Death penalty violates Gospel, right to life: Vatican

Cath News ^ | 02.08.07

[Coleus]

Renewing its attack on the death penalty, the Holy See says that it is difficult to justify its use today and warns that the practice is an affront to human dignity and "the evangelical teaching of forgiveness."   The Vatican Information Service yesterday made public a Holy See declaration issued during the course of a world congress on the death penalty, held in Paris from 1-3 February.    The "World Congress against the Death Penalty" brought together over 600 abolitionists and decision-makers from all over the world and included a presentation from Mario Marazziti of the respected lay Catholic peace group, Community of Sant'Egidio.

"The Paris congress," reads the French-language text, "is being celebrated at a time in which, because of recent executions, the campaign against the death penalty is facing new and disquieting challenges.   "Public opinion has become sensitised and has expressed its concern for a more effective recognition of the inalienable dignity of human beings, and of the universality and integrity of human rights, beginning with the right to life."  As in previous meetings on the same subject, "the Holy See takes this opportunity to welcome and affirm once more its support for all initiatives that aim to defend the inherent value and inviolability of all human life, from conception to natural end.

"In this perspective, it is worth noting that the use of the death penalty is not just a negation of the right to life, but also an affront to human dignity."    "The Catholic Church continues to maintain that the legitimate authorities of State have the duty to protect society from aggressors," but "some States traditionally include the death penalty among the means used to achieve this end," an option "that is difficult to justify today."  States now have new ways "of preserving public order and people's safety," which include "offering the accused stimuli and encouragement" to mend their ways."

Such non-lethal means of punishment, the statement continues, "correspond better to the ... the common good and conform more to the dignity of the human person."   The statement says that the practice of capital punishment "involves many dangers, such as the possibility of punishing the innocent and the "temptation to foment violent forms of revenge rather than true social justice."   SOURCE Holy See supports initiatives against the death penalty (Vatican Information Service, 7/2/07)

[GSlob]

Somehow for 1900-something years the death penalty had not been violating the gospel, and now it does. Strange, to say the least, and disingenious. However, their concerns could be accommodated: as in the earlier times the formula was 'without shedding the blood" - and the convicted witch or warlock was burned, so nowadays one could use non-leaking means, of, say, lethal injection.

[nmh]

Huh?

He needs to read the Bible.

Capital punishment IS Biblically correct.

I refuse to be a part of defining punishment down or disregarding what is Biblically correct.

The exception I make is abortion - a baby is INNOCENT and only GUILTY of wanting to live - that's no crime.

[kerryusama04]

1Co 5:3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
1Co 5:5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

[Salvation]

Don't remember where I found this, but I think it was some kind of tract:

Question:

I'm a little confused on the official church position on the death penalty. I have heard sermons from priests and read documents from John Paul II claiming the mercy of Jesus always outweighing whatever evil a criminal has committed. I also know that the old position was definitely for the death penalty within reason. Could you clarify this for me?

Answer:

The salient passage from John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae is this: Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State".[44] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.[45] 56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".[46] Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.[47] It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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".[48]

 

Basically, this boils down to the Church saying that the death penalty is still permissible if there is no other way of ensuring public safety. It does not say that "the mercy of Jesus always outweighs" what a criminal has done in such as way as to absolutely forbid inflicting capital punishment. If such were the case, the Church could never have approved of the death penalty for any reason, just as she has never approved of abortion for any reason and never shall. This represents a shift, not in doctrine, but in the application of doctrine. The Church has always recognized life is sacred and has always recognized the need for the state to ensure public safety and order. What the Church is increasingly emphasizing is that the sacredness of human life is not something which can be overthrown merely for the purpose of vengeance. If a criminal poses an ongoing threat to life and limb, even from behind bars, (as, for example, Hitler might have had he been imprisoned and allowed to direct a covert "resistance movement" after the War), then it would be justifiable to put him to death lest he harm even more innocent life. Likewise, in a third world country where terrorists can easily escape jail and go on to fresh crimes, death may be the only alternative to allowing innocent people to die at their hands. But in most developed countries, this is not the case and the death penalty is primarily inflicted, not for a positive good (saving innocent life) but for reasons insufficient to outweigh the Church's teaching about the dignity of human life, including the life of criminals. Bottom line: the Church does not forbid the death penalty, but she is highly skeptical that a good reason for it can be given in virtually any case in the developed world. If no such reason can be adduced (and mere vengeance or "retributive justice" does not suffice as a reason, much less "what it costs society to support such people in prison"), then it is preferable to let the criminal live.

[Pyro7480]

This is something I cannot comprehend. None of the Church Fathers and none of the great medieval theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas highest among them) were opposed to the death penalty. Suddenly, Pope John Paul II comes out with an encyclical that mentions his opposition to the death penalty, and he and other members of the hierarchy post-Vatican II consistently mention this opposition as well. Even with this, this opposition has never been mentioned as a teaching of the Magisterium or as an ex-cathedra teaching, like the Marian doctrines or the male priesthood.

I truly think this is a major inconsistency. This isn't the development of a teaching on faith or morals. This new position flat out contradicts the previous stance of the Church. The "Reformed" Christians see this inconsistency and rightly point it out, and use it as ammo.

[LiteKeeper]

Wrong!!! Gen 9:6 - check it out!

[Alex Murphy]

The "Reformed" Christians see this inconsistency and rightly point it out, and use it as ammo.

AFAIK, only those of us who hold to a covenantal continuity between the testaments might "use it as ammo", but the ammo is coming from our theological perspective that the Mosaic civil/case laws calling for capital punishment apply in every redemptive era, not out of perceived Catholic inconsistencies (real or imagined).

FWIW, there are some "protestants" who hold to a dispensational discontinuity (i.e. those who deny the applicability of OT civil laws to the NT "age"), who also believe that John 8:1-11 is Jesus' final word on capital punishment. I believe you'll find these groups in agreement with the Catholic Church's current stance. The Mennonites come to mind as an example.

[NZerFromHK]

The people you described do subscribe a variant of covenant theology - the Mennonites aren't pre-trib, and indeed they are amillennial in eschatology. True classic dispensationalist understanding of the Scriptures is that it is true the Mosaic covenant is revoked, but the Noahic covenant, which all human governments of the world must hold to, is still current. And one part of the Noahic covenant is that death penalty is required as the punishment for murder.

[Alex Murphy]

I stand corrected - thank you for providing that info!

[Pyro7480]

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm essentially agreeing with Gslob's earlier post.

[siunevada]

an option "that is difficult to justify today." States now have new ways "of preserving public order and people's safety," which include "offering the accused stimuli and encouragement" to mend their ways."

Quite the neat assumption. A theoretical construct is enticingly attractive; the practical application often is not.

Among the presumptions underlying this line of thinking is that we currently have the ability to sentence the aggressors appropriately and then retain them in custody, thereby meeting our primary duty of protecting the innocent.

I do not believe that is currently true.

Ted Bundy is the poster boy for the real world argument against this position. He was in custody, he escaped, innocents died. Those weren't theoretical deaths. Our judicial and penal systems were not up to the task of constraining Bundy. The ultimate penalty, while unfortunately necessary, was entirely appropriate for him.

[spunkets]

"I truly think this is a major inconsistency. This new position flat out contradicts the previous stance of the Church. "

Indeed! They used to burn heretics at the stake. Aquinas thought such things were good. Even Anabaptists were burned, or drowned. Menonites too.

[Larry Lucido]

Hey, even the One True Church can get it wrong once in a while.

Or twice.

[Pyro7480]

They used to burn heretics at the stake.

Only in the Papal States. Outside there, heresy was a state crime.

[Pyro7480]

Hey, even the One True Church can get it wrong once in a while.

The Church is incapable of teaching error.

[spunkets]

"Wrong!!! Gen 9:6 - check it out!"

Are you a Jew?

[B Knotts]

Yes. I am no great fan of the death penalty, but I think there is a problem when a teaching "develops" to mean almost exactly the opposite of what it previously meant.

[spunkets]

"Only in the Papal States. Outside there, heresy was a state crime."

I see. Plausible denial. I suppose that good for the conscience, or soul as they say.

How about Jan Hus, the Mennonite? You know, the pasifists. The ones that don't resist. He was excommunicated in 1411, condemned by the Council of Constance, and burned at the stake. The Catholic Church apologized in 1999. Too late for Hus though.

I suppose the Bishops weren't involved in any of these matters though. Heresy is a State crime afterall.

[Pyro7480]

How about Jan Hus, the Mennonite? You know, the pasifists. The ones that don't resist. He was excommunicated in 1411, condemned by the Council of Constance, and burned at the stake. The Catholic Church apologized in 1999. Too late for Hus though.

Which authority burned him at the stake?