How much should our thinking about the death penalty be viewed through the lens of poverty?
As you mentioned, poor people do not have equal access to the highest levels of defense, and the majority of people who commit/prosecuted violent crimes are poor.
I guess for me, should we think about the consequences of the death penalty strictly from the poverty perspective.
Our Lord was executed in a similar manner.
Also, Mike, I want to take a minute to thank you for your ongoing work. I appreciate the education you have provided me over the years.
- The Holy Father's characterization of the death penalty, in the catechism and "Fratelli Tutti" as "inadmissible" is anything but a "comprehensive moral analysis". There is no well articulated reasoning, as usually expressed in magisterial teaching, to back this up. Nothing has really changed since Pope St John Paul II's treatment of the death penalty in "Evangelium Vitae" which opposed the death penalty on prudential grounds, as not necessary in modern times to ensure the safety of the public, rather than as intrinsically evil.
- Many of the issues with the death penalty as applied in the US, are more fundamental issues of fairness with the criminal justice system, which will need to be addressed even if the death penalty is abolished.
1) Francis builds upon the same principles as John Paul II but he adds to it a discipline that is binding on Catholics.
2) John Paul certainly didn't limit his objections to the death penalty to the prudential realm - he described it as cruel and unusual, he said that nonlethal means must be used whenever possible because they are more in line with the common good and human dignity, he said that not even a murderer loses his human dignity.
3) The well-articulated reasoning is present in the 2018 letter from the CDF, which is magisterial because it carries papal approval. The pope has spoken out against the death penalty on many other occasions, including Evangelii Gaudium and his address to the US Congress in 2015. We also cannot discount the teaching of his predecessors, which is outlined in the CDF letter. And let's not forget, for those of us in the US, the USCCB has approved and promulgated 2 official statements against the death penalty.
4) Nevertheless, even if it wasn't well reasoned, as Paul VI taught, the vocation of the theologian is to help the Bishops and Pope explain and communicate the Magisterium, but he also reminds us that the Magisterium would still remain without error and continue to pass down the faith without the help of theology.
5) Many theologians *have* helped explain and communicate the teaching on the death penalty.
6) As for your point on injustice and unjust systems - if someone has been unjustly convicted, killing them destroys any chance that any semblance of earthly justice will be done. How many unjust executions is a tolerable level for you?
First of all, St John Paul stated, in Evangelium Vitae 56:
"It is clear that, for these purposes [of punishment] 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." [emphasis added]
Determining when capital punishment is necessary to defend society, and when it is not, is *inherently* a prudential judgement, not a doctrinal one, so long as the possibility of that determination *itself* is admitted, as John Paul did.
Pope Francis, while saying quite a bit more about the death penalty in Fratelli Tutti (263-270), in that CDF letter you mention and in the Catechism itself (2267) doesn't really add any additional teaching. What he does do, which you yourself hit on, is emphasize opposition to capital punishment as a *discipline* (which is binding, but which can be changed by future Popes) as opposed to a *doctrine* (which can be developed, but not reversed). It's pretty clear that this is not a matter of intrinsic evil as you seem to admit.
There are Catholic theologians who support the death penalty. One of then is Edward Feser, who wrote a book on the subject (and I believe you have reported on him on your WPI website).
If at some point in the future, the Magisterium fully develops a doctrine on capital punishment, it will likely be similar to "just war" doctrine, outlining conditions that must be met before the death penalty can be licitly considered. The question then is whether those conditions will de facto eliminate the death penalty, or will it be permitted in certain situations. If I live to see that development, I hope that it will give my intellect something to assent to with more than just blind submission, which is all I have now.
BTW, you misunderstood my last point as a defense of the death penalty, which it was not. But it is worth pointing out that any system of justice wielded by sinful, fallible humans will inevitably unjustly punish someone. A man convicted of a crime he did not commit, and sent to prison instead of being executed, can be exonerated and released and will remain alive. But he still will have lost the years he was in prison -- 20, 30 years or whatever -- years he could have built a family, enjoyed a career, run a business, helped others -- years he will never get back. Reforming our justice system is larger than simply eliminating capital punishment.
To your last point, I accounted for the lost years of someone wrongly convicted. Still, a modicum of earthly justice is possible as long as such a person is living. The death penalty eliminates any possibility of that.
I think the idea of a "just" death penalty was what John Paul II proposed. And he framed it as an absolute last resort, to be avoided if at all possible. Even still, that is in the past. Not the future.
There are moral elements of the issue that supercede any justification to kill someone as punishment for a crime. It's not simply a prudential opinion. It is an immoral choice based upon the development of Catholic social doctrine and our understanding of human dignity.
You and Mike forgot the most important factor why Pope Francis was inspired to change it definitively, removing the gray areas in EV. The strongest factor is, "in light of the gospel" the changes were made, as Pope Francis stated "No one is beyond redemption".
Pope Francis implore all the pastors to "Preach the gospel".
What is the heart of the gospel?
"The core or the heart of the gospel is Divine Mercy." -PBXVI and PF
Amoris L., DP, Amazonian, LGBTQ, SSU, etc. kin all of this issues, Pope Francis is magnifying the mercy of God, while the schismatic priest,bishops and cardinals infected with the spirit of antichrist are opposing it, why?
Anti-christ = Anti-mercy = Anti-gospel
Wojtyla in 1976 US visit described a counterfeit church led by antichrist and preaching the anti-gospel or anti-mercy.
Who are the antichrist according to St.John in 1John2:18-19?
The antichrist are the schismatic bkishops or the wolves occupying powerful position in Roman Curia during PBXVI papacy, that made him chose to resign, because it needs an Expanded Petrine Ministry to defeat this wolves, and true enough, Pope Francis united in prayer with Pope Emeritus BXVI were able to expose and remove them, starting from the issuance of Amoris L., where Cdl.Burke and Cdl.Muller were expose and removed. And the TLM exposes Cdl.Sarah's schismatic heart.,etc
How much should our thinking about the death penalty be viewed through the lens of poverty?
As you mentioned, poor people do not have equal access to the highest levels of defense, and the majority of people who commit/prosecuted violent crimes are poor.
I guess for me, should we think about the consequences of the death penalty strictly from the poverty perspective.
Our Lord was executed in a similar manner.
Also, Mike, I want to take a minute to thank you for your ongoing work. I appreciate the education you have provided me over the years.
Continued blessings.
Italy eliminated the death penalty in 1947, I believe. If the Pope wanted to make fuss about it, it was certainly close to home.
Permit me a couple of observations:
- The Holy Father's characterization of the death penalty, in the catechism and "Fratelli Tutti" as "inadmissible" is anything but a "comprehensive moral analysis". There is no well articulated reasoning, as usually expressed in magisterial teaching, to back this up. Nothing has really changed since Pope St John Paul II's treatment of the death penalty in "Evangelium Vitae" which opposed the death penalty on prudential grounds, as not necessary in modern times to ensure the safety of the public, rather than as intrinsically evil.
- Many of the issues with the death penalty as applied in the US, are more fundamental issues of fairness with the criminal justice system, which will need to be addressed even if the death penalty is abolished.
1) Francis builds upon the same principles as John Paul II but he adds to it a discipline that is binding on Catholics.
2) John Paul certainly didn't limit his objections to the death penalty to the prudential realm - he described it as cruel and unusual, he said that nonlethal means must be used whenever possible because they are more in line with the common good and human dignity, he said that not even a murderer loses his human dignity.
3) The well-articulated reasoning is present in the 2018 letter from the CDF, which is magisterial because it carries papal approval. The pope has spoken out against the death penalty on many other occasions, including Evangelii Gaudium and his address to the US Congress in 2015. We also cannot discount the teaching of his predecessors, which is outlined in the CDF letter. And let's not forget, for those of us in the US, the USCCB has approved and promulgated 2 official statements against the death penalty.
4) Nevertheless, even if it wasn't well reasoned, as Paul VI taught, the vocation of the theologian is to help the Bishops and Pope explain and communicate the Magisterium, but he also reminds us that the Magisterium would still remain without error and continue to pass down the faith without the help of theology.
5) Many theologians *have* helped explain and communicate the teaching on the death penalty.
6) As for your point on injustice and unjust systems - if someone has been unjustly convicted, killing them destroys any chance that any semblance of earthly justice will be done. How many unjust executions is a tolerable level for you?
Hello Mike,
First of all, St John Paul stated, in Evangelium Vitae 56:
"It is clear that, for these purposes [of punishment] 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." [emphasis added]
Determining when capital punishment is necessary to defend society, and when it is not, is *inherently* a prudential judgement, not a doctrinal one, so long as the possibility of that determination *itself* is admitted, as John Paul did.
Pope Francis, while saying quite a bit more about the death penalty in Fratelli Tutti (263-270), in that CDF letter you mention and in the Catechism itself (2267) doesn't really add any additional teaching. What he does do, which you yourself hit on, is emphasize opposition to capital punishment as a *discipline* (which is binding, but which can be changed by future Popes) as opposed to a *doctrine* (which can be developed, but not reversed). It's pretty clear that this is not a matter of intrinsic evil as you seem to admit.
There are Catholic theologians who support the death penalty. One of then is Edward Feser, who wrote a book on the subject (and I believe you have reported on him on your WPI website).
If at some point in the future, the Magisterium fully develops a doctrine on capital punishment, it will likely be similar to "just war" doctrine, outlining conditions that must be met before the death penalty can be licitly considered. The question then is whether those conditions will de facto eliminate the death penalty, or will it be permitted in certain situations. If I live to see that development, I hope that it will give my intellect something to assent to with more than just blind submission, which is all I have now.
BTW, you misunderstood my last point as a defense of the death penalty, which it was not. But it is worth pointing out that any system of justice wielded by sinful, fallible humans will inevitably unjustly punish someone. A man convicted of a crime he did not commit, and sent to prison instead of being executed, can be exonerated and released and will remain alive. But he still will have lost the years he was in prison -- 20, 30 years or whatever -- years he could have built a family, enjoyed a career, run a business, helped others -- years he will never get back. Reforming our justice system is larger than simply eliminating capital punishment.
For the record, I think Edward Feser is in grave error about the death penalty and should be corrected publicly by his bishop.
A couple of things:
To your last point, I accounted for the lost years of someone wrongly convicted. Still, a modicum of earthly justice is possible as long as such a person is living. The death penalty eliminates any possibility of that.
I think the idea of a "just" death penalty was what John Paul II proposed. And he framed it as an absolute last resort, to be avoided if at all possible. Even still, that is in the past. Not the future.
There are moral elements of the issue that supercede any justification to kill someone as punishment for a crime. It's not simply a prudential opinion. It is an immoral choice based upon the development of Catholic social doctrine and our understanding of human dignity.
You and Mike forgot the most important factor why Pope Francis was inspired to change it definitively, removing the gray areas in EV. The strongest factor is, "in light of the gospel" the changes were made, as Pope Francis stated "No one is beyond redemption".
Pope Francis implore all the pastors to "Preach the gospel".
What is the heart of the gospel?
"The core or the heart of the gospel is Divine Mercy." -PBXVI and PF
Amoris L., DP, Amazonian, LGBTQ, SSU, etc. kin all of this issues, Pope Francis is magnifying the mercy of God, while the schismatic priest,bishops and cardinals infected with the spirit of antichrist are opposing it, why?
Anti-christ = Anti-mercy = Anti-gospel
Wojtyla in 1976 US visit described a counterfeit church led by antichrist and preaching the anti-gospel or anti-mercy.
Who are the antichrist according to St.John in 1John2:18-19?
The antichrist are the schismatic bkishops or the wolves occupying powerful position in Roman Curia during PBXVI papacy, that made him chose to resign, because it needs an Expanded Petrine Ministry to defeat this wolves, and true enough, Pope Francis united in prayer with Pope Emeritus BXVI were able to expose and remove them, starting from the issuance of Amoris L., where Cdl.Burke and Cdl.Muller were expose and removed. And the TLM exposes Cdl.Sarah's schismatic heart.,etc