When or is the death penalty alright?

[Ender]

The nut of the issue is this: The Church has not stated one way or the other definitively on the status of the death penalty. Before he was Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger said that Catholics could have differing opinions on the issue. Truth be told, if His Holiness would issue a statement that the death penalty must be allowed as it is the only just punishment for premeditated murder and acts of terror, then by golly, I would change my position immediately. On the other hand, if the Pope issued a statement and said that the death penalty is contrary to the dignity of the human person, I would suspect the majority of supporters would also change their position. As it stands, the disagreement comes not on the status of human diginity, but rather ion how that dignity is best defended. Any thoughts?

I agree with this. Something is not right when people on opposite sides can both point to Church documents supporting their position. This question is in an unacceptable state of ambiguity and it will inevitably require some statement in the future to resolve it. The “dignity of the human person” is a perfect example of this ambiguity when the same concept is used to defend capital punishment -* “because man is made in the image of God”* - and to oppose it - because incarceration is “more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.”

Ender

 

[ahollars]

The nut of the issue is this: The Church has not stated one way or the other definitively on the status of the death penalty. Before he was Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger said that Catholics could have differing opinions on the issue. Truth be told, if His Holiness would issue a statement that the death penalty must be allowed as it is the only just punishment for premeditated murder and acts of terror, then by golly, I would change my position immediately. On the other hand, if the Pope issued a statement and said that the death penalty is contrary to the dignity of the human person, I would suspect the majority of supporters would also change their position. As it stands, the disagreement comes not on the status of human diginity, but rather ion how that dignity is best defended. Any thoughts?

I concur. However, I also think the notion of “modern technology” of our prisons has been overestimated. Truth be told, prisons were actually better back in the day. No entertainment, no workouts, minimal basic food so that a prisoner couldn’t make himself strong, and controlled counseling that was not of the prisoner’s preference. Escapes and assaults were certainly far less possible than they are today.

Does anyone here believe that the Vatican was referring to America when 2267 was included in the Catechism? We are nowhere near the biggest offenders when it comes to the frequency or cause of the use of the death penalty when offending crime and per capita are factored. It safe to say that JPII’s view was shaped by his experiences in occupied Poland during his formative years and early priesthood.

Until then, I am confident that I am not disobeying the Church. While I don’t actively support the death penalty, I am not opposed to it. I have no problem with states who abolish it, but I will not work to end it until I have marching orders, as we do in the case of other life issues. My priorities are and will be there until the time comes, if it ever does.

 

[d97c]

Support for the death penalty remains strong in all polls.

homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/09/death-penalty-polls–support-remains-very-high–80.aspx

 

[d97c]

Nowhere has the pope said that capital punishment is morally wrong or that the state does not have the right to exact it. He has not overthrown a teaching that stretches back through the centuries–something he arguably could not do. Paragraph 2266 recalls the three purposes of punishment: retribution, protection of society, and moral medicine. These are not all of equal weight. “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” Nothing could be more traditional.
It is Paragraph 2267 that might be confusing in the wake of Gospel of Life. It begins with a reiteration of the traditional doctrine: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.” That seems clear enough, but the sentence has not ended. It goes on: “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
Now, taken literally, this sounds like the Catechism recommends imprisonment for future, possible acts of the criminal. But surely we can’t lock people up because they might conceivably harm others. People are imprisoned for acts actually performed, and it is these acts that must be punished in order to “redress the disorder” their crimes have caused. The passage is also confusing because it sounds as if the traditional defense of the death penalty rested on protecting human society from an unjust aggressor.

But keep in mind that protecting society is only the secondary purpose of punishment. If, however rarely, the state’s right to take the criminal’s life is legitimately exercised, only recourse to the primary purpose of punishment–redressing the wrong–can justify it. It will not do to say that locking Adolph Eichmann up will prevent him from continuing with the Final Solution and give him a chance to repent. By his crimes, Adolph Eichmann had forfeited own life. One life compared with six million seems disproportionate, but it is the most that could be exacted from Eichmann, and it justly was.

Not all murderers are Eichmanns, however, and loyal Catholics will attend to the pope’s desire that the death penalty become rare to the point of non-existence. How can this be done in terms of the three purposes of punishment? Life imprisonment would have to be held to fulfill the primary purpose of punishment, redressing the disorder, as well as, and secondarily, the other purposes.

Meanwhile, much nonsense will be heard. Some have said that retribution is no longer part of the church’s view of punishment. This is false. Some will speak as if there is an equivalence to be made between the life of a guilty and condemned murderer and an unborn child, and seek, on that basis, to link opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty. This too is nonsense, incubated in a society which, permitting some citizens to take the lives of other innocent citizens, sees a moratorium on the death penalty as a moral imperative.

 

[CWBetts]

Nowhere has the pope said that capital punishment is morally wrong or that the state does not have the right to exact it. He has not overthrown a teaching that stretches back through the centuries–something he arguably could not do. Paragraph 2266 recalls the three purposes of punishment: retribution, protection of society, and moral medicine. These are not all of equal weight. “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” Nothing could be more traditional.
It is Paragraph 2267 that might be confusing in the wake of Gospel of Life. It begins with a reiteration of the traditional doctrine: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.” That seems clear enough, but the sentence has not ended. It goes on: “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
Now, taken literally, this sounds like the Catechism recommends imprisonment for future, possible acts of the criminal. But surely we can’t lock people up because they might conceivably harm others. People are imprisoned for acts actually performed, and it is these acts that must be punished in order to “redress the disorder” their crimes have caused. The passage is also confusing because it sounds as if the traditional defense of the death penalty rested on protecting human society from an unjust aggressor.

But keep in mind that protecting society is only the secondary purpose of punishment. If, however rarely, the state’s right to take the criminal’s life is legitimately exercised, only recourse to the primary purpose of punishment–redressing the wrong–can justify it. It will not do to say that locking Adolph Eichmann up will prevent him from continuing with the Final Solution and give him a chance to repent. By his crimes, Adolph Eichmann had forfeited own life. One life compared with six million seems disproportionate, but it is the most that could be exacted from Eichmann, and it justly was.

Not all murderers are Eichmanns, however, and loyal Catholics will attend to the pope’s desire that the death penalty become rare to the point of non-existence. How can this be done in terms of the three purposes of punishment? Life imprisonment would have to be held to fulfill the primary purpose of punishment, redressing the disorder, as well as, and secondarily, the other purposes.

Meanwhile, much nonsense will be heard. Some have said that retribution is no longer part of the church’s view of punishment. This is false. Some will speak as if there is an equivalence to be made between the life of a guilty and condemned murderer and an unborn child, and seek, on that basis, to link opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty. This too is nonsense, incubated in a society which, permitting some citizens to take the lives of other innocent citizens, sees a moratorium on the death penalty as a moral imperative.

Life imprisonment with no chance at parole is indeed punishment. It can be compared to slavery in some respects. I myself spent some time locked up, but that was many years ago and I am a different person. I can tell you from experience that imprisonment fulfills th requirement of redressing the wrongs committed.

 

[iluvburpees]

Life imprisonment with no chance at parole is indeed punishment. It can be compared to slavery in some respects. I myself spent some time locked up, but that was many years ago and I am a different person. I can tell you from experience that imprisonment fulfills th requirement of redressing the wrongs committed.

First, your one, personal experience is not enough to universally claim that imprisonment is a sufficient punishment for every crime (which, by the way you worded it, seems to be what you’re implying). Second, even if it did satisfy your punishment, you cannot equate it with the punishment deserving of the murderer.

 

[CWBetts]

First, your one, personal experience is not enough to universally claim that imprisonment is a sufficient punishment for every crime (which, by the way you worded it, seems to be what you’re implying). Second, even if it did satisfy your punishment, you cannot equate it with the punishment deserving of the murderer.

You have no idea of what prison is like. The prospect of life in prison is such that some would prefer execution to a life sentence. Now if you would just get off of your self-righteous high horse, perhaps some progress could be made in this debate.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Life imprisonment with no chance at parole is indeed punishment. It can be compared to slavery in some respects. I myself spent some time locked up, but that was many years ago and I am a different person. I can tell you from experience that imprisonment fulfills th requirement of redressing the wrongs committed.

Most of the less than saory ilk view prison as fee healthcare for life, and 3 hots and a cot.

 

[iluvburpees]

Most of the less than saory ilk view prison as fee healthcare for life, and 3 hots and a cot.

?

 

[iluvburpees]

You have no idea of what prison is like. The prospect of life in prison is such that some would prefer execution to a life sentence. Now if you would just get off of your self-righteous high horse, perhaps some progress could be made in this debate.

Really?

If that’s so, you have to admit that you’re the “unmerciful one.” After all, if it’s less painful to die in the near future than it is to stay in prison for decades, I’m being more “merciful” for supporting to death penalty than you are for supporting life imprisonment, aren’t I?

 

[aspawloski4th]

?

The criminal mind jus t thinks of it as a roof over their head with some goodies. I remember Paul Harvey when he mentioned a murderer getting life in prison instead of the dealth penalty, would say free room nd board of you for life.

 

[CWBetts]

Really?

If that’s so, you have to admit that you’re the “unmerciful one.” After all, if it’s less painful to die in the near future than it is to stay in prison for decades, I’m being more “merciful” for supporting to death penalty than you are for supporting life imprisonment, aren’t I?

But it is you who feels the state can play God.

 

[iluvburpees]

But it is you who feels the state can play God.

Quit changing the subject. We’ll get to this accusation later.

Instead of dodging the issue, answer: if it’s less painful to die in the near future than it is to stay in prison for decades, I’m being more “merciful” for supporting to death penalty than you are for supporting life imprisonment, aren’t I?

Simple question. Or are you afraid to contradict yourself by answering?

 

[CWBetts]

Quit changing the subject. We’ll get to this accusation later.

Instead of dodging the issue, answer: if it’s less painful to die in the near future than it is to stay in prison for decades, I’m being more “merciful” for supporting to death penalty than you are for supporting life imprisonment, aren’t I?

Simple question. Or are you afraid to contradict yourself by answering?

It is never more merciful to kill than to allow to live. It is this kind of reasoning that will lead one to accept euthanasia. Sorry, you lose.

 

[iluvburpees]

It is never more merciful to kill than to allow to live. It is this kind of reasoning that will lead one to accept euthanasia. Sorry, you lose.

First this:

The prospect of life in prison is such that some would prefer execution to a life sentence.

…in other words, it is more “merciful” to kill them than it is to send them to prison for life, since they’d supposedly consider it less hell to die.

Then this:

It is never more merciful to kill than to allow to live. It is this kind of reasoning that will lead one to accept euthanasia.

…in other words, it is less “merciful” to kill them than it is to send them to prison for life.

In other words, you have contradicted yourself.

Please explain your reasoning process.

 

[iluvburpees]

It is this kind of reasoning that will lead one to accept euthanasia.

Yes, because it is your twisted reasoning that I’m trying to clear up on.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes, because it is your twisted reasoning that I’m trying to clear up on.

I will no longer respond to you. If you want to know why, read some of my previous posts.

 

[iluvburpees]

I will no longer respond to you. If you want to know why, read some of my previous posts.

You still haven’t responded to my previous post. Explain how your contradictions don’t contradict each other.

 

[iluvburpees]

But it is you who feels the state can play God.

Wow…that’s quite a claim. You think that the state implementing the death penalty is “playing God?” Well, let’s see who you’re really referring to…

Innocent I:

“It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.”

Innocent III:

“The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude.”

Pius XII:

“Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”

St. Augustine:

"The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

“The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.”

St. Thomas Aquinas:

"It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). …

Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).”

"The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.

They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”"

The Council of Trent:

"The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8)."

You cannot, in your right mind, deny that the Traditional teaching of the Church has always been that the death penalty is just and permissible. You seem to deny that it is. Well, perhaps you should be reminded of this infallible statement from Vatican Council I:

“Moreover, by divine and Catholic faith everything must be believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal magisterium.”

I follow the Church’s interpretation of this dogma. You follow what you believe it to be. This is, I’m sorry to say, nothing other than private interpretation.

 

[CWBetts]

Wow…that’s quite a claim. You think that the state implementing the death penalty is “playing God?” Well, let’s see who you’re really referring to…

Innocent I:

“It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.”

Innocent III:

“The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude.”

Pius XII:

“Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”

St. Augustine:

"The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

“The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.”

St. Thomas Aquinas:

"It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). …

Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).”

"The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.

They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”"

The Council of Trent:

"The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8)."

You cannot, in your right mind, deny that the Traditional teaching of the Church has always been that the death penalty is just and permissible. You seem to deny that it is. Well, perhaps you should be reminded of this infallible statement from Vatican Council I:

“Moreover, by divine and Catholic faith everything must be believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal magisterium.”

I follow the Church’s interpretation of this dogma. You follow what you believe it to be. This is, I’m sorry to say, nothing other than private interpretation.

Faithful Catholics may have a difference of opinion on the matter. This comes from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). I will stand by his statement, not the statement of some self-serving practical schismatic who thinks he knows more about the teachings of the Church than anyone else.