When or is the death penalty alright?

[Verbum_Caro]

centurionguard,

I not sure what the article you pasted above is being offered to prove. Could you comment?

Thanks,
VC

 

[4elise]

Teaching Of The U.S. Bishops On The Death Penalty
Part 1:

The Catholic bishops of the United States have provided careful guidance about this difficult issue, applying the teaching of the universal Church to our American culture. Along with the leadership assemblies of many Churches (for example. American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians), the U.S. bishops have expressed their opposition to the death penalty. First articulated in 1974, the bishops’ position is explained in a 1980 statement, Capital Punishment. Individual bishops and state conferences of bishops have repeated in numerous teachings their opposition to the death penalty.

In their 1980 statement, the bishops begin by noting that punishment, “since it involves the deliberate infliction of evil on another,” must be justifiable. They acknowledge that the Christian tradition has for a long time recognized a government’s right to protect its citizens by using the death penalty in some serious situations. The bishops ask, however, if capital punishment is still justifiable in the present circumstances in the United States.

In this context, the bishops enter the debate about deterrence and retribution. They acknowledge that capital punishment certainly prevents the criminal from committing more crimes, yet question whether it prevents others from doing so. Similarly, concerning retribution, the bishops support the arguments against death as an appropriate form of punishment. The bishops add that reform is a third reason given to justify punishment, but it clearly does not apply in the case of capital punishment. And so they affirm: “We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.”

The heart of the matter:

As with the debate in our wider society, it is important to move behind the discussion of deterrence and retribution to get to the heart of the bishops’ position. The statement does just that, by discussing four related values that would be promoted by the abolition of the death penalty.
First, “abolition sends a message that we can break the cycle of violence, that we need not take life for life, that we can envisage more humane and more hopeful and effective responses to the growth of violent crime.” The bishops recognize that crime is rooted in the complex reality of contemporary society, including those “social conditions of poverty and injustice which often provide the breeding grounds for serious crime.” More attention should go to correcting the root causes of crime than to enlarging death row.

Second, “abolition of capital punishment is also a manifestation of our belief in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God.” This belief, rooted in Scripture and consistently expressed in the social teach- ings of the Church, applies to all people, including those who have taken life.

Third, “abolition of the death penalty is further testimony to our conviction, a conviction which we share with the Judaic and Islamic traditions, that God is indeed the Lord of life.” And so human life in all its stages is sacred, and human beings are called to care for life, that is, to exercise good stewardship and not absolute control. The bishops recognize that abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty are not the same issue, but they each point to the same fundamental value: safeguarding the sanctity of life.
Fourth, “we believe that abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus.” In many ways this final point summarizes the other three: the God revealed in the life of Jesus is a God of forgiveness and redemption, of love and compassion—in a word, a God of life. The heart of the bishops’ position on the death penalty, then, is found in the gospel.

Gut-level reactions may cry out for vengeance, but Jesus’ example in the Gospels invites all to develop a new and different attitude toward violence. The bishops encourage us to embody Jesus’ message in practical and civic decisions.
Prisons, victims and more

Excellent post!

 

[4elise]

Teachings Of The U.S. Bishops On The Death Penalty
Part 2:

While the gospel leads the bishops to oppose the death penalty, they also recognize the need society has to protect itself. Imprisonment will be necessary, but ought not to dehumanize the convicts. The bishops summarize what they have developed in other documents: Significant changes in the prison system are necessary to make it truly conducive to reform and rehabilitation.
In their statement on capital punishment, the bishops express special concern for the victims of violent crime and their families. “Our society should not flinch from contemplating the suffering that violent crime brings to so many when it destroys lives, shatters families and crushes the hope of the innocent.” Care for victims must be given in practical ways, such as financial assistance, pastoral care, medical and psychological treatment.

Some other difficulties directly related to the death penalty, which the statement mentions, are: 1) the death penalty removes the possibility of reform and rehabilitation; 2) there is the possibility of putting an innocent person to death; 3) carrying out the death penalty causes anguish not only for the convict’s loved ones but also for the executioners and the witnesses; 4) executions attract great publicity, much of it unhealthy; 5) there is legitimate concern that criminals are sentenced to death in a discriminatory way: It is a reasonable judgment that racist attitudes and the social consequences of racism have some influence in determining who is sentenced to die in our society. Adequate legal representation is an issue that puts poor people at a disadvantage. For many reasons, especially the message of Jesus, the U.S. bishops favor ending the death penalty.

Scripture and tradition:

The Bible is often mentioned in debates about the death penalty. Supporters quote the Exodus passage, eye for eye, while opponents appeal to Ezekiel (33:11): “As I live, says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live.” In fact, such use of the Bible (finding a “proof text” to affirm one’s point of view) is inappropriate.
Scripture scholars teach us to understand the Bible (and its individual books) in historical context: when it was written and why. Thus considered, there is an ambivalence about capital punishment in the Scriptures.

Clearly, the Hebrew Scriptures allowed the death penalty (for a much longer list of offenses than our society would be comfortable with—for example, striking or cursing a parent, adultery, idolatry). Yet, as we see in Ezekiel and many other passages, there is also an attempt to limit violence and to stress mercy. In the Christian Scriptures, Jesus’ life and teachings (see the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:1-7:29) focus on mercy, reconciliation and redemption. (It may also be instructive to recall that Jesus’ death was itself an application of the death penalty.) The basic thrust of the Gospels supports opposition to the death penalty.

Indeed, the early Church (for example, in the writings of Clement of Rome [died 101 A.D.] and Justin Martyr [d. 165]) generally found taking human life to be incompatible with the gospel. Christians were not to participate in capital punishment. Later, after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, opposition to the death penalty declined. Augustine recognized the death penalty as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this position.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this tradition, stating that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity. However, the Catechism adds: “If bloodless means [that is, other than killing] are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and 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” (#2267). Clearly, then, the bishops’ opposition to the death penalty is in accord with universal Church teaching.

Excellent post ‘2’ -

 

[Brendan]

. The bishops add that reform is a third reason given to justify punishment, but it clearly does not apply in the case of capital punishment.

Actually, that clearly is NOT true.

Take the case of Timothy McVeigh. He was raised a Catholic, but had left the Faith in his early teens.

But after his conviction, and while on death row, he had a reversion to the Faith. He sought, and recieved Sacramental Absolution. And just prior to his execution, recieved Last Rites, including Communion, Sacramental Absolution and the Apostolic Blessing.

He willing accepted his just punishment, which removes the temporal purgation due to the offense.

Timothy McVeigh died in a State of Grace, which is the ultimate goal of any Catholic. And if he used his last moments to detach himself from desire to sin, he met the obligations of a plenary indulgence, which removes the need of Purgation. So it is quite possible that McVeigh went straight to Heaven.

So the just application of Capital Punishment CAN lead to reform.

 

[Ender]

So the Catechism of the Catholic Church includes “opinions”?

As far as I know the only example of an opinion contained within the Catechism is section 2267. So yes, the Catechism includes an opinion (singular).

Which, presumably, are optional then to the faithful.

No opinion, even that of a pope, is binding on the conscience. Doctrine is, opinion is not.

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

As far as I know the only example of an opinion contained within the Catechism is section 2267. So yes, the Catechism includes an opinion (singular).
No opinion, even that of a pope, is binding on the conscience. Doctrine is, opinion is not.

Ender

Thanks. I am glad you were able to clarify that. Though it concerns me that there may be more “opinions” in the Catechism. Please keep up the good work and let us know if you find more.

I am sorry the Magisterium has not identified this (or any) “opinion” in the Catechism. I will keep them in prayer.

 

[Ender]

• “We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.”
• “we believe that abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus.”

You do realize don’t you that when the bishops start a statement with “we believe” they are giving their opinion? If they were instructing us on doctrine they would simply declare it. This is not doctrine, and it is an opinion I do not share.

The bishops recognize that crime is rooted in the complex reality of contemporary society, including those “social conditions of poverty and injustice which often provide the breeding grounds for serious crime.” More attention should go to correcting the root causes of crime than to enlarging death row.

It’s not clear what the bishops actually recognize since we’re reading someone else’s summary of their position. Here is different perspective on “root causes” of crime.*

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin.* (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 16)

Ender

 

[Ender]

In society the Death Penalty “only” serves in the legitimizing of penal purposes of deterrence and retribution. In reality though, the death penalty has never been proven to be any more retributive or deterrent than the punishment of life without parole.

Since retribution is the primary objective of all punishment it is not necessary for a penalty to deter, protect, or rehabilitate, for while all of these secondary objectives are proper and desirable, none of them are necessary for the penalty to be valid. If retribution is inadequate, however, the penalty cannot be just.

Retribution has never served as a means of protecting society because it incites further hate and anger which is counter-productive upholding a true Christian attitude.

One of the many problems with 2267 is that it focuses solely on protection (a secondary objective) and ignores retribution (the primary objective). Consequently people are coming to believe that there is something un-Christian about punishment, which is understandable in light of 2267 where justice/retribution is, by implication, not important.

Isn’t it a laughable irony to think that we humans still have a blood-thirty taste that reverberates down through the centuries in the days of the Roman Coliseum where enemies of the state and innocent people were savagely fed to the lions to gorge and famish on. Seems we haven’t changed a hell of a lot in 2000 years. Oh sure; we just Kill in a kinder self-righteous humanistic way.

This is precisely the attitude 2267 fosters, one where justice itself becomes suspect and is seen as nothing more than eye-for-an-eye vengeance.

Ender

 

[fish90]

God also gives the greatest punishment, which is worse than the death penalty, hell when somebody is not repentant.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Actually, that clearly is NOT true.

Take the case of Timothy McVeigh. He was raised a Catholic, but had left the Faith in his early teens.

But after his conviction, and while on death row, he had a reversion to the Faith. He sought, and recieved Sacramental Absolution. And just prior to his execution, recieved Last Rites, including Communion, Sacramental Absolution and the Apostolic Blessing.

He willing accepted his just punishment, which removes the temporal purgation due to the offense.

Timothy McVeigh died in a State of Grace, which is the ultimate goal of any Catholic. And if he used his last moments to detach himself from desire to sin, he met the obligations of a plenary indulgence, which removes the need of Purgation. So it is quite possible that McVeigh went straight to Heaven.

So the just application of Capital Punishment CAN lead to reform.

I did not know this part of the McVeigh story. Thank you for posting it.

 

[CWBetts]

Actually, that clearly is NOT true.

Take the case of Timothy McVeigh. He was raised a Catholic, but had left the Faith in his early teens.

But after his conviction, and while on death row, he had a reversion to the Faith. He sought, and recieved Sacramental Absolution. And just prior to his execution, recieved Last Rites, including Communion, Sacramental Absolution and the Apostolic Blessing.

He willing accepted his just punishment, which removes the temporal purgation due to the offense.

Timothy McVeigh died in a State of Grace, which is the ultimate goal of any Catholic. And if he used his last moments to detach himself from desire to sin, he met the obligations of a plenary indulgence, which removes the need of Purgation. So it is quite possible that McVeigh went straight to Heaven.

So the just application of Capital Punishment CAN lead to reform.

You cannot argue that the death sentence actually contributed to the conversion. How do you establish causation?

 

[ahollars]

You cannot argue that the death sentence actually contributed to the conversion. How do you establish causation?

You cannot prove they are unrelated either.

Interesting to see where this thread has gone. I’ll be back for more.

 

[CWBetts]

You cannot prove they are unrelated either.

Interesting to see where this thread has gone. I’ll be back for more.

The fact remains that “The deat penalty contributes to conversions” is bogus.

 

[joe_clark]

Actually, that clearly is NOT true.

Take the case of Timothy McVeigh. He was raised a Catholic, but had left the Faith in his early teens.

But after his conviction, and while on death row, he had a reversion to the Faith. He sought, and recieved Sacramental Absolution. And just prior to his execution, recieved Last Rites, including Communion, Sacramental Absolution and the Apostolic Blessing.

He willing accepted his just punishment, which removes the temporal purgation due to the offense.

Timothy McVeigh died in a State of Grace, which is the ultimate goal of any Catholic. And if he used his last moments to detach himself from desire to sin, he met the obligations of a plenary indulgence, which removes the need of Purgation. So it is quite possible that McVeigh went straight to Heaven.

So the just application of Capital Punishment CAN lead to reform.

This sounds like a reach beyond the scope. The application of Capital punishment or as I like to call it what it is: Intentional Premeditated Murder, has not and continues not to reform anyone. Centuries of people guilty and innocent have been put to death by some sort of punishment, and absolutely nothing has changed anyones mind throughout the centuries. There continue to be perpetrators of violent crimes, the victims, and the judicial process whether it be legitimate or kangaroo.

McVeigh was a cautionary tale and lesson to all that there really are domesticated enemies. You think 911 was bad because people from a far away land committed the crime. Here McVeigh, American, blonde hair, blue eyes killed over 3000 innocent people including children in a daycare center. Reason, because they were in a government building. You don’t need much when your wacked out. Killing him did nothing for society but martyr him to his cronies.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Since retribution is the primary objective of all punishment it is not necessary for a penalty to deter, protect, or rehabilitate, for while all of these secondary objectives are proper and desirable, none of them are necessary for the penalty to be valid. If retribution is inadequate, however, the penalty cannot be just.

Ender, yes, very important. We should note that without the retributive end being sought justly none of the other objectives are permissible. Without retribution we cannot justly deter others, protect society, or rehabilitate an offender.

The Bishops statement in 1980 – the one which the article posted by **centurionguard **refers – actually states this, but it goes by quickly!:

The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment. For the practice of punishment both presupposes a previous transgression against the law and involves the involuntary deprivation of certain goods.

VC

 

[ahollars]

The fact remains that “The deat penalty contributes to conversions” is bogus.

It is not a fact. It is your opinion, which you have readily fired into your assumed motives of death penalty supporters. The death penalty is not a denial of repentance, and many prisoners throughout history used their time wisely to account for their actions and seek redemption.

The truth is that if capital punishment does lead to conversion, then your argument is invalid, because vengeance is not a factor. We do not judge the souls of the condemned, but we have every right to judge their actions for the good of society, not just the victims.

You are also ignoring the points made by Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) in his letter to the USCCB (which was kept from the public by Cardinal McCarrick) Your judgment, however genuine or sincere, does not supersede his, and you have no authority to call our opinions immoral. Misguided, perhaps we shall see someday, but still completely within the path of God’s grace.

 

[CWBetts]

It is not a fact. It is your opinion, which you have readily fired into your assumed motives of death penalty supporters. The death penalty is not a denial of repentance, and many prisoners throughout history used their time wisely to account for their actions and seek redemption.

The truth is that if capital punishment does lead to conversion, then your argument is invalid, because vengeance is not a factor. We do not judge the souls of the condemned, but we have every right to judge their actions for the good of society, not just the victims.

You are also ignoring the points made by Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) in his letter to the USCCB (which was kept from the public by Cardinal McCarrick) Your judgment, however genuine or sincere, does not supersede his, and you have no authority to call our opinions immoral. Misguided, perhaps we shall see someday, but still completely within the path of God’s grace.

You sir, are wrong. Provide evidence. But you cannot; there is none. The only thing the death penalty does is completely ignore the words of our Lord. The woman caught in adultery was to be legally executed…but she was spared. None of us have the purity required to condemn another to death. I find it interesting how offended proponents of the death penalty are by the very idea of mercy.

 

[ahollars]

You sir, are wrong. Provide evidence. But you cannot; there is none. The only thing the death penalty does is completely ignore the words of our Lord. The woman caught in adultery was to be legally executed…but she was spared. None of us have the purity required to condemn another to death. I find it interesting how offended proponents of the death penalty are by the very idea of mercy.

You have no evidence either.

We’re even.

 

[CWBetts]

You have no evidence either.

We’re even.

A negative cannot be proven. It is your responsibility to show that the death penalty contibutes in a verifiable way to genuine conversions.

 

[Ignatius]

In answer to the OP asking about When the death penalty be used. Although it is widely believed that most death penalty executions are to be at midnight, this is erroneous. There is no fixed time when the death penalty must be administered.