Why does the US and so many of its citizens continue to support the death penalty?

[Ender]

We form a judgement about the consequences and that becomes a factor in judging the morality of the Act we contemplate.

But forming a judgment about the consequences is not itself a moral judgment. This goes to the question of whether a particular application of capital punishment will or will not be harmful to the society that applies it. If two people disagree on that question one will be mistaken but neither will have sinned because that calculation doesn’t involve a moral choice.

And moral principles are applied in judging the consequences.

In judging what to do after the consequences have been judged, yes, but not in judging what the consequences will be.

 

[OnAJourney]

God also teaches us to forgive. We of course do not forget, but we absolutely forgive. By the time a death row inmate is actually executed for the crime they were convicted of they’ve long since been subdued and were no longer a threat to the public. That strikes me as vindictiveness if ever there were a circumstance.

Also the justice system with regards to the death penalty is absolutely not entirely right and just. God does not endorse or condone the killing of those who did no harm to another person (the innocent who get convicted for a crime they didn’t commit). I rather think the Lord would want for them to have justice just as he expects Christians to obey just laws.

 

[Rau]

If two people disagree on that question one will be mistaken but neither will have sinned because that calculation doesn’t involve a moral choice.

That is not in debate.

And moral principles are applied in judging the consequences.

Of course moral principles are involved. They enable us to distinguish good outcomes from evil ones.

 

[Annie]

God does not endorse or condone the killing of those who did no harm to another person (the innocent who get convicted for a crime they didn’t commit).

First let me say that 1) there are problems with CP as applied in the US, and not only because different states have different rules; 2) that we have found that CP has been applied to too many innocent people (imo).

However, – this is not an example that includes CP but does show what I am trying to say-- in the case of the Duke lacrosse players, the prosecutor absolutely went against them immorally, having used the case to generate publicity for himself in view of the upcoming election by making false statements about the defendants and by withholding exculpatory evidence.

Clearly God would not endorse or condone such immoral conduct. However, when people make a mistake in executing someone who by all the evidence is guilty, then how can God condemn that act, serious as it may be?

 

[Ender]

God also teaches us to forgive.

The obligation of the individual is to forgive; the obligation of the state is to punish.

2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties…

It is in fact the obligation imposed by justice.

By the time a death row inmate is actually executed for the crime they were convicted of they’ve long since been subdued and were no longer a threat to the public.

The severity of the punishment is not determined by the threat the criminal poses, but by the severity of the crime he committed. It is to be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

Of course moral principles are involved. They enable us to distinguish good outcomes from evil ones.

Moral principles are of no help in predicting what will happen as a result of an action. Wanting to do the right thing is not much help in figuring what the right thing is. Just ask a parent.

However, when people make a mistake in executing someone who by all the evidence is guilty, then how can God condemn that act, serious as it may be?

On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas ST II-II 64,8)

 

[Annie]

On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas ST II-II 64,8)

Wow, i am amazed at the depth of your knowledge of these sources!

 

[godisgood77]

I am not sure why so many still support the death penalty.

The Church had deepened its understanding of the inviolability of the human person. She teaches that even those who commit the most heinous crimes do not lose their dignity and should not be deprived of the chance to repent. The Church formally and clearly teaches that death penalty is not admissible for Catholics.

I think that many reject that teaching based on a previous understanding and teaching from the Church and are disobedient to the Church’s legitimate authority.

I also think that many are simply ignorant to the actual teaching of the Church.

 

[Annie]

think that many reject that teaching based on a previous understanding and teaching from the Church and are disobedient to the Church’s legitimate authority.

The thing is, Church teaching is not supposed to change. If there is an apparent change, then it must be adequately explained.

 

[godisgood77]

The thing is, Church teaching is not supposed to change. If there is an apparent change, then it must be adequately explained.

That is correct Annie… and it was in both the Catechism of the Church and the letter from the CDF explaining the Church. Some choose to reject that explanation (which seems abundantly clear to many) and some simply do not know about it.

Here is that letter: Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

And you can refer to the Catechism number 2267

The Church has always deepened her understanding in it’s living tradition. Learnings and development have always been incorporated in to its teachings. That fact does not and can not change.

 

[Ender]

I also think that many are simply ignorant to the actual teaching of the Church.

Because of the very specific request from the OP not to debate the “actual” teaching of the church I have refrained from doing so, but if you’d like to open another thread to discuss this I’d be more than happy to respond.

 

[godisgood77]

Because of the very specific request from the OP not to debate the “actual” teaching of the church I have refrained from doing so, but if you’d like to open another thread to discuss this I’d be more than happy to respond.

Fair enough, Ender… we’ve gone back and forth enough on that topic over the past months. We know where each other stand on that.

To be clear though, I wasn’t trying to open a debate on the Church’s teaching. I stand by my comment… Catholics who support the death penalty either dissent from the Church on the topic or are ignorant of the Church’s teaching.

For non-Catholics, I believe that a general de-valuing of life in the US contributes to the attitude. Abortion, poverty, racism and bigotry, military industrial complex and the kingship of the dollar over God rule these days in the states…

 

[Rau]

Moral principles are of no help in predicting what will happen as a result of an action.

Correct. But foreseeable outcomes need to be identified as good or evil. That requires application of moral principles.

 

[Rau]

I think that many reject that teaching based on a previous understanding and teaching from the Church and are disobedient to the Church’s legitimate authority.

The church expresses its current teaching in cloudy language. Note that the church could have clearly reversed prior teaching by using familiar and well understood language and declared that CP is “intrinsically evil” - that is, always wrong, just as intentionally killing the innocent is “always wrong”. But no - this was not done. Thus, we must conclude CP remains, as always taught, NOT intrinsically evil. From this it becomes evident (but perhaps not clear) that what the church is saying is that - circumstances make CP wrong nowadays. This declaration, though reliant on moral principles, is a judgement, all be it a fervently held one. The “authority” of the church in this realm is not entirely clear to me.

The thing is, Church teaching is not supposed to change. If there is an apparent change, then it must be adequately explained.

Declaring CP intrinsically evil would have been what is intolerable - a reversal of a moral position. We don’t have that.

 

[o_mlly]

The severity of the punishment is not determined by the threat the criminal poses …

The Magisterium teaches that the state must limit punishment to bloodless means if such means protect society from the threat that the criminal poses. The state’s duty is to protect its citizens, never to execute its prisoners. One may argue that the teaching on limiting the use of capital punishment to bloodless means is a novel restriction on the state’s right to execute but not a reversal.

… but by the severity of the crime he committed. It is to be “ commensurate with the gravity of the crime .”

The Magisterium has never taught that the gravity of any particular crime requires the state to impose the death penalty. Therefore, it is not a reversal of teaching to further restrict the state’s valid use of the death penalty. Most, if not all, of the Church’s development of moral teaching further binds but does not loosen the circumstances that permit the morality of human acts.

The Church has not removed the right of the state to execute; that would be a reversal. A Catholic in good standing may still support the validity of the death penalty as long as the circumstances surrounding the state’s use conform to Church’s developed teaching.

I suppose Pope Leo XIII anticipating criticism for condemning dueling in PASTORALIS OFFICII – ON THE MORALITY OF DUELING in 1891, wrote:

Finally, the new age which boasts of far excelling previous ages in a more civilized culture and refinement of manners is wont to consider older institutions of little value and too often reject whatever differs from the character of the new elegance. Why is it that in its great zeal for civilization, it does not repudiate the base remnants of an uncouth age and foreign barbarism that we know as the custom of dueling?

While I prefer the papal development of doctrine be via encyclical as used by Leo XIII and John Paul II rather than through a medium ordinarily considered a summary of extant doctrine, nevertheless there it is.

 

[Annie]

Wow, i did not realize that rhe Church had a centuries-long history of explaining the morality of dueling! I must have missed that part in the Summa…

 

[o_mlly]

Wow, i did not realize that rhe Church had a centuries-long history of explaining the morality of dueling! I must have missed that part in the Summa…

The Summa only rises to authoritative when cited as correct teaching by the Magisterium.

 

[godisgood77]

The church expresses its current teaching in cloudy language

I believe the language is easy to understand. Clearly it is difficult for some to accept. Perhaps reference the CDF’s letter of explanation for assistance?

Note that the church could have clearly reversed prior teaching by using familiar and well understood language and declared that CP is “intrinsically evil” - that is, always wrong,

The development of the Church’s teaching on the application of CP is not about whether or not the act intrinsically evil or not. It is based as clearly stated by the CDF on the deepening of it understanding of the inviolability of each human person. More specifically that even those how commit the most heinous acts do not lose their dignity and should not be deprived of an opportunity to repent.

Again… some simply reject the Church on this matter.

 

[Rau]

I believe the language is easy to understand. Clearly it is difficult for some to accept. Perhaps reference the CDF’s letter of explanation for assistance?

Some may reject what the church is saying and some do read a reversal of what came before. I’m in neither of those camps. And I’m familiar with the letter, though you’ve referenced it quite selectively.

The development of the Church’s teaching on the application of CP is not about whether or not the act intrinsically evil or not.

I assume you agree that CP is not intrinsically evil? If you are familiar with catholic moral theology, you’ll know this is not some minor side issue. Because what it means is that (given proper intentions), an act of CP can be good in appropriate circumstances (and evil in other circumstances). And it leads to the conclusion that the Church is identifying that it is circumstances that render (nowadays) CP inadmissible. The dignity of the individual is assaulted by CP and that evil effect is to be weighed in the consequences along with other good and evil effects. The church has done so and thus arrived at its conclusion. I concur with that weighing.

I believe some people support the Church conclusion but don’t understand the basis used to arrive at it. But that’s understandable for a few reasons: The manner of expressing it is not transparent and the prudential assessment involved is not typically found in a Catechism. It’s surprising to me that an Encycyclical was not used.

 

[godisgood77]

I assume you agree that CP is not intrinsically evil?

I don’t take a position on CP being intrinsically evil or not. It is not necessary to do so. I will say that I personally believe that choosing to kill or being forced to kill someone is never a good thing, but sad and unfortunate instead

I do agree with the Church’s development on the inviolability of human dignity though. This development renders the application of the death penalty inadmissible as an option.

And I’m familiar with the letter, though you’ve referenced it quite selectively.

I linked to the entire document. It is very short and plain spoken… I did not intend to be selective. Which part do you feel I avoided?

 

[Rau]

Which part do you feel I avoided?

Most of the references to the matters most obviously belonging to the circumstances.

I am more surprised that you hold no position regarding whether CP is intrinsically evil. The church has taught for 2000 years that it is not. The notion of intrinsic evil is quite central to catholic moral theology.