A reader writes:
I have heard you talk on "Catholic Answers" several times about what exactly is the Church’s stance on capital punishment. Invariably you quote from the Catechism that the death penalty is permissible under appropriate conditions and concede that there is some area for discussion over what constitutes those appropriate conditions.
However throughout his long pontificate, Pope John Paul consistently and repeatedly condemned capital punishment at all times in the strongest terms, usually in the same breath as abortion and euthanasia. Since abortion and euthanasia are considered objectively evil under all circumstances couldn’t this linking the death penalty to them by John Paul (who never spoke an unconsidered word) to be taken as an ex cathedra statement that supercedes the Cathechism that it too is always an objective evil at all times?
I’d take exception to a few of the ways that you’ve characterized JP2’s statements on the death penalty. He didn’t consistently condemn it. He certainly didn’t condemn it when he promulgated the original edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which took a more positive line regarding the use of capital punishment than the later edition.
He also didn’t condemn it in the strongest possible terms. He never said that it is intrinsically evil, as he did with abortion and euthanasia. His statements on the matter frequently include qualifiers and nuances and reservations, because he knew that it is a settled part of Catholic moral teaching (and biblical teaching) that capital punishment is legitimate in principle. It’s only a question of when it should be used (i.e., under what conditions and do they exist today), not whether it is legitimate to use it at all.
Also, while JP2 was a man of enormous intellect and thoughtfulness, he was still a man, and thus could speak unconsidered words (particularly when reading the text of a speech prepared for him by someone else–there are examples of things that had to be corrected in the official editions of speeches he gave that weren’t delivered orally in the way the official edition shows; the most likely explanation here is that he ordered the official edition changed to add or remove a nuance that was in the draft presented for him to read).
Even if he superhumanly never said an unconsidered word, though, and even if he had consistently condemned the death penalty and even if he had done so in strong, unnuanced terms, this would not amount to a ex cathedra statement.
There is no "creeping infallibilism" in the teaching of a single pontiff. If the pope wants to make an ex cathedra statement, he has to make one. One cannot point to a long series of fallible statements by a pope–even one with a twenty six year reign–and say that they add up to an infallible one.
None of the things JP2 said on the dealth penalty used anything like the language popes traditionally use when making ex cathedra statements (the giveaway language for that is "I/we define . . . ," usually buttressed by a direct appeal to his authority as the successor of Peter).
The most authoritative thing JP2 wrote on the death penalty was the brief discussion he gave of it in Evangelium Vitae 56, and there he loaded up what he said with qualifiers and with an acknowlegement of the death penalty in principle.
While he expressed great reserve about the use of the death penalty in this passage, it is (a) a fallible statement and (b) expresses elements of the pope’s prudential judgment rather than matters that belong properly to the deposit of faith given to the Church by Christ and the apostles.
Thus, as Pre-16 noted: "There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
Agreed. However,
1. It does need to be remembered that not everything JPII says about the dp in EV is simply a prudential judgment, rather than a matter of moral principle. When he says that the use of dp needs to be limited to cases in which it’s necessary, he pretty clearly seems to be teaching a moral principle. When he adds that such cases are rare/nonexistent, of course, that’s a prudential judgment.
2. Ratzinger’s statement about legitimate diversity of opinion needs to be understood in that context. That is, it’s one thing to disagree with the prudential judgment that we can keep murderers from killing again without resorting to the dp. It’s another – and very problematic – thing to disagree (as some Catholics do, and quite publicly) with the teaching that even if we can keep murderers from killing again without resorting to the dp, we’re still entitled to use the dp for other reasons. (Put differently: Ratzinger did not say that anything goes on the dp.)
I would add one other thing: At least one group of respected and clearly orthodox moral theologians – Grisez, Finnis, et al. – very much disagree that it’s necessarily a fully settled teaching that the dp can ever be legit. Now, I think they’re very likely mistaken – but I don’t think their view is simply and wholly implausible. For instance, with regard to the point about the biblical grounding of the traditional allowing of cp, see JPII himself in EV 40.
“When he says that the use of dp needs to be limited to cases in which it’s necessary, he pretty clearly seems to be teaching a moral principle.”
Kevin, he can’t be saying that, because such a rule would be impossible to keep, or even to identify conditions for. Name me one single instance where the death penalty is “necessary”, never mind, necessary for what.
All this talk about the “necessity” of the dp as a criterion for its use seems to be VERY sloppy thinking, and it started at the top.
I think the dp is either “justified”, or it’s not. “Necessity” has NOTHING to do with it.
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”. 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. EV 55
At least to my non-expert ears this sounds like the dp is justified.
My bishop in the Diocese of Phoenix came out against the death penalty, but he did make very clear that the dp is not intrinsically evil.
I have been very puzzled the reasoning of the campaign to eliminate the death penalty, it never quite seems to add up.
The legitimacy of the death penalty cannot possibly lie _solely_ in its use as a method to keep murderers from killing again, otherwise it would be legitimate in principle to kill lesser offenders (burglars, carjackers, etc.) to keep them from offending again. The only reason it can be legitimate to kill murderers is because they _deserve_ to be killed, in a way that thieves and the like don’t — it is a matter of retributive justice. If they deserve it, though, then that alone can be, at least in principle, a reason for killing them.
In short, the “protection of society” reason only works if we assume the legitimacy of retribution, but retribution can be a reason all on its own even apart from the “protection of society.” Retribution is in the driver’s seat, as it were.
The trouble with JPII’s statements on this matter is that not only does he not put retribution at the center where it belongs, but he pretty much ignores it altogether, and for that reason his statements have generated needless confusion: they make the rationale for the death penalty less clear philosophically, and they fail to be as clear as possible in maintaining continuity with traditional Catholic teaching. (I don’t say they contradict traditional teaching — they don’t — only that they are not clearly enough worded.)
For this reason alone, JPII can hardly be said to have presented infallible teaching here.
It seems to me that some people (note: not most) who “discuss” with passion about the “intrinsically evil” death penalty are actually trying to console themselves for either voting for, or wanting to vote for, a pro-abortion politician.
Again, I know and believe there are many people who want to protect all life at all costs. It just seems to me that it is very ironic how this discussion always heats up when people have to search their conscience when choosing a political candidate. So they would be free to choose either side if BOTH candidates would be further advancing an agenda deemed to be intrinsically evil.
Just a thought.
Rarely do I ever hear mentioned that to keep some of the most vicious murderers in jail costs innocent lives. How many guards a year are murdered by escaping murderers who should have been executed? We had one recently here in anti-death penalty Ma. How many people in prison for crimes far lower than murder are murdered by murderers who should have been executed. We’ve had a series of them in Ma. including one this week. A few years ago in another state a young man in jail for a very short period (for drunkeness) was murdered by a murderer. Are anti-death penalty people willing to endorse creating jails where the imprisoned murderers are always chained, never have human contact or receive privileges of any kind the rest of their lives?? If such a jail were even proposed I can hear the howls and screams from the same people whose hearts bleed for murderers on the dp issue. Yet to keep those who are the most vicious class of murderers alive costs the lives of innocent people–by the hundreds over the years.This is a whole separate issue from whether the dp is a crime preventative in the wider society.Consequently it seems those states which have separate categories such as dp for those who are serial murderers or especially violent murderers and those who kill prison guards or inmates after already dodging the dp for an earlier killing–are handling the issue in the best and fairest manner and within traditional Christian ethics which especially values innocent human life but also is willing to accept the dp in definitely needed situations.
Stoning is a just punishment for adultery. CP is not an offense against justice; it is an offense against mercy in today’s day and age. This has been confirmed by the American bishops, and in today’s society we have the opportunity to offer mercy due to technological advances that haven’t been available to prior generations.
M.Z. How would you solve the problem of the most vicious murderers willing to kill other inmates in jail for far less charges or who express no hesitation to kill guards? I still haven’t seen a rational, reasonable solution presented by anti-DP people–just pious platitudes. M.Z. are you in favor of permanent solitary confinement and the murderer be chained and separated from others(no recreation time except in total isolation from others) so no guards or other inmates will be murdered.
Deacon:
A very good friend of mine here works for the department of corrections and showed me the statistics that the cost to keep a death row inmate incarcerated for the many years that it takes for all appeals to be exhausted exceeds that of keeping him in the general prisoner population for the same period by a factor of 10!
And yes, while there is always a chance that a guard may be killed by an inmate, the chances of that happening are lower than a street cop being killed in the line of duty. Likewise the incidence of assaults on prison guards by prisoners sentenced for violent crimes bears no relationship to the type of crime (i.e. a guard is as likely to be attacked by someone in for assault or armed robbery as he is by a murderer)
The above statistics also bear out in those cases of crimes committed on the innocent by escaped prisoners.
On a purely cost/benefit basis, your arguments are fallacious.
–arthur
Arthur-
What is the source of these numbers and their methodology for collection?
I can believe the increased cost by a factor of 10, but cost shouldn’t be a factor in the preservation of life. If it costs much more to keep these people out of the population this would be worth if it will protect life. Approaching a life issue on a purely cost/benefit analysis seems wrong, otherwise I would never have children, nor should anyone else.
Furthermore, how is it that it costs more to keep murderers away from other people but the frequency of assaults is no different? Is this not different because the increased security is protecting guards? If not, then what is the cost for?
With the escaped prisoners is the similarity between groups a result of the murderers not committing murder or crime, or is it a case of criminals who committed lesser crimes have elevated to greater crimes?
Finally, your numbers seem to have no basis whatsoever with what Deacon John is talking about. He’s disscussing the murder of prisioners and guards while you appear to be discussing assaults on guards and prisioners. There’s a big difference between the two crimes and that doesn’t seem to be reflected these statistics that you mentioned. You may be correct and simply have phrased it wrong, but it’s confusing and seems like a non sequiter from here.
Remember the guy recently executed in California? He was a lifer, but since he had contact with the general population in the jail, he hired someone to off all the witnesses, at which point he would appeal for a new trial.
for the many years that it takes for all appeals to be exhausted
The farcical setup of appeals in this country is not a required component of the DP.
Arthur–
The argument is not fallacious on a cost/benefit analysis. It appears that, in the United States, every execution deters an average of *EIGHTEEN* additional murders.
The “The death penalty doesn’t save lives” argument appears to be false when the data is looked at.
GET THE STORY.
Arthur–cost benefit analysis has no real place in this debate. I also have a close friend and parishoner who is a prison guard and he wants to be able to go home to his family after each shift and live long enough to reach retirement. The criminal who was in for life for the cold-blooded murder of a store clerk here in Ma. thought nothing of murdering a guard to escape. He was finally found years later in Chicago writing poetry popular among the academic elite. He is back in Ma. and not only are they not finally going to eliminate his role in this world as a murderer, the anti-DP people in this morally sick state of Ma. seem to have fallen in love with him because he finally settled down to write poetry. They say THIS time he has reformed unlike last time. But, should any guard be asked to risk his life guarding him???? Will any anti-DP people volunteer???
http://www.truthinjustice.org/922death.htm
Anon: Yes, and that study was done six years ago and is based on limited, out-of-date data.
BTW, no more anonymous posting in this thread either.
Fair warning.
ALL studies, without exception, are based on limited, out-of-date data.
So. . . . your point is that we should simply ignore the most recent, most complete studies since they might possibly be superceded by future studies?
No, not ignore, but rather realize that while the Sunstein and Vermeule paper is itself recent, the data used in this study are not more recent than that in other studies, nor complete or even sufficiently complete to suggest any change in law, and moreover, there is never just one way to interpret the information. Sunstein and Vermeule expressly state that they do not know whether deterrence has been shown. Instead, the purpose of their paper is offer some doubts.
Two notable responses to Sunstein and Vermeule’s suggestions…
We conclude that existing estimates appear to reflect a small and unrepresentative sample of the estimates that arise from alternative approaches. Sampling from the broader universe of plausible approaches suggests not just “reasonable doubt” about whether there is any deterrent effect of the death penalty, but profound uncertainty — even about its sign.
http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/issue3/donohue.pdf
While there is ample reason to reject this argument on the ground that the empirical studies are deeply flawed (as economists John Donohue and Justin Wolfers elaborate in a separate essay above), this response directly addresses Sunstein and Vermeule’s moral argument.
http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/issue3/steiker.pdf
Sunstein and Vermeule’s reply to the above
http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/issue3/sunstein2.pdf
Sorry, the above post was by John.
Arthur,
By your logic we should institute my policy. Those convicted of capital crimes should be hanged on the courthouse steps, immediately after the verdict is handed down, that would fix your economic concern.
Alternately, since I have read that most murders are crimes of passion and the perpetrators are unlikely to repeat, we shouldn’t even imprison them. Most likely, it won’t be YOU they kill if they do kill again, so you probably don’t give a rat’s uh, behind.
Deacon John’s position deserves a real answer, based on the purposes of punishment. Is “redressing the social disorder” just lip service? How can one have faith in The System when murderers kill in and from their cells?
I’m happy to vote to ban the DP (legislatively, not theologically) – if permanent, restrained, solitary confinement is permitted. But I’m nearly sure that’s a crime against human dignity. You haven’t given anything but a smart-assed high-schooler’s response to Deacon John. You think he doesn’t deserve it?
If we only held to infallible statements we would not hold to much. It’s hard to view this as anything but legitimate development in the Catholic view of the death penalty. Slavery is actually a fairly good analogy in that although it is not intrinsically evil there are not many people now who think it still needs to be legal in modern society, even under some idealized Pauline form. The is further confirmed by the many problems we have applying the death penalty in a fair fashion.
Note that I am not here saying it is in any way comparable to abortion, which is the intrinsically evil slaughter of innocents and clearly out weighs it.
The following is an excellent synopsis from Seattle Catholic on the confusion that JPII caused with his single-handed revisionism on the subject:
The Death Penalty
Traditionally, the Catholic Church has taught that the death penalty is not only permissible but is the correct and appropriate punishment for certain crimes. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment which prohibits murder.”
Prior to the publication of John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae (EV), most conservative Catholics could be counted on to mirror this traditional view. But in EV, as well as in the most recent edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a significant restriction of the application of the death penalty was laid out. In EV the Holy Father states that societies “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” (#56).
Many faithful Catholics took this as a change of Church doctrine and overnight reversed their position on the death penalty. But a number of prominent and orthodox Catholic thinkers have noted publicly that the Holy Father’s stance on the death penalty as laid out in EV represents a prudential judgment, not a Church doctrine, and that therefore this issue is not closed to continued discussion. For example, in surveying the issue of capital punishment from the Old Testament to current Church teaching, Fr. Avery Dulles (shortly before being given the red hat) said:
The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases…. Like the pope [John Paul II], the [U.S.] bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes…. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. (Laurence J. McGinley Lecture, Fordham University, Oct. 17, 2000; emphasis mine)
But the inclusion of this prudential judgment in the (revised) Catechism has generated a considerable amount of confusion. For example, in a recent address to the Institute on Religious Life, Archbishop Charles Chaput blurred the distinction between a prudential judgment and Church doctrine, and on this basis chided Justice Antonin Scalia for questioning the prudence of the Pope’s stance:
When Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly disputes church teaching on the death penalty, the message he sends is not all that different from Frances Kissling [President of Catholics for a Free Choice] disputing what the church teaches about abortion,… the impulse to pick and choose what we’re going to accept is exactly the same kind of ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ in both cases.
Thankfully, His Excellency did acknowledge that abortion and the death penalty “don’t have equivalent moral gravity.” But it is simply incredible — and irresponsible — for a bishop to publicly rebuke a faithful Catholic for questioning a change in prudential judgment with respect to the death penalty, placing Scalia in the same league with brazen dissenter Frances Kissling as a “cafeteria Catholic.”
Unfortunately, the confusion grows deeper. For the Holy Father has, in a public talk, asserted a view of the death penalty which extends even beyond Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism: “The dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform…. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary” (Papal Mass at the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Mo., Jan. 27, 1999; emphasis mine).
This text seems to represent an absolute and unconditional prohibition of the death penalty, in that it implies that the death penalty automatically takes away “the dignity of human life,” and also that the death penalty is intrinsically cruel. Such a prohibition — if that is truly what this represents — extends well beyond what the Church has perennially taught concerning capital punishment. This cannot help but confuse the individual Catholic.
One more point:
God commands that murderers be executed (see Genesis 9:5) because execution is the only proportional punishment for murder, which is the ultimate desecration of the divine image in humanity.
Reinforcing that command is the whole notion of proportional punishment, which the Mosaic Law reflects. That’s what “eye-for-an-eye” really means; it’s not a justification for vengeance but a repudiation of it, since vengeance generally means ignoring due process and taking the law into one’s own hands.
People can parse Evangelium vitae’s language all they want. The fact is that the late pope made his intentions known through his abolitionist activism, exemplified by his written request to Pres. Bush to grant clemency to Timothy McVeigh — despite the fact that McVeigh showed neither remorse nor repentance for his actions.
JPII’s revisionism on this topic contradicts everything the Church taught for centuries through Scripture and Tradition. No serious Catholic can ignore that fact.
Joseph D’Hippolito,
Please remeber the rules of this blog Da Rulz
At least be concise about your when you quote sources that have no authority whatsoever.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“despite the fact that McVeigh showed neither remorse nor repentance for his actions.
You should not pretend to know another person’s
soul.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Innocencio, two points:
1. I suggest you read some of the links that accompanied the story. One of them has the reactions of people who lost family members to the bombing:
Paul Howell, whose daughter died in the bombing, said he was disappointed that McVeigh’s face was so impassive.
“We didn’t get anything from his face. His facial expressions were about as calm as they can be,” Howell said. “He’s not a monster, not when you’re looking at his face. There’s no expression, so there’s no way of knowing what he really is.”
Some 230 more survivors and family members watched on a closed-circuit feed in Oklahoma City, the camera positioned directly above McVeigh as he was strapped on the gurney. Some of the Oklahoma City witnesses described a very different McVeigh than the one described by those standing 18 inches from the condemned bomber.
Larry Whicher, who lost his brother in the bombing, said McVeigh’s eyes were defiant.
“He didn’t need to make a statement,” Whicher said. His eyes were telling, me … if he could, he’d do it all over again.”
We are not called to “look into another’s soul.” We are called upon to “discern the spirits” and to “know people by their fruits.” Last rites is a private affair. The fact that McVeigh received last rites yet neither apologized nor expressed remorse publicaly to the people he wounded merely exposes his narcissism.
2. At least be concise about your when you quote sources that have no authority whatsoever.
Since when has Scripture held no authority for you, Innocencio?
Joseph D’Hippolito,
Your “excellent”, in your humble opinion, synopsis from Seattle Catholic was three screen pages long. Just to be considerate to others paste a link.
Since when has Scripture held no authority for you, Innocencio?
The Word of God, Sacred Tradition and Scripture are both authoritatively interpreted by the Magisterium and not you. To give yourself that authority is to reject the Sacerd Order/Holy Authority God has established. At that point you are listening only to yourself and not those He sent and in fact are rejecting Him who sent them.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
A couple of points: 1) the “farcical setup of appeals in this country” probably IS a required component of the DP in the US, because of due process concerns. The fact that the DP was historically applied to a disproportionate number of black males is one of the reasons for the numerous appeals.
2) I think extreme solitary confinement is exactly the point Pope John Paul II was making in Evangelium Vitae. I doubt that it would be considered “cruel & unusual” since it is used in the Supermax facility in Colorado. Thus, if you have a convict who is a real threat to guards or other inmates, then he should be put in solitary confinement for the duration of his incarceration. Wouldn’t that address the problem the Deacon raised?
How ’bout life without parole, at hard labor (10 hours per day, six days a week), and the prison is in northern Alaska?
Several points:
1. Innocencio, one doesn’t need a Magisterium to interpret every single chapter and verse of Scripture. Some passages can be understood by even the simplest person. The fact that you reject the plain message of Gen. 9:6 speaks more about you than it does about me.
2. bill912, the idea is proportional punishment. As I said earlier, according to God’s thinking, execution is the only appropriate punishment for murder because murder desecrates the divine image in humanity. Suppose I broke into your house and murdered your loved ones. Why is it fair or just for me to retain my life — even if I spend the rest of it in solitary confinement — after arbitrarily taking the lives of innocent people, denying them the God-given right to enjoy and use the talents He gave them?
3. One of the fundamental problems with this whole discussion about the Catholic view of capital punishment is that the innocent — the victims and their survivors — are being ignored. This is what God wants?
“The fact that you reject the plain message of Gen. 9:6 speaks more about you than it does about me.
The fact that you demand I accept your humble opinion on the Catholic teaching about the Death Penalty and not the living Magisterium speaks volumes about you.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Fair question, Joseph D’H. Answer: Capital punishment is too easy. What I proposed is a much stiffer penalty.
bill 912,
Capital punishment is too easy. What I proposed is a much stiffer penalty
Assuming death is the just punishment for murder (which is fairly clear from Scripture) we may give a lighter punishment (Mt 5, Jn 8, Magisterium) but may not impose a greater one, if indeed one were to accept that your idea is worse than death. To do so, to go beyond the standards of God’s justice, would be unjust.
“God commands that murderers be executed (see Genesis 9:5) because execution is the only proportional punishment for murder, which is the ultimate desecration of the divine image in humanity.”
Joseph, have you ever considered the fact that the first murder ever committed in the Sacred Scriptures did not receive the death penalty from God? In fact, Cain said to the Lord “whoever finds me will slay me.” Gen.4:14-15
Not only does God not demand Cain be killed He forbids it and places a mark of protection on Cain.
While Our Blessed Lord was being crucified He asked His Father to forgive His murders. Luke 23:34
The Sacred Scriptures also record St. Stephen asking that the sin of his murders not be held against them. Acts 7:59-60
From Catholic Encyclopedia: “Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church.”
The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company
Some food for thought.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio, here’s more food for thought:
1. Neither Christ nor St. Stephen murdered anybody. The whole thrust of my commentary has been using capital punishment against murderers. Using Christ and St. Stephen as examples is an insult to them and to the intelligence of every single Christian.
2. The fact that murderers can receive forgiveness has nothing to do with the societal necessity to execute them. Forgiveness does not mean that the forgiven do not experience the legal consequences of their actions.
3. I am not saying that clerics should shed blood. Aquinas himself said that capital punishment was the provence of “legitimate public authority.” So does the Mosaic Law.
4. In reference to the previous point, Cain was not executed because, if you take the reading at face value, no legitimate civil authority existed to execute death sentences. Genesis 9:5 was given to Noah because God expected Noah and his descendants to construct civil authority after the flood. Tell me, Inocencio, are we closer to that time or to the time of Cain and Abel, in terms of human nature?
Joseph D’Hippolito,
1. My point was that neither our Blessed Lord nor St. Stephen while being murdered asked or implied that their murderers should be put to death for their crime nor are we told in Sacred Scripture that they were.
2. societal necessity to execute them Of course you must mean that the state has the right to execute someone. Since every Church document you have quoted points to that right and does not demand it.
3. Again the Church has always taught that the state has the right and not the necessity of executing murders, hence the prohibition of clerics to shed blood.
4. Interesting exegesis you have. Can you point to which word in Genesis 9:5 means “no legitimate civil authority existed to execute death sentences”? Again, Cain knew that his “blood would be shed by man” and God forbid it. As for our human nature it is the same as the time of the fall.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Some more food for thought.
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. 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. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” –
Cardinal Ratzinger
Jimmy Akin has an excellent article
here on the subject.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“no legitimate civil authority existed to execute death sentences”
Well, by that logic, if Cain deserved death according to God’s law, why didn’t God just kill him?
He did it for Ananias and Sapphira, among many others.
Cardinal Pell today in an Australian newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, shows that he is a part of the crisis of faith problem himself, along with the late Pope John Paul II, because he himslef tells the readers in Australia’s largest city, in his archdiocese, that the Catechism allows the death penalty but that latter writings of the Pope rule even that out totally.
“Again, Cain knew that his ‘blood would be shed by man’ and God forbid it.”
No, God did not forbid the shedding of Cain’s blood. All He did was place a mark on him so people would be less likely to kill him, but God never uttered any ban on killing Cain. Rather, he said that a sevenfold vengeance would be taken on the person who kills Cain.
But in any case, God showed mercy to Cain, whose crime rightfully called for the death penalty. Thus we know that even when it is right to impose the death penalty, it is never absolutely required that we do so. Mercy is always the victor over judgment, and if it is prudent and just to remit a death sentence, then it should be remitted.
“Rather, he said that a sevenfold vengeance would be taken on the person who kills Cain.”
Well, that makes God’s manifest will pretty plain in the matter.
Jordan Potter,
No, God did not forbid the shedding of Cain’s blood. All He did was place a mark on him so people would be less likely to kill him, but God never uttered any ban on killing Cain. Rather, he said that a sevenfold vengeance would be taken on the person who kills Cain.
I am curious what translation are you reading?
4:14. Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face I shall be hid, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: every one therefore that findeth me, shall kill me.
4:15. And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not so be: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him. Douay-Rheims
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J