Pints With Aquinas - 11: Is the death penalty always wrong?

Starting point is 00:00:00 G'day listeners to Pints with Aquinas. Before we jump headfirst into today's awesome episode, I want to let you know that I am running a contest for this week only. I'm trying to get more people to rate the podcast because when people rate it, it comes up higher when people search it on iTunes, etc. And so here's an incentive to do that. This week, I will ask you to rate my podcast. If you rate it, I will randomly select one person to receive the Summa of the Summa. This is a book written by Peter Kreeft. The subtitle is The Essential Philosophical Passages of the Summa Theologica. So it's sort of like a summary of the summary of theology written by Aquinas. Now, even though it's a summary, it has 539 pages. I will post

Starting point is 00:00:52 that directly to your house. You don't have to pay for shipping or anything. Again, I'm going to select someone randomly, and it doesn't matter if you think that I'm handsome or ugly or well spoken or not, or if you hate Australians, either. I don't care. I promise you it will be random. The only thing is you have to rate this week. So if you've rated in the past, I really appreciate your support, but you won't be in the running. It'll just be those who rate during this week from this podcast to the next podcast. And yeah, this week from this podcast to the next podcast. And yeah, don't think that you might not have a chance at this because even though we have a lot of people who download this podcast, there hasn't been a lot of people who've been rating it. So give us a rating and I'll let you

Starting point is 00:01:36 know in next week's episode who won. And then we'll find some way for you to prove to me that you're this person or that person. Maybe I'll have you take a screenshot of your account or something like that, and I will post you the book. All right. God bless. That's enough chatting. Now, let's hear from Thomas Aquinas. Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 11. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? In today's episode, we'll ask St. Thomas the question, is the death penalty always wrong or is it something that can be used legitimately? Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor and discuss theology and philosophy.

Starting point is 00:02:39 It's good to be back with you. It's been two weeks since I've been in your ear holes speaking to you about St. Thomas Aquinas and I'm thrilled to be back and we have a good episode for you today and it has to do with the death penalty. Thomas Aquinas answers this question in the second part of the second part, question 64, Article 2. Now, I don't know what your take is on the death penalty. People tend to have pretty strong opinions one way or the other. And I don't plan on giving my opinion in this episode.

Starting point is 00:03:24 I'm interested in giving St. Thomas' opinion and then sharing what the church teaches. But having said that, I'm sure I'll definitely upset some people and I'll hear about it and that's okay. That's fine. If we agreed on everything, it might get boring, right? Okay. Article two, whether it is lawful to kill sinners. Now, in the past, what I've done is I've read directly from St. Thomas's main quote, where he says, I answer that, and then he gives his opinion. Instead, what I'm going to do today is I'm going to share the three objections St. Thomas gives. And then after I say objection one, I'm going to read his response to that. And then we'll look at his final statement at the end. So, these are very small objections. They're like one

Starting point is 00:04:05 sentence or two. And keep in mind, of course, it's not other people writing these objections to St. Thomas, which he then answers. These are objections he has come up with. And I think I said this in the very first episode of Pints with Aquinas, that it's a sign of a very good philosopher when you are able to articulate your opponent's position better than he can. And I think in most instances that is true with St. Thomas Aquinas. So, let's look at that first objection. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable, Matthew 13, forbade the uprooting of the cockle, which denotes wicked men. By the way, cockle, he's talking about the weeds and the wheat, so weeds, okay? Uprooting of the weeds, which denotes wicked men, according to a gloss. Now, whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore, it is a sin to kill a sinner. So, first of all,

Starting point is 00:05:07 just let that objection sink in. I wonder if that's something you relate with, if that's an objection that you yourself hold. So, he says, it's unlawful to kill men who have sinned because our Lord forbade it in Matthew 13 when he said you shouldn't be uprooting the weeds, which of course represents wicked people, but that's exactly what you're doing if you're just killing the quote-unquote weeds of our society while letting alone the quote-unquote just people. So you shouldn't do it. What are your thoughts on that? How do you feel about about that here's what aquinas's response to that objection is he says quote our lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the weeds in order to

Starting point is 00:05:56 spare the wheat that is the good this occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good. As Augustine says, Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the

Starting point is 00:06:40 latter may be lawfully put to death. Okay, by the way, in case you were looking for a Twitter answer in response to what St. Thomas believed, yes, he believed that the death penalty was a legitimate means of punishment. And he'll be explaining why in the course of this article. But do you see what he's saying? He's like, no, no, that's not actually what it's saying. I mean, when you look at this parable, our Lord is talking about you don't uproot the weeds because you might kill the wheat. And so, the only way this would be analogous is if you said you shouldn't kill the wicked if it would harm the good. And in that case, St. Thomas says you would be right. In fact, this is a very good argument against dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, for example, because when you do that, among

Starting point is 00:07:27 the other evils involved in that, you're killing the good along with the so-called wicked. And so that is a wicked action. Okay, let's look at the... I probably just made a whole bunch of other enemies by saying the atomic bomb was evil, but deal with St. Thomas because I don't think he would say that was a legitimate action on behalf of the United States. But we shall proceed. Let's look at the second objection. And again, as I read this one or two sentences out, see what you think about it. Further, human justice is conformed to divine justice. Now, according to divine justice, sinners are kept back for repentance. According to Ezekiel 33, 11, quote, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Therefore, it seems altogether

Starting point is 00:08:19 unjust to kill sinners. What do you think about that one? Knowing, by the way, that St. Thomas has probably got a pretty good response. But I mean, that sounds pretty legitimate, right? I think I've said that in the past. I've heard others say that, like, you shouldn't put someone to death because our Lord doesn't. It says it very clearly right there. I desire not the death of the wicked, but here you are killing the wicked. Instead, what the Lord says here in Ezekiel 33, 11 is, I don't desire the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Therefore, it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners. Here's Thomas's response to that objection. According to the order of his wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners

Starting point is 00:09:09 forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes he allows them time to repent, according as he knows what is expedient for his elect. This also does human justice, imitate according to its powers. For it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others. So he says, it puts to death those who are dangerous to others. So, Thomas says this is a legitimate thing, while at the same time, it allows for repentance to those who are sinning. You know, maybe they are planning to sin even more grievously, but it allows them that time to repent before they would do something grievous like rape, like murder, and so forth. Furthermore, I've often thought maybe a reasonable response to

Starting point is 00:10:13 this objection when you say you shouldn't give people the death penalty because you're shortening their life so that they wouldn't have time to repent. But I don't know if that's necessarily true. I mean, if the church teaches that the death penalty can be a legitimate form of execution of punishment, which it does, then it might be the case that giving someone a death sentence is the means by which they begin seeking repentance. Maybe not. I'm just throwing it out there. That's a possibility. Third objection. Further, it is not lawful for any good end whatever to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine and the philosopher. Now, to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men and we wish our friends to live and to exist.

Starting point is 00:11:13 Therefore, it is no wise lawful to kill a man who has sinned. So, we've spoken about this in a previous podcast, haven't we, about the difference between sins that are, or actions, I should say, that are evil because of extrinsic circumstances, such as the intention of the subject or the circumstances surrounding the act. And we've also talked about that in light of intrinsic evils, evils that are just wrong because of what they are. And this is what this objector is saying. He's like, yeah, all right, maybe you kill the evil and good will result, but it's evil to kill the evil and we shouldn't do that. Like the ends don't justify the means. And so even if you're right and people

Starting point is 00:11:59 aren't going to be harmed by, you know, you kill this bad dude and less people will die because of it, it's still wrong. What is Aquinas' response? Here it is. Reply to objection three. By sinning, man departs from the order of reason. By the way, let's just stop and clap for that quotation. Isn't that awesome? By sinning, man departs from the order of reason and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood insofar as he is naturally free and exists for himself. And he falls into the slavish state of the beasts by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Psalm 48, 21, man when he was in honor did not understand, he hath been compared to senseless beasts and made like to them. And Proverbs 11, 29, the fool shall serve the wise, end quote. Hence, says St. Thomas, although it be evil in itself to kill a

Starting point is 00:13:08 man so long as he preserves his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast, for a bad man is worse than a beast and is more harmful, as the philosopher states. Again, by the way, philosopher meaning Aristotle. So, Aquinas, I think, is essentially saying, yeah, it's intrinsically evil to kill a just man, but it's not necessarily intrinsically evil to kill an evil man. All right? He says, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. So those are Aquinas' responses to the three objections. Now let's take a look at his main response. And again, his response is about a paragraph long. He says,

Starting point is 00:13:58 as stated above in the first article, it is lawful to kill dumb animals, such as sheep and pigs, etc., insofar as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now, every part is directed to the whole as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason, we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now, every individual person is compared to the whole community as part to whole. Therefore, if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good since, quote, a little leaven corrupteth the whole

Starting point is 00:15:06 lump, 1 Corinthians 5, 6, end quote. All right, we have just gone through the entire second article from question 64 from the second part of the second part. Again, Aquinas' answer is it can be legitimate to kill a sinner, or it can be legitimate to use capital punishment. Now, many people today have a problem with Aquinas' answer, and they have a problem because they think that maybe the church has changed its teaching on the death penalty. And this, I think, comes from the encyclical Evangelium Vitae written by Pope John Paul II. And here's what he writes, okay? This is a direct quote from Pope John Paul II. Quote, it is clear that for the purposes of punishment to be achieved, the nature and

Starting point is 00:16:01 extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and the state ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in case 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. End quote. So that's what John Plass says. He's not saying that it's never legitimate. He's expressing his opinion that given today's penal system, the cases in which we ought to execute a criminal, he says, are very rare,

Starting point is 00:16:50 if not completely non-existent. Now, what I see some Catholics falling into, the error I see some Catholics falling into, is they look at this, they might agree with John Paul II, and then they equate abortion with the death penalty, as if to say, oh, the church is against both of these things. And this isn't true. These are clearly, one is intrinsically evil, right? The execution of an innocent person, and the other isn't always intrinsically evil. Here's a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2267, quote, 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 life against the unjust aggressors, end quote.

Starting point is 00:17:49 Now, Cardinal Ratzinger, who would later go on to become Pope Benedict XVI, had this to say in response to those who would try to equate abortion and the death penalty. Okay. And this comes from worthiness to receive communion general principles. So here's what Ratzinger said, quote, 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, well, who does he mean? He means John Paul II, John Paul II's opinion on the death penalty, huh? 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.

Starting point is 00:18:47 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. So what he's saying here is Catholics might agree or disagree about what John Paul II had to say about applying capital punishment and still be able to present themselves for Holy Communion. But they are not free to say that abortion and euthanasia are cool and think that they're still in union with the church. They're not. Again, some have thought

Starting point is 00:19:47 that because John Paul II's quote from Evangelium Vitae about rare and non-existent, because that's actually quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, again, paragraph 2267, that therefore, that has effectively reversed the church's position on the death penalty. And we've got to be careful when thinking that, because in this instance, we would be wrong. I want to share with you something here from what Ratzinger, again, prefect from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith at the time, had to say about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which he was one of the primary authors and editors of it. He said this in, where are we here? In Introduction of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Listen, the individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive

Starting point is 00:20:41 no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the catechism itself lies in the whole, since it transmits what the church teaches. Whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teachings of the church. So, in other words, well, I don't even know if I need another words. That's just essentially what he's saying. So, when we read something in the catechism, it's not like the catechism has given it a new authority. It hasn't. Ratzinger makes that plain. It gives it no other weight than which it already possessed. The weight of the catechism itself lies in the whole. So, we have to realize that the Catholic Church

Starting point is 00:21:25 has consistently taught that the death penalty can be a legitimate source of execution and punishment. So, the catechism hasn't reversed this. Now, if you're looking for proof of that, you just have to read what the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I mean, we can also just look at what Aquinas says, but look at what the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I mean, we can also just look at what Aquinas says, but look at what the Catechism of the Council of Trent has to say under the fifth commandment. Here's the direct quotation from it. Quote, another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities to whom is entrusted power of life and death by the legal of judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount

Starting point is 00:22:13 obedience to this commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now, when it says the end of the commandment, it means the purpose of the commandment, right? The purpose of the commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now, when it says the end of the commandment, it means the purpose of the commandment, right? The purpose of the commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now, the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David, in the morning, Catechism of the Council of Trent under the Fifth Commandment. So summing up today, we can say this, and we can say it because the Church has said it, that Catholics may have a difference of opinions on whether or not

Starting point is 00:23:14 the death penalty should be administered. And if they do, we shouldn't be ostracizing each other or sort of excommunicating each other from the church. That's not necessary. We might agree with John Paul II and say that, yeah, it's practically unnecessary given the organization of the penal system today in many or most countries. And yet, we should agree with St. Thomas Aquinas and the Church that capital punishment is entirely different from abortion or euthanasia, since capital punishment may not be intrinsically evil, whereas abortion and euthanasia always are. So, I hope this podcast has been a help to you. Please visit me at mattfradd.com. Follow me on Twitter, at Matt Fradd. That's the same handle on Instagram, incidentally,

Starting point is 00:24:08 if you're interested in seeing the photos I post. And please, would you rate this podcast? As I said in the beginning of this episode, I am going to be giving away a book by Peter Kreeft, The Summa of the Summa, which is a summary of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, to one random person who decides to rate the show this coming week. And as I said in the beginning, you might feel like you don't have a chance, and this is one of these sort of things that you throw your hat into the ring, but what are the chances you'll

Starting point is 00:24:44 win? Well, don't be so sure because unfortunately we haven't had a lot of people rate the show compared to just how many people are downloading it. There's a lot of people who are downloading the podcast. Not a lot of people are rating it. So again, for those of you who have rated in the past, I'm sorry, you won't be in the running, but for those who will rate it this week, you'll go into a random drawing and i promise you it will be random don't worry if you say i'm really handsome or really ugly that will not affect whether or not you're picked i will just point my finger at the screen randomly and pick a new winner and i will post you the book free um you don't have to pay for shipping

Starting point is 00:25:22 or anything of the suma of the suma god bless you and i look forward to chatting with you next week thanks for tuning in I took you in Too many grains of salt

Pints With Aquinas - 11: Is the death penalty always wrong?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.