penalty is unworthy of Gods love and as I said before is primative in nature and in deed. I don’t see it clearly as others and do not believe God delegated his children to killing each other in his name. The message to us humans: leave the vengence department to the lord. .

 

[Ender]

With respect to “the older writings (Aquinas, Augustine, Pope Pius X11, older Catachisms) seem to say that once he is convicted, the state has the DUTY to execute”.

I think a very strong argument can be made that this is in fact true. “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” (CCC 2266) It really is an obligation of a just state to apply a punishment to criminals that is proportionate to their crimes. Furthermore, we still have 2260 to contend with:* “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. … This teaching remains necessary for all time.”* How do you interpret this other than that the penalty for murder is death?

Could this also be viewed as writings from a society that was not as educated and or, not as advanced. To say that in modern day and times, we now we have historical data and are educated and do not feel the need to be compelled to resort to primative behavior, which in the end is what the punishment of death today is.

No, I don’t think this view is at all reasonable in light of what the Church says about herself. “… the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” (Dei Verbum 10) If you conclude that everything the Church taught on this subject for almost 2000 years was wrong then you also have to accept that the Church has failed in her duty to correctly interpret the word of God. Morality does not change with time or place; if capital punishment was valid in the past it is valid today but if it is immoral today then it has always been so and the Church has sanctioned immoral behavior for two millennia.

Nothing gained whatsoever. Let’s add another on another tragedy to another. No thought process, no betterment of society, only the need for retribution.

When a man sins he incurs a debt that only punishment can pay. What is gained is justice; the restoration of the order disturbed by the crime.

God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them. (Aquinas, ST I/II 87, 3 ad 3)

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Ibid 87,6)

If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Ibid II/II 58,12)

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

Dear diggerdomer,

On the contrary our Church does consider the death penalty a divine and *perpetual *mandate and thus does consider it a part of the Catholic faith; after citing Genesis 9: 5-6 (the divine sanction for capital punishment) the Catechism states quite unequivocally:

“This teaching remains necessary for all time”.(para. 2260 emphasis mine).

This is hardly surprising since not even the Church can trump Sacred Scripture.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

It’s the whole paragraph, and what teaching it refers to, that “remains necessary for all time.” It’s quite a stretch to assume that means the death penalty is divinely taught.

If you want to talk about the Church trumping Scripture start a new thread.