When or is the death penalty alright?

[diggerdomer]

The difference is, us on the pro-death penalty side are not trying to mply that we are morally superior to our opponents, only that ours is a more practical and reasonable approach.
.

The Church clearly teaches, in the Catechism and elsewhere, the criteria for assessing when the death penalty is morally justified. Does your “more practical and reasonable approach” differ from what the Church teaches?

 

[diggerdomer]

Besides, there is not a frequent application of the death penalty. In 2008, for example, there were 16,247 murders, with 33 executions.

That is .2% execution rate.

That certainly fits in with the CCC, which says it should be at least a rare event.

The CCC does not define rare by pure numbers. One would have to evaluate each case to see if it met the criteria taught by the Church as to whether application of the death penalty in that circumstance was legitimate.

 

[diggerdomer]

The words of Trent and the historical tradition of the Church are clear on the death penalty. It has a place and a legitimate use for the defense of society and the proper punishment of certain grave offenses. I will stick by tradition until death takes me or the Lord returns.

Yes, the historical tradition of the Church is clear, and it didn’t stop or reach its apex at Trent.

 

[Ender]

The Church clearly teaches, in the Catechism and elsewhere, the criteria for assessing when the death penalty is morally justified. Does your “more practical and reasonable approach” differ from what the Church teaches?

I believe that the Catechism is specifying the criteria for when the death penalty is prudentially justified. If it has ever been morally justified then it will forever be morally justified; the morality of the act does not change with time.

Ender

 

[Magdalena09]

I believe that the Catechism is specifying the criteria for when the death penalty is prudentially justified. If it has ever been morally justified then it will forever be morally justified; the morality of the act does not change with time.

Ender

Do you believe this to be true with all moral/immoral acts?

 

[Lycorth]

The Church clearly teaches, in the Catechism and elsewhere, the criteria for assessing when the death penalty is morally justified. Does your “more practical and reasonable approach” differ from what the Church teaches?

That has nothing to do with what my point and you know full well I am not setting myself up as a superior teaching authority.

Yes, the historical tradition of the Church is clear, and it didn’t stop or reach its apex at Trent.

Truth does not change; either Trent is correct or it is not. Either the death penalty has a justifiable and proper place for the defense of society, or it is “rarely justified”.

Or, as Pope Benedict has said, we’re free to hold differing opinions; now the argument turns towards evaluating the death penalty based on the history of crime and the current criminal situation in a given country.

 

[CWBetts]

Truth does not change; either Trent is correct or it is not. Either the death penalty has a justifiable and proper place for the defense of society, or it is “rarely justified”.

Or, as Pope Benedict has said, we’re free to hold differing opinions; now the argument turns towards evaluating the death penalty based on the history of crime and the current criminal situation in a given country.

Your post makes no sense. The death penalty has a proper place AND it is rarely justified. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. Just because it has a proper place does not mean it should be used frequently.

 

[d97c]

YOUR post “makes no sense.” Value judgments on others opinions are trivial. But as long as we are talking about “making sense,” the penalty was never discussed (and I challenge any one to prove otherwise) in terms of “frequently” or “infrequently” until J P 2, (in other words, if we had plenty of “frequent” murders, we would convict and execute “frequently”…and that is an opinion (the rare and infrequent thing) which we (and the majority of Catholics by the way—check the polls) may disregard. The current Pope states :

" 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. "

I disagree on the application, currently taught and I agree that the application of the penalty practiced for over 1900 centuries is more in tune with the teachings of Christ…whose Church had no problem with it for those same over-1900 centuries…

 

[Lycorth]

Your post makes no sense. The death penalty has a proper place AND it is rarely justified. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. Just because it has a proper place does not mean it should be used frequently.

My post makes perfect sense. The unambiguous teaching of the Church (until our benighted modern times) is clear - the death penalty is permissible, justifiable, and has a useful place for the defense of society and the redress of grave crimes.

From the Catechism of Saint Thomas Aquinas:

The Execution of Criminals.–Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.” It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.” And again: “For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God’s minister.” To Moses also it was said: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.” And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Execution of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

From the Catechism of Saint Pius X:

It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.

Here we see the clear teaching of the Church, from Saint Thomas Aquinas on. In each Catechetical example, we see a clearly-worded and unambiguous answer to the question of capital punishment: it is lawful according to God, just for the defense of civil society, and by no means an act of murder upon part of the authorities who carry it out. To be sure, this presumes a just authority acting genuinely and altruistically to protect the common good and to redress grave crimes, for all such authority comes from God.

continued next post…

 

[Lycorth]

Let’s look at the most recent Catechism and its entry about the death penalty. Let’s look at the first sentence for paragraph 2267:

*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.

*Seems perfectly in line with all Catechetical teaching that has come before. There is a caveat, however: *"*when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor." **This could be seen as fishy on one hand, or as a just and reasonable enumeration of the fact that there are other methods by which to protect human life.

Let’s look at the second sentence:
*
"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.
*
The caveat is extended; this is abnormal in the world of Catechetical teaching. Not a single one of the prior Catechisms had ever included such language. It seems designed to open the door to justifying incarceration, even indefinite incarceration. We could take it a step further and use this to easily justify attempting to alter the minds of criminals (to get a little sci-fi for the moment). Frankly, things start to get murky here; what was once a simply-worded explanation that justified a simple remedy has now had strange addenda tacked on that muddles the clarity that was once present.

And the third sentence:

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.’

Here’s where the caveat becomes bizarre and frankly, unbelievable. The facts and statistics on crime in Western civilization are easy to research and tell a clear story - human nature has not changed in two thousand years. We are nowhere near as advanced and enlightened as we think we are. Our dabblings into scientific fields have yielded great things, but have also discovered new ways for us to kill ourselves and to distract ourselves from God, from family, and from anything decent. We have not found a single reliable method for bloodlessly redressing grave crime nor for preventing it. In fact, as Western society grows more dangerous, it becomes clear that we have lost ground, that we have made society more dangerous, which necessarily requires a more consistent and thorough application of traditional practices if we are to get out civilization back to where it once was. This means in regard to the death penalty that we must cease the dangerous practice of coddling vipers and presuming we can turn them into bunnies. Our prison system mentality has failed, our prisons only turn out worse criminals by and large, and our cities bear the brunt as these traitors to civilized society return to resume their war against the law-abiding.

The first sentence of CCC 2267 is in conformity with Tradition and with moral teaching on the use of the death penalty. The rest of it, while not teaching *moral *error, does teach social and scientific error. The Church cannot teach errors on faith or morals, but here we see errors regarding human behavior, the state of Western civilization, and ability of science. Per Pope Benedict, I disagree with the notion that the death penalty is “rarely justified” and I maintain my stance both on the need for the just application of the death penalty today and with the Church’s traditional position on its moral character.

 

[Ender]

Do you believe this to be true with all moral/immoral acts?

The Church teaches that morality is absolute and does not change with time and place. This is not to say that circumstances do not affect whether an act is moral. If you’re lost in a blizzard and stumble on an empty house you may break in to save yourself. In this case, however, it is not so much the act that determines its morality as the intention behind it. If an act is not intrinsically evil then there are times - depending on the intent - when the act is justified even though in most cases it would not be.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The unambiguous teaching of the Church (until our benighted modern times) is clear - the death penalty is permissible, justifiable, and has a useful place for the defense of society and the redress of grave crimes.

That was a very well researched response but I have a somewhat different opinion on two things. The primary objective of punishment is retribution - redressing the disorder introduced by the crime. The protection of society, along with deterrence, and rehabilitation are all valid objectives but they are all secondary and it is a mistake to give the defense of society equal importance with retribution. This is my principle objection to 2267: it focuses solely on one of the three secondary objectives of punishment and completely ignores the primary objective - which is justice. If a punishment is not just it cannot be used even if it would be effective in providing protection but if a punishment fails to provide protection it may nonetheless be used if it is just. Don’t get drawn into the debate about whether the death penalty is or is not necessary to provide protection because the answer to that question has no bearing on whether the punishment is just.

Second, in your comment on the first sentence of 2267 you mentioned the caveat and implied that it could be seen as just and reasonable. I disagree and your own citations should confirm that the restriction in 2267 was never part of traditional teaching. That statement is simply false.

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.
Capital Punishment and the Law – Kevin L. Flannery S.J., 2007
Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University

Ender

 

[d97c]

You know…
Im convinced that the Popes, catechisms, writers, Councils, doctors of the chruch, (name it) had no problem with, in the official writings of the church, “okaying” the use of the death penalty for centuries. If you disagree with that, just go read something else. You are being disengenouous. Nevertheless, all that has been written reinforces what I think. John Paul 2 didnt like today’s use of the death penalty. Thats clear. He also stated that the d.p. was neither immoral nor “un-usable.” …
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…(stoping in mid sentence)

then the catechism says

“…when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

I wonder what the Pope was thinking about today’s criminal justice system that prompted his conclusions. People who are on death row dont escape ! Name me a real change in the history of the death penalty and murder convictions where there was a huge percentage of escapes of people on death row…OR where people who were on death row escaped and attacked family members or other people…I mean , his take seems to say that the penalty shouldnt (not couldnt) be used because there is not much chance of the bad guy escaping (defend the lives of human beings) or being an “aggressor.”
Where is the proof that the church for 1900+ centuries was even concerned that the reason for the penalty was because the bad guys on death row were getting out and being “aggressive.” Where is any proof that that statement is not just something stated by someone who has NO CLUE about criminal justice in the USA.
Quite frankly, thats why Pope Benedict states that I can disagree with the catechism on the APPLICATION of the death penalty.
The answer is of course that the “escape and be aggressive” thing was not in the picture. The OTHER reasons for it…as written about by the centuries of writers(as was stated to magnificantly by the writers Ender and Lycorth !!)
…and where is any kind of study that shows that if you wait x many years for Charlie Manson to reform and save his soul…he probably will???
There isnt any study. And given that it takes an average of 10 years to get a murderer to death row, Im betting that if he doesnt “find Jesus” by 10 years, he may not. I bet he’s more likely to “find religion” when he’s about the get the juice…and time will not make one bit of difference.

 

[momor]

I sure wish a theologian would weigh in on this thread. I think opinion is influencing many of the good points I see being made on both sides of this argument even though I believe those who make the arguments think they are being completely objective.
Therefore I have some questions that would help me if answered by a theologian:

1. Is justice (retribution/punishment as being argued here) the primary purpose behind lawful execution?
   Is protection of the innocent the primary purpose?
2. As Catholics are we morally obligated to follow ALL teachings of the current CCC unless and until it is changed (regardless of whether dissenting opinions are being written/discussed by legitimate Church authorities)?
   Is it ever morally acceptable to privately or publically reject a teaching or statement in the current CCC on the basis of personal conscience (whether influenced by dissenting Church authorities or not)?

 

[Ender]

1. Is justice (retribution/punishment as being argued here) the primary purpose behind lawful execution?

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

Redressing the disorder means satisfying the demands of justice.

*For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; *(Pius XII)

Justice is the primary objective of all punishment.

1. As Catholics are we morally obligated to follow ALL teachings of the current CCC unless and until it is changed (regardless of whether dissenting opinions are being written/discussed by legitimate Church authorities)?

Catholics have an obligation to assent to all of the teachings of the Church. The assumption is made that everything in the Catechism is in fact Church teaching but I contend that 2267 is not. That section is the prudential opinion of JPII and is therefore not binding on our consciences.

Is it ever morally acceptable to privately or publically reject a teaching or statement in the current CCC on the basis of personal conscience (whether influenced by dissenting Church authorities or not)?

It is acceptable to reject opinions, even those of popes.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

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

Redressing the disorder means satisfying the demands of justice.

*For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; *(Pius XII)

Justice is the primary objective of all punishment.

Catholics have an obligation to assent to all of the teachings of the Church. The assumption is made that everything in the Catechism is in fact Church teaching but I contend that 2267 is not. That section is the prudential opinion of JPII and is therefore not binding on our consciences.
It is acceptable to reject opinions, even those of popes.

Ender

If that what it takes for you to sleep at night. I guess some people will say anything in an attempt to justify disobedience to the Holy See.

 

[diggerdomer]

I believe that the Catechism is specifying the criteria for when the death penalty is prudentially justified. If it has ever been morally justified then it will forever be morally justified; the morality of the act does not change with time.

Ender

That’s not true. The morality of an act itself is not the only consideration. Intention, circumstances, etc. also play into the final moral judgment. Just because a given act was morally justified in one time does not mean it’s morally justified in all times.

King Solomon had many wives. Seemed ok to the people of the times who were following God. Polygamy is not currently morally justified…in the Jewish and Christian traditions…is it?

 

[diggerdomer]

That has nothing to do with what my point and you know full well I am not setting myself up as a superior teaching authority.

Truth does not change; either Trent is correct or it is not. Either the death penalty has a justifiable and proper place for the defense of society, or it is “rarely justified”.

Or, as Pope Benedict has said, we’re free to hold differing opinions; now the argument turns towards evaluating the death penalty based on the history of crime and the current criminal situation in a given country.

Truth does not change, of course. But whether and how Trent (or any human expression) of the truth corresponds to “Truth” is open to question.

 

[diggerdomer]

My post makes perfect sense. The unambiguous teaching of the Church (until our benighted modern times) is clear - t

So…is the Church today in error?

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church teaches that morality is absolute and does not change with time and place.

Reference? Thanks.