When or is the death penalty alright?

[d97c]

The problem here is the use of the words “what the church teaches.” Shinn quite convincingly makes the point that “the church” taught, and allowed, and it can be said, encouraged, the use of the death penalty for many reasons, among those being 1.punishment, 2. proportionality, 3.deterrence, 4. re-order society,5.prevent the murderer from doing it again (protection of “society”). It’s clear that for centuries, without clear challenge or change, “the Catholic Church”, Catachisms,Popes, Bishops, priests, were comfortable with countries all over the world using the death penalty. You dont have to go back to the Council of Trent or Pius X either. Just go back 40 years. In high school, we were taught the same thing.
Now comes Pope JP 2. He writes encyclical Evan. Vitae. From that we get the new Catachism that changes the rules…kind of.
Here it is:
Capital Punishment
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. 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.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]

Now paragraph 2266, clearly and specifically placed under “Capitol Punishment,” would clearly and rationally make you think that the next paragraph, 2267, would support and corroborate the centuries of teachings of “the church.” (2266 --“medicinal scope,” “commensurate with the gravity” etc).
Then in 2267, it even gets close to suporting the centuries of teachings.when it starts with a statement that “the traditional teaching of the church” allowed the death penalty. But then IT STATES SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TRUE. That sentence says that the traditional teaching of the church was that the death penalty could be used “when this is the only practical way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor” THAT WAS NOT THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH, I humbly assert. That was NOT the only or the primary reason for “the church” allowing the death penalty. The reasons are stated in Shinn’s post and other posts in this topic earlier, from doctors of the church, Aquinas, Popes, Councils etrc, etc, etc.---------So I ask: WHERE DID THE WRITERS OF THE CATACHISM GET THAT ??? It was not the primary or only reason. The only reason for executing a criminal was NOT to just keep him from doing it again !!! …but then they go and say that the death penalty can be used only to be sure the criminal cant do it again. And why the change?? Because we now see that as respecting “dignity.” So if we had caught Hitler, keeping that low life alive forever would have shown respect, “dignity”, to the 6-plus million he killed? “The common good” would be to let Osama bin Laden,from his prison after conviction, to give interviews and urge others to do the same as he did. NO way. I can read, and so can Cardinal Ratzinger, (now Pope)who clearly said that a Catholic CAN agree with the death penalty .
(paragraph 3 below)

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

 

[d97c]

This is a great article written by Cardinal Dulles about the death penalty

firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

I particularly like this paragraph:

"The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. "

He goes on to say the state should refrain, but it is clear…a Catholic , giving due consideration to the BIshops, unlike abortion, may support the death penalty. So the bum who killed the 4 police near Seattle, had he lived and been convicted, should have received the penalty, and I would have NO problem feeling justice was done.

 

[Ender]

So…what is your answer to my question? I’m asking what the Church teaches, not something that only Trent or Pius X taught. Can you give a direct answer?

The statements of Pius X and Trent are not unique to them but are in accord with what every pope, council, catechism, and Doctor of the Church said on the subject until 1995. Your question misses the point: the teachings of previous popes, councils, et al are not the teachings of individuals. Together they summarize what the Church has always taught. They also conflict with what is in the Catechism, section 2267.

JPII’s statement - and section 2267 which was derived from it - are prudential opinions made in the belief that executions in today’s societies do more harm than good. They are not a repudiation of two millennia of teaching on the subject.

Ender

 

[d97c]

Thanks for that good comment ender. I always appreciate them.

 

[joe_clark]

Just to be clear: you are saying the current Catechism is wrong because it does not prohibit executions in all circumstances?

Neither your peace nor the anger of others are relevant to the question of whether it is or is not just to execute a murderer.

Ender

To execute a human being, or as we say murder in the name of justice, one must be sure that the accused is guilty. It’s still murder because there was no immediate threat to anyone at the time. I believe when we, the church, society in part or whole endorse the killing of a human being in the shadow of justice, we lower ourselves to the level of the same behavior we are trying to eradicate? In the same breath of justice, we become the people we are warned against?

The killing of one human being over another in the course of defending ones self and or family is one thing. As sad as that may be, there is no other choice. But to incarcerate a criminal, lock him up in a cell where he cannot do any more harm to society, then one day, corner him like an animal, strap him down, stick a needle in his arm and commit murder (euthanasia against the persons will) is as sick as it gets. In other states in our civilized society, they corner the accused like an animal, tie his hands behind him, drag him out to the gallows, put the bag over your head and the noose around your neck. They pull the chord and the floor drops out snapping the persons neck, and then there’s the Gary Gilmore method by Firing squad, or some states still fry human beings with ole sparky?

This doesn’t sound like an immediate threat…doesn’t sound like a civilized society. If we truly believe in life, this should not be a giant leap, unless it is personal vengeance that needs to be satisfied?

And lastly, what about the ones on death row for 10 to 15 years that were cleared and innocent? The juries were sure, the judge that sentenced them was sure, the prosecutor was sure and the family of the victim prayed every day for their execution??? What about the innocent human beings we surely put to death unintentionally because DNA did not exist? I can’t get past this point as easily as others do.

 

[d97c]

Joe, common !..There is a big difference between a case involving the exoneration of a defendant previously sentenced to death and one in which an innocent person is actually executed. The studies cited by death penalty opponents rely on cases where exoneration occurred before execution took place, not cases where any innocent people were actually executed. Thus, such studies appear to show that the most important error rate–innocent people who were actually executed–is zero.

You want a perfect system, where there is no chance of mistake?? Is that what you demand in order to punish someone?? Then under your logic, let’s eliminate the life without parole penalty too for murderers. Since many argue that life without parole is so much better and harsher than the death penalty (it goes, “lets make them sit in jail forever and feel sorrow for their crime !”—like they will feel that), then by all means let’s eliminate that option too. I mean—why do you limit your facts to people exonerated in a death penalty situation? How many have been found innocent who have been sentenced to life without?? How many have been exonerated for other crimes committed and sentenced to jail? Lets just eliminate jail joe ! How about it???
I’ll tell you, as a former prosecutor, that there are many people who were factually and legally guilty of crimes who are walking the street ! As long as there is a death-qualified lawyer, and reasonable appeal time (not the 10 years the anti-cap punishment people have required in the statutes), let justice “flow down like a might river” for protection of society. You kill 3 police and I can prove it-----you become a crispy critter !

 

[joe_clark]

Joe, common !..There is a big difference between a case involving the exoneration of a defendant previously sentenced to death and one in which an innocent person is actually executed. The studies cited by death penalty opponents rely on cases where exoneration occurred before execution took place, not cases where any innocent people were actually executed. Thus, such studies appear to show that the most important error rate–innocent people who were actually executed–is zero.

You want a perfect system, where there is no chance of mistake?? Is that what you demand in order to punish someone?? Then under your logic, let’s eliminate the life without parole penalty too for murderers. Since many argue that life without parole is so much better and harsher than the death penalty (it goes, “lets make them sit in jail forever and feel sorrow for their crime !”—like they will feel that), then by all means let’s eliminate that option too. I mean—why do you limit your facts to people exonerated in a death penalty situation? How many have been found innocent who have been sentenced to life without?? How many have been exonerated for other crimes committed and sentenced to jail? Lets just eliminate jail joe ! How about it???
I’ll tell you, as a former prosecutor, that there are many people who were factually and legally guilty of crimes who are walking the street ! As long as there is a death-qualified lawyer, and reasonable appeal time (not the 10 years the anti-cap punishment people have required in the statutes), let justice “flow down like a might river” for protection of society. You kill 3 police and I can prove it-----you become a crispy critter !

You know exactly what I am proposing, that the death penalty should be off the table if we are to continue to be in Christ as human. The “let everyone go bit” is not what I stated. Like I said, if people are locked up and not a threat to society, there is really no reason to go any further. To murder the person using the word justice as a shield and or a free pass to intentionally end a human beings life sounds like it is, Wrong. Never said that people are not responsible but I did say there are always consequenses to everyones actions. This would include the perpetrator, the victim and how society handles the situation. No one is free of responsibility.

 

[Ender]

To execute a human being, or as we say murder in the name of justice, one must be sure that the accused is guilty. It’s still murder because there was no immediate threat to anyone at the time.

You use words as if they have no particular meaning but are sufficiently flexible to mean whatever you find convenient. The execution of a person has never been understood to be murder, neither by the Church, the State, nor the writers of dictionaries.

I believe when we, the church, society in part or whole endorse the killing of a human being in the shadow of justice, we lower ourselves to the level of the same behavior we are trying to eradicate? In the same breath of justice, we become the people we are warned against?

It is interesting that you identify yourself as a Catholic even as you excoriate the Church for her position on capital punishment. I give you credit though for recognizing that your personal view is at odds with what the Church teaches.

If we truly believe in life, this should not be a giant leap, unless it is personal vengeance that needs to be satisfied?

It is precisely because of man’s sanctity that the penalty for murder is as awful as it is. “… because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself!” (Catechism of Trent) Nor does this have anything to do with a personal desire for vengeance; it is a question of justice.

What about the innocent human beings we surely put to death unintentionally because DNA did not exist? I can’t get past this point as easily as others do.

This is a valid cause for concern but it is a prudential issue, not a moral one.

d97c:

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

The statements of Pius X and Trent are not unique to them but are in accord with what every pope, council, catechism, and Doctor of the Church said on the subject until 1995. Your question misses the point: the teachings of previous popes, councils, et al are not the teachings of individuals. Together they summarize what the Church has always taught. They also conflict with what is in the Catechism, section 2267.

JPII’s statement - and section 2267 which was derived from it - are prudential opinions made in the belief that executions in today’s societies do more harm than good. They are not a repudiation of two millennia of teaching on the subject.

Ender

So are you saying the Catechism is wrong, specifically para 2267?

 

[Ender]

So are you saying the Catechism is wrong, specifically para 2267?

Don’t extend my comments about 2267 to the rest of the Catechism; my objections are to that section alone. Specifically, there are these problems (I think I’ve been through this before):

Sentence one makes a claim that is factually incorrect.
Sentence two claims that executions are not in conformity with “the dignity of the human person” even as section 2260 reaffirms that it is because of the dignity of the human person - because he was made in the image of God - that the penalty for killing a person is so severe.
Sentence three expresses an opinion about the state of modern penal systems - which is not even a moral concern and is certainly not binding on our conscience.

Beyond that, section 2266 specifies that the primary objective of all punishment is retribution - justice, yet 2267 ignores the primary objective and bases its opposition to capital punishment on the claim that it is not needed to achieve a secondary objective, and compounds the mistake by ignoring the other two secondary objectives as well. If the primary goal of all punishment is justice then how can a sentence be valid if it ignores justice for the crime already committed and focuses solely on preventing future crimes?

Finally, the opinion expressed in 2267 has no basis in anything the Church has taught on this subject. Going back at least to Innocent I in 405, through Augustine, Aquinas, and all the popes and counsels prior to 1995, there is nothing to support this new position. 2267 is irreconcilable with everything the Church has ever said about capital punishment, including other parts of the same Catechism.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

Yes.

As others have already noted, 2267 places such restrictions on the use of capital punishment that, in practice, it has been all but banished. There are, however, serious problems with 2267 and it should be noted that, prior to 1995, the Church had always accepted the use of capital punishment. The first paragraph of 2267 says:

the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

This statement is simply wrong. The Church has never had such a restriction (everything after the if); she had never tied the use of capital punishment to the protection of society. There are no references in 2267 (or Evangelium Vitae #56 on which it is based) to any such “traditional teaching” for the simple reason that this concept was never taught.

The third paragraph is an opinion on the nature of modern penal systems and cannot possibly be considered binding. I happen to be of a different opinion but the point is that opinions do not confer moral obligations, regardless of who holds them.

The second talks about the common good and human dignity:

the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person

It seems that a concern for the common good is what JPII had in mind when he wrote this; that is, that executions do more harm than good in current society. Another opinion I don’t share. As for being in conformity to the dignity of the human person, I really think this is backwards: it is because of the dignity of the human person that the penalty for murder must be uncompromisingly severe.

Ender

I can appreciate to “some degree” what you are implying here.
However; under what authority does the Catholic Church in all her wisdom make concessions with (“If and Buts”) by deliberating in which heinous evil deeds enacted by criminals should be punishable by Death?

Would not this invalidate God’s Commandment “THOU SHALT NOT KILL”?
Or another place in scripture that says: “VENGENCE IS MINE SAYS THE LORD” “I WILL REPAY”

The Catholic Church has within it’s means given under the authority of Christ Himself to BIND and UNLOOSEN “certain Laws”.
However; Christ did not give the Church authority to make exceptions to subvert or augment the Commandment - THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
Don’t God’s people understand this commandment? Apparently some do not.
I’m sure people could spend an immeasurable amount of time rationalizing this.

 

[Ender]

However; under what authority does the Catholic Church in all her wisdom make concessions with (“If and Buts”) by deliberating in which heinous evil deeds enacted by criminals should be punishable by Death?

In general she leaves that determination to the State. In particular, however, she accepts this punishment for murderers:* “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.”* (2260)

Would not this invalidate God’s Commandment “THOU SHALT NOT KILL”?

The Church has never interpreted this command to be a complete prohibition against all killing. She has always taught this: "Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” (2261) The exceptions she identifies are self defense, just wars, and capital punishment but she also notes that these are not exceptions to the the prohibition against murder; they are exceptions to the prohibition against killing.

Or another place in scripture that says: “VENGENCE IS MINE SAYS THE LORD” “I WILL REPAY”

This is true for the individual but not for the State, who the Church recognizes as God’s ministers. "God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. the way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence." (1884)

The Catholic Church has within it’s means given under the authority of Christ Himself to BIND and UNLOOSEN “certain Laws”.

The Church understands her authority to be that of interpreting God’s laws, not of making her own.* “As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm. … The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm.”* (Veritatis Splendor 95)

However; Christ did not give the Church authority to make exceptions to subvert or augment the Commandment - THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

True enough. You are left with only two possibilities: either you are right and the Church is wrong or she is right and you are wrong.

Ender

 

[fish90]

My biggest trouble with Church’s teaching on capital punishment is that the bishops and the Vatican seem to want to get rid of this penalty even though this punishment is perfectly moral and decided by the lawful authority.

 

[centurionguard]

In general she leaves that determination to the State. In particular, however, she accepts this punishment for murderers:* “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.”* (2260)
The Church has never interpreted this command to be a complete prohibition against all killing. She has always taught this: "Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” (2261) The exceptions she identifies are self defense, just wars, and capital punishment but she also notes that these are not exceptions to the the prohibition against murder; they are exceptions to the prohibition against killing.
This is true for the individual but not for the State, who the Church recognizes as God’s ministers. "God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. the way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence." (1884)
The Church understands her authority to be that of interpreting God’s laws, not of making her own.* “As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm. … The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm.”* (Veritatis Splendor 95)
True enough. You are left with only two possibilities: either you are right and the Church is wrong or she is right and you are wrong.

Ender

…

You are left with only two possibilities: either you are right and the Church is wrong or she is right and you are wrong.

I don’t think you or I are going to boastfully claim that the Church is wrong.

I see it as a perceived matter of interpretation that cannot be easily dismissed.
The Commandment (“Thou Shalt Not Not Kill”) can be applied to various moral applications on how a humans make the freedom of conscious choice to either embrace acts of evil or good.

As for two possibilities? There can only be One right choice.

To borrow from another thread: By Sir Knight; forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=87851 Post No# 5

Many people make the mistake of believing the Bible says, “You shall not kill.” However, the Bible actually says, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). The Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person.” God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12; 21:15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but rather only intentional premeditated killing or murder.

Ultimately; I don’t believe God intended us to be killing or murdering anyone despite our primitive evolution up to present time.

 

[CWBetts]

Even the most vile murderer is good by virtue of his existence

 

[Ender]

To borrow from another thread: By Sir Knight;

Many people make the mistake of believing the Bible says, “You shall not kill.” However, the Bible actually says, “You shall not murder”

Since you quoted Sir Knight I assume you accept his position that the fifth commandment is not against killing but against murder. I don’t think there can be any doubt but that that is how the Church understands it.

Ultimately; I don’t believe God intended us to be killing or murdering anyone despite our primitive evolution up to present time.

The Church makes a distinction between murder and killing (as I think we have just established) but the distinction would in fact make no sense if she banned killing in every instance as she does murder. Murder is intrinsically evil; killing is not. It is only because some killing is justifiable that the distinction has meaning and the Church has unequivocally specified those instances when killing is acceptable: just war, self defense (as a last resort), and capital punishment. These are not my rules; I’m just citing what the Church teaches - or do you believe that this is not what the Church says?

Ender

 

[StillWondering]

In parts of the world, the state of people right now, I can imagine scenarios where the death penalty is the only course of action left for self-defense of peoples and the nation. In the US, I don’t know.

 

[diggerdomer]

Don’t extend my comments about 2267 to the rest of the Catechism; my objections are to that section alone. Specifically, there are these problems (I think I’ve been through this before):

Sentence one makes a claim that is factually incorrect.
Sentence two claims that executions are not in conformity with “the dignity of the human person” even as section 2260 reaffirms that it is because of the dignity of the human person - because he was made in the image of God - that the penalty for killing a person is so severe.
Sentence three expresses an opinion about the state of modern penal systems - which is not even a moral concern and is certainly not binding on our conscience.

Beyond that, section 2266 specifies that the primary objective of all punishment is retribution - justice, yet 2267 ignores the primary objective and bases its opposition to capital punishment on the claim that it is not needed to achieve a secondary objective, and compounds the mistake by ignoring the other two secondary objectives as well. If the primary goal of all punishment is justice then how can a sentence be valid if it ignores justice for the crime already committed and focuses solely on preventing future crimes?

Finally, the opinion expressed in 2267 has no basis in anything the Church has taught on this subject. Going back at least to Innocent I in 405, through Augustine, Aquinas, and all the popes and counsels prior to 1995, there is nothing to support this new position. 2267 is irreconcilable with everything the Church has ever said about capital punishment, including other parts of the same Catechism.

Ender

Sorry, no, I wasn’t intending to extend your thoughts to the whole Catechism. I was just looking to verify that you disagree at least with some Catholic teaching based on your own opinions. You arrive at different conclusions based on your understanding of Church teaching than the Church does. That’s all. no problem. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ender]

Sorry, no, I wasn’t intending to extend your thoughts to the whole Catechism. I was just looking to verify that you disagree at least with some Catholic teaching based on your own opinions. You arrive at different conclusions based on your understanding of Church teaching than the Church does. That’s all. no problem. Thanks for the clarification.

No no … that’s not accurate. I do not disagree with Catholic teaching; I disagree with JPII’s prudential opinion, which is what 2267 is. Yes, I disagree with 2267 but it is 2267 that is not in accord with what the Church teaches, not me.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

No no … that’s not accurate. I do not disagree with Catholic teaching; I disagree with JPII’s prudential opinion, which is what 2267 is. Yes, I disagree with 2267 but it is 2267 that is not in accord with what the Church teaches, not me.

Ender

The hubris of some people on these forums never ceases to amaze me