The Catholic Message Board

I have some friends who are Catholic, devout at that too, who both have been saying things lately (online, in-person) that it is simply barbaric to support the death penalty.

Which obviously lends itself to me asking both of them: "Does that mean St Augustine (or St Cardinal Henry Newman, St. Paul... on and on) was barbaric?"

These ladies aren't dimwits either. But the responses are exclusively "Sorry, but 1st century Roman Empire is vastly different from today's world."

Or, when I brought up The Council of Trent - "The Church has evolved, and I along with it, since the 16th Century."

But these responses aside. The biggest headscratcher for me was that everyone I have spoken to about it just assumes that the Church teaches that retributive reasons for punishment are clearly wrong. That the only reasons for punishment are rehabilitative and protecting society.

And by everyone I mean those that even support the death penalty. It seems to be universal that the reasons go: Rehabilitative, then Protect Society, with a far down the ladder 3rd being Deterrence (though they all seem pretty certain that this never actually works), and not even in 4th place - but only in the deepest pit of Hell: Retribution.

It reminded me of a time I heard on Relevant Radio when the topic of Capital Punishment came up and the notion of Retributive Justice was rebutted by the on-air priest with, "Remember, and eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." That's about the depth of actual engagement I see on that topic. Pithy little replies that the person saying them thinks they're Michael Jordan soaring over Danny Ainge for the dunk.

I don't know about other states, but in NY. a 25 year sentence can get you out in 5. That's not protection. Death penalties on the other hand, meant spending an average of 25 years in the appeals process. When a person won that appeal, they were released after 25 years. Costly, but it achieves the same goal.

This happens to be part of the thinking of the late Fr. Mike Scanlon, who before becoming a priest was a prosecuting attorney for the military. His other reasoning was related to the 'no atheists in fox holes' analogy. People on death row are more repentant. Their immortal destiny is more likely to change.

I like the quote from Samuel Johnson:

"Count on it! Nothing focuses a man's mind more than knowing he will be hanged in a fortnight".

An important point was made. And, often, one must define terms. There is the death penalty which is death; there is the death penalty which is a sentence yet to be carried out -- and which may never be carried out. For all sorts of reasons.

The thing about this whole conversation is that so many people are convinced that when it comes to punishment (even leaving the death penalty aside) that means rationales are Rehabilitation and then protecting others.

Punishment for any type of reason has many people saying that deterrence can be a reason... though it rarely deters.

But what almost everyone is certain about is that retribution should never enter into the rationale. Now specifically regarding DP, supporters say the same thing, that retribution is completely wrong.

I don't know. Without retribution or revenge is there justice? Not to mention deterrence and rehab. There is a trend where heinous criminals are arrested, go to court, and are released. For all sorts of woke and practical reasons. It seems to me, especially when they are young with only five functioning brain cells, that they are learning that there are no consequences. In the short or medium term.

The DP seems pure revenge. It may be warranted.

Then we have what the Church says.

I would like an answer from death penalty opponents on what is unique about the late 20th century that suddenly makes a universal punishment for crime illicit. They often say, "life imprisonment adequately protects society", but life imprisonment is not a recent invention; it has existed for millennia.

In pre-revolutionary France, there was the Bastille, and prisoners were often held there for life, including the legendary "Man in the Iron Mask" (Dumas exaggerated; it was made of velvet, and it is not clear that the prisoner was ever required to wear it at any time other than the one time he was seen with it when they were transferring him between prisons). Why didn't the existence of the Bastille make the death penalty unnecessary?

What is it about modern prisons that supposedly makes the death penalty "inadmissible"? And what about the rampant rape and murder that goes on in prisons even in the industrialized West? If executing a prisoner is "inadmissible" because of his "infinite dignity", why is sentencing him to a lifetime of being raped as a bigger prisoner's "boyfriend" not threatening his dignity? And if prisoners can wantonly kill and rape even while in prison for life, is that really "protecting society"?

It comes from viewing the bigger picture. We had a very insular frame of reference until the 20th century. Now we are aware of our prejudices and racisms and superiorities that drove discrimination. There are so many ways that have changed once society realized those things.

Stella wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2026 4:32 am It comes from viewing the bigger picture. We had a very insular frame of reference until the 20th century. Now we are aware of our prejudices and racisms and superiorities that drove discrimination. There are so many ways that have changed once society realized those things.

None of this addresses my comment.

That comment of yours reflects a case of "chronological snobbery".

p.falk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2026 9:18 am

Stella wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2026 4:32 am It comes from viewing the bigger picture. We had a very insular frame of reference until the 20th century. Now we are aware of our prejudices and racisms and superiorities that drove discrimination. There are so many ways that have changed once society realized those things.

None of this addresses my comment.

That comment of yours reflects a case of "chronological snobbery".

I was basically just paraphrasing St JPII The Gospel of Life.

"On the one hand, the various declarations of human rights and the many initiatives inspired by these declarations show that at the global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being, without any distinction of race, nationality, religion, political opinion or social class."

Interesting.

But, any "growing sense" of human dignity in the modern age certainly seems to be offset by an erosion of human worth.

global level there is a growing moral sensitivity, more alert to acknowledging the value and dignity of every individual as a human being

To the extent that we think punishment is inhumane.
Euthanasia and abortion - I'd imagine these have increased world wide over the past 4 decades.

I'll avoid a discussion of "dignity" -- as subjective and loaded a topic as is possible. However, I offer that Marxism, the ideology of modernity, in its practice rather than its theory, has given the lie to being the utopian political and economic system which will lift all boats -- including the boat of human dignity.

One might ask the Cambodians under Pol Pot about dignity. Parenthetically, I'm sure that that regime is featured in modern history and political science curricula.

Stella wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2026 4:32 am It comes from viewing the bigger picture. We had a very insular frame of reference until the 20th century. Now we are aware of our prejudices and racisms and superiorities that drove discrimination. There are so many ways that have changed once society realized those things.

I think eliminating the death penalty devalues life; if even for serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer or a Ted Bundy the death penalty is inappropriate, never mind Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, then the most rational conclusion to draw is that taking a human life is not really a big deal.

Another factor is that the European countries that abolished capital punishment in the 70s and 80s followed up by abolishing life sentences in the 90s and early 20s. In most of Europe, the most severe punishment anyone can possibly be given in 25 years. Kill one person, 25 years; kill 1,000 people, 25 years. And there is a growing movement, both in the European Union and in the United States, to abolish prison altogether.

An argument is not like a taxicab; you cannot simply pay it off and get out when it has taken you only as far as you want to go. Most arguments against capital punishment are, at heart, an argument against the concept of punishment. Who exactly do we think we are, to think that some have the right to punish other people?

Doom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2026 4:12 pm "I think eliminating the death penalty devalues life; if even for serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer or a Ted Bundy the death penalty is inappropriate, never mind Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, then the most rational conclusion to draw is that taking a human life is not really a big deal."

Your entire post encapsulates the most rational thoughts on this topic I've read in years. I'm going to save this.

That is a great point. And it highlights the importance of punishment to redress the crime; not solely to rehabilitate the criminal.

The frustration continues...

Since this topic is pretty hot at the moment, there is no shortage of opinion on the matter. Catholic commentators addressing the issue but still falling back on the "we have better institutions to contain criminals than we did years back."

That argument alone seems weird. If the conditions of a society were to crumble and those institutions to contain criminals started to fall into severe disrepair... then for that reason alone it would NOW be okay to resort to DP? It's simply a matter of the economics of a society being able to afford to create those institutions?

I wonder if the avoidance of addressing the retributive punishment for crime puts too much pressure on the notion that there is a potential break in Church teaching? Especially when it's stated that we no longer do this because we moderns have a better appreciation for human dignity than those rude Catholic forebears of ours.

p.falk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 2:53 pm The frustration continues...

Catholic commentators addressing the issue but still falling back on the "we have better institutions to contain criminals than we did years back."

In NYS, there is overcrowding. Anytime there is a bond floated to build a new prison, nobody wants it "in my backyard". So it goes nowhere, and they let criminals out to menace society again. We are not safe.
One of the biggest problems is that they will let prisoners out for 'good behavior'. Then they get out and commit more crimes. If the only place that they can exhibit good behavior is in prison, then they should stay there. But it's just a revolving door. It's a joke.

anawim wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 3:26 pm

p.falk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 2:53 pm The frustration continues...

Catholic commentators addressing the issue but still falling back on the "we have better institutions to contain criminals than we did years back."

In NYS, there is overcrowding. Anytime there is a bond floated to build a new prison, nobody wants it "in my backyard". So it goes nowhere, and they let criminals out to menace society again. We are not safe.
One of the biggest problems is that they will let prisoners out for 'good behavior'. Then they get out and commit more crimes. If the only place that they can exhibit good behavior is in prison, then they should stay there. But it's just a revolving door. It's a joke.

That's a really good point. I've never really thought about the fact that it's just glibly stated "hey, we have (or can build) the facilities to house dangerous criminals)". When it comes to putting up a new prison I'm sure there's disputes about it not being near where people live. Then conversely... you go too far out into the stick and who are the people wanting to drive that far in order to staff it?

There has been no shortage of early release stories.... followed by "repeat offender" stories.

I understand that, in some cities, hotel are expropriated to house the homeless and illegals -- some of whom are criminals. Expropriated in the sense that, although the rooms are paid for, local government demands that the rooms be assigned based upon the demands of the local government. Sometimes at a rate established by the local government. Criminals in the sense that they are, theoretically, being sought out for arrest. Some of these hotels are in area where the surrounding businesses and residents are not pleased.

Also, should such folk be housed in the hinterlands, a growing "right" (like where I live) requires that they be provided free transport to and from whatever legal or welfare or medical destination they have that is located elsewhere. In some cases, the right to free transport involves a vehicle arriving at their domicile at a time convenient to the passenger and individual transport to a destination ... with similar return. Taxpayers foot the bill. Bureaucrats manage the system.

p.falk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 2:53 pm The frustration continues...

Since this topic is pretty hot at the moment, there is no shortage of opinion on the matter. Catholic commentators addressing the issue but still falling back on the "we have better institutions to contain criminals than we did years back."

That argument alone seems weird. If the conditions of a society were to crumble and those institutions to contain criminals started to fall into severe disrepair... then for that reason alone it would NOW be okay to resort to DP? It's simply a matter of the economics of a society being able to afford to create those institutions?

I wonder if the avoidance of addressing the retributive punishment for crime puts too much pressure on the notion that there is a potential break in Church teaching? Especially when it's stated that we no longer do this because we moderns have a better appreciation for human dignity than those rude Catholic forebears of ours.

If you read paragraph 2267 of the new updated edition of the Catechism, it is difficult to know what to make of it; it is far from clear, but taken purely at face value it seems to be saying that all 265 Popes before Francis were wrong about the death penalty, and Francis is the first Pope to get it right.

"2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person",68 and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."

"Was long considered".....but now we know otherwise.

The speech that this passage was taken out of went even further, where Francis even went so far as to denounce the resort to the death penalty in the Papal States.

"Worldwide"? Really? Including in places like Mexico, where El Chapo basically run the joint, continued his crimes behind bars, and escaped by digging a tunnel under the prison? Outside the US and Western Europe, prisons are essentially useless.