Exchange on Capital Punishment and the Current "Mind" of the Church (vs. Cat Clark and Mark Shea)

By Dave Armstrong (1-9-14)

[from a public thread on Mark Shea's Facebook page. His words will be in green; Cat's in blue. It had a remarkably sour ending, even by today's rock-bottom standards of Internet discourse. For this reason I refuse to call it a "dialogue" or even a "debate". Views were exchanged and discussed, but there was no meeting of minds here, as occurs in a legitimate debate or dialogue. And that is because (at least in Cat's case) of personal derision: plainly expressed at the end, which always derails constructive dialogue.]

* * * * *

[original meme at the top: "Should we bring back the death penalty for child killers and paedophiles? Comment below. Yes / No."]

No. I think it should be reserved for terrorists and serial killers.

Of course, a death penalty should require profound eyewitness evidence and many other indisputable evidences. Cut-and-dried.

I think my categories qualify. The Church has not denied states the prerogative to impose the death penalty. Indeed, all policemen can shoot people on the spot in hostage scenarios, etc., in order to save innocent lives.

Pope Benedict XVI, in the year (2004) before he became pope, wrote, as Cardinal Ratzinger:

3. 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.

(Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion -- General Principles)

I'm expressing that "legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics" and no one can condemn me for it, since it's not an absolute prohibition in the first place (as abortion is).

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

That is the teaching of the Church, to which we are to submit ourselves with docility unless there is a damn good reason not to. The reasons put forward by American death penalty advocates are crap [see, Death Penalty: Magisterium vs. Left and Right]  

"legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty" is NOT equal to "legitimate diversity of opinion about the moral principles governing applying the death penalty," such as the principle that "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."

If all that's available to restrain an aggressor is a bamboo cage, we can have a legitimate diversity of opinion among ourselves regarding whether the cage is sufficient to defend human lives. What we can't disagree about is the moral principle that if the cage is sufficient we may not execute.

Exactly. "The Church says not to kill unless absolutely necessary, but I say kill the bastard whenever you hate him bad enough to just want to see the son of a bitch dead whether it is necessary or not" is not "legitimate diversity of opinion". It's dissent.

Why must we attribute the worst possible motives to folks we disagree with? Believe it or not, it is possible to have an opinion on a permissible death penalty in extreme cases without being Attila the Hun or the devil incarnate, or in possession of a bloodthirsty "kill all the filthy bastards" mentality.

I allow merely two instances of an allowable death penalty, and the Church allows this. No matter how hard you try, you can't turn into an absolute something that is not.

Until the Church turns officially pacifist (which is essentially impossible, given just war theory) and starts saying that police cannot impose lethal force, it will remain that way.

Dave: The simple fact is the Church teaches "Don't kill unless you absolutely have to in order to protect innocent human life". What this meme asks is "When do we get to kill?" It seeks to find some specimen of criminal so repulsive that, whether it is necessary or not, pro-death penalty Christians can have the satisfaction of calling for death despite the fact that it is not really necessary to kill them. It predicates death, not on the necessity of preventing further bloodshed, but on the satisfaction of putting this vile son of a bitch to death because, dammit, he has it coming. It is a form of dissent from the Church's actual teaching on the death penalty.

I agreed with [your take of] the meme in my first comment. I favor capital punishment for serial killers and terrorists only: "extreme" cases": just as Cardinal Dulles and the US bishops have made clear [see below] is permissible and fully in accord with Church teaching. Therefore, I am not a dissenter at all.

But if someone claims I am, they are engaging in hyper-legalistic pharisaism in applying the Mind of the Church (which I fully concur with, as far as I am aware).

Now, if someone took the position in affirmation of what the meme was driving at, then you would have a legitimate argument against him or her, based on what the Church has been saying on the issue.

Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote an excellent article in First Things on the topic ["Catholicism and Capital Punishment"]:

In the New Testament the right of the State to put criminals to death seems to be taken for granted. Jesus himself refrains from using violence. He rebukes his disciples for wishing to call down fire from heaven to punish the Samaritans for their lack of hospitality (Luke 9:55). Later he admonishes Peter to put his sword in the scabbard rather than resist arrest (Matthew 26:52). At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, "He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die" (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, referring to Exodus 2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate's power comes to him from above — that is to say, from God (John 19:11). Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Luke 23:41).

The early Christians evidently had nothing against the death penalty. They approve of the divine punishment meted out to Ananias and Sapphira when they are rebuked by Peter for their fraudulent action (Acts 5:1-11). The Letter to the Hebrews makes an argument from the fact that "a man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses" (10:28). Paul repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to the Romans, with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate who holds authority "does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4). No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty. . . .

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. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that "Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the State has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime." . . .

Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed in Evangelium Vitae (1995) that "the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral." But he wisely included in that statement the word "innocent." He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty."

"certain extreme cases"; "extremely serious crime": exactly my position: terrorists and serial killers only.

If the choice is between Mark Shea and his adoring minions' opinion and Avery Cardinal Dulles' and the US bishops' interpretation of Church teaching, sorry (nothing personal), I go with them. That's how Church teaching works, after all: the bishops and cardinals are way above we lay apologists.

"legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty" is NOT equal to "legitimate diversity of opinion about the moral principles governing applying the death penalty," such as the principle that "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." 

Nothing Cardinal Dulles could possibly say will change that.

I can read, Cat. :-) Most of that you already wrote above. Writing it again doesn't make it any more true. But, E for effort . . .

The Church either allows it in "extreme" cases or it does not. Cardinal Dulles and the US bishops (and overwhelming Catholic and biblical moral tradition, which has usually gone much further) say yes. You and Mark say no.

I submit to them, not you, because they are my authorities. Otherwise we have the Protestant principle of private judgment: everyone considers his or her own opinions the final say.

Been there done that . . . now I am a Catholic and the bishops (here magisterially interpreting what popes have taught) are my authorities. I submit to them unless and until they say that "Here in this instance you are free to believe as you wish . . ."

"Writing it again doesn't make it any more true." Correct. That it's Magisterial teaching, however, requires that we owe the pope's moral teaching on this subject, including the quoted principle, "religious submission of mind and will."

Cardinal Dulles, no matter how much you may like him, simply does not and will never have more authority than the pope.

I'm not saying he does. What I'm saying is that he and the bishops (and also Pope Benedict XVI, writing a year before he became pope) authoritatively interpret the Church's teachings in its totality. What you want to do is take one sentence of the pope's and consider it out of context. As already noted, Pope St. John Paul II did not deny all rights of the state to exercise capital punishment.

What you are arguing is a legalistic extreme that would in effect make the Catholic position one of complete pacifism: the state can never ever execute anyone. It's just not the case.

The argument is here because of interpretation. You and Mark and who knows how many others who hang on his every word here want to interpret in one way. I am showing, I think, that very high-placed folks in the Church interpret another way.

So this is what Catholics do: in cases of disagreement, we go to the bishops and popes to get the proper interpretation, and bow to them. You don't appear to give a fig about what Cardinal Ratzinger, or the US bishops in their statement on the matter, or Cardinal Dulles think. You know better.

That is (at least potentially, or the starting kernel of) the spirit of dissent and of Martin Luther: placing your own opinions above that of the magisterium, and if they disagree with you, then to Hades with them: who cares what they think?! 

Not remotely. He said that, and many other things based on that, many times, in numerous places and ways, making his mind and will abundantly manifest. Cardinal Ratzinger, contrary to your fallacious claims, did not write otherwise, and Cardinal Dulles' personal opinions cannot make the teaching other than it is. You are the one misrepresenting Cardinal Ratzinger, Dave. Cardinal Ratzinger never allowed disagreement on the moral principles, only the application of those principles.

Archbishop Charles Chaput also wrote:

The Church’s critique of capital punishment is not an evasion of justice. Victims and their survivors have a right to redress, and the state has a right to enforce that redress and impose grave punishment for grave crimes. It is not an absolute rejection of lethal force by the state. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.

("Justice, Mercy, and Capital Punishment," by the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., March 2005, USCC)

Dr. Jeff Mirus wrote another helpful article: "Capital Punishment: Drawing the Line Between Doctrine and Opinion":

Traditional Doctrine Affirmed . . .

The first step in properly interpreting these developments is to note again that the Church’s traditional teaching on the death penalty has been upheld. It is unnecessary to reiterate the applicable texts of the Old and New Testaments, the Fathers, prior Popes and Councils, because the Catechism still begins its discussion by upholding this teaching. In fact, in EV [Evangelium Vitae] 55, just before making the two points cited above, the Pope reaffirmed and explained the traditional doctrine:

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."

In so acknowledging, the pope has already accepted the more extreme case of de facto "capital punishment": use of lethal force by the state, in which a split-second judgment is made to take someone's life to protect innocent people he is threatening.

Thus, if that is permissible, it is hardly sensible to say that the death penalty for a terrorist or serial killer after a full jury trial is ruled out, since the other scenario is already accepted as permissible and it involves a lot less "proof" and evidentiary factors than the latter.

So... while I was away, Dave Armstrong quoted a passage from a non-Magisterial source (Jeff Mirus) that quotes Pope St. John Paul II. The Pope's own statement, "Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life," is clearly consistent with the moral principle (which the pope himself makes explicit) that "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." In both statements, execution is only allowed as a necessary means of protecting other people. Similarly, in the same passage: "the nature and extent of the punishment.... 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." The pope never suggested in the quoted passage that execution is acceptable in other circumstances. (And this is something Mirus also admits, though Dave does not: "It is no longer a recommendation but a requirement to use bloodless means when they are sufficient to the purpose.")

Evil may never be done, and when execution is done in circumstances in which it's not "absolutely necessary" "to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm ... when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society ... to protect public order and the safety of persons," execution is evil. We can debate whether a particular execution is absolutely necessary for that purpose (e.g. the above question whether our means really are sufficient to contain the aggressor), but we may not debate whether this moral principle must be upheld. The teaching is manifest and Catholics owe the pope's teaching religious submission of mind and will.

Cat,

If indeed there is never a scenario where the state can execute, then Pope St. John Paul II could have simply said that and make it an absolute position. But he didn't do so.

That means there are times when it can execute. What would be an example of such a case, in your opinion? Is there ever a case of capital punishment that fits into your take of what Pope St. John Paul II said about necessity, etc.?

Oh, you're beating a straw man. By all means, carry on then. I'm sure he deserves it. Having read things you've written in the past, I believe you're capable of reading what I've written in this thread.

Please tell me (minus the derision) of a hypothetical scenario where the state can legitimately execute a prisoner.

I'm quite capable of reading and also of honestly disagreeing. I had assumed (and was of the opinion) that you are also capable of engaging in calm and rational dialogue with those you disagree with. So will you answer my sincere question or not?


If you're "quite capable of reading" you'd see that the question was answered long ago.

[looking through her past replies, since she refused to direct me to one, the closest I see to answering my question is this: "If all that's available to restrain an aggressor is a bamboo cage, we can have a legitimate diversity of opinion among ourselves regarding whether the cage is sufficient to defend human lives".] 

Can you remind me of what the answer was? Thanks. I do do other things besides wrangling in comboxes. 

I think you're capable of doing this yourself and not wasting my time.

I am capable. I'm asking you, to save my time, since you know the answer already.

Dave says, "I think I'm important, so you should do my reading comprehension for me."

Alright. I guess dialogue with you has become impossible. I'm the wascally wascal and to be treated as such. Sad . . .

You precluded dialogue by refusing to carry your own weight and do your own work. Grow up, Dave.

I will try to grow up and be as smart as you, with your prayers and sterling example. Be well.

* * * * *