Baltimore: basilica illuminated in honor of death penalty repeal [CWN]

[Dranu]

It has to continually be reminded here in this debate, I’m not on the side of rejecting Church teaching here. I’m on the side of defending what is spoken in 2267.

Suppose 2267 speaks of a prudential judgment (for sake of the following argument). Going on that assumption, suppose one says 2267 ‘does not speak of a prudential judgment’ and another says 2267 ‘does speak of a prudential judgment’. In that matter that latter person would be on the side of not rejecting 2267 but the former would. Now the former does not have to do so willfully, but objectively what matters is what 2267 says, not what we subjectively think about it. The side you are defending indeed may be wrong, and, from what I can tell, it most likely is. Thus I can well say to your quote

It has to continually be reminded here in this debate, I (Dranu) am not on the side of rejecting Church teaching here. I (Dranu) am on the side of defending what is [really] spoken in 2267.

LongingSoul:

Dranu:

So back to my question:
I assume you are saying the following:
1.) The second line of 2267 is a matter of moral teaching.
2.) I agree that the Old Testament allowed for the death penalty for things that would be considered immoral under 2267.
3.) Despite this contradiction, it is explainable by the maxim ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’.
Is that a correct assessment? If so could you elaborate on 3?
By ‘elaborate on 3’ I mean to ask if you could give me a deductive argument as to how 1 and 2 can be true. I am not denying that the New Covenant is more about the common good, I just don’t see how that reconciles 1 and 2.

No contradiction exists and really no explanations are needed because its all just a matter of …. common sense.

It may be common sense to you but I honestly do not see it, and such a statement does not help me. To convince me and educate me (if you are indeed right), you would need at least some sort of argument. If you simply want to call my position lacking common sense and be done with it, I suppose that’s okay (I do tend to be highly analytically which sometimes implies a lack of commons sense), but I am not convinced. Perhaps if I elaborate on why I find your argument unhelpful you can help me out some:

The ‘God is Love’ argument needs to be spelled out, not just stated. I hear many people throw the term ‘love’ out when they reject Church teachings and they fail to realize that ‘love’ can well damn a person too. ‘Love’ is not the same as softness, non-violence and non-condemnation. It is willing good. Indeed it seems it is also God’s love, sicne God’s act never changes, that damns the wicked and condemns men to death (e.g. Herod, Ananias, and Sapphira in the New Testament to name a few), even though it is an insufficient cause of the end of that justice. As to the claim that the New Testament is about the common good (rather than a race’s good), no doubt. I agree. However, I see no connection between that and how it excuses God commanding a violation of a moral law in the past (which by nature is universal/common).

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
If several Popes, the USCCB, Cardinal Dulles and every other Christian country in the world is in sync on this point, what the question is, is why do lay US Catholics dismiss it as an imprudent judgement? This is what I don’t understand.

You have to acknowledge that the reason 2267 is in highlights, is because the Church is urging the US to abolish the death penalty, (and those Papal letters and addresses are primarily aimed at the US because it’s the only Christian country that retains the DP)… and there is a section of the lay Catholic community that don’t accept those teachings at face value. Beyond the Papal letters and addresses, the CCC exists as an authoritive and reliable guide to Catholic doctrine. Here is how it is explained…

**“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (CCC pg 5)

and

“….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg xiv)**

By 2267, the death penalty is revealed to be not an exception to the fifth commandment, but a means of legitimate defence against an unjust aggressor qualified by the double effect rule. Causing a death of a person, when that death is a consequence of trying to save an innocent life, does not have to be defended as an exception to the fifth commandment.

Now I’ve perused a number of the Church documents you’ve presented by way of isolated paragraphs from Aquinas, Augustine and by Cardinal Dulles, and I genuinely don’t find any explicit evidence that the death penalty ever had the nature of an inalienable right of public authority. Punishment of wrongdoing on the other hand has that nature, but it’s a mistake to think that the death penalty is something fused to the institution of punishing wrongdoers, thereby extension, having ‘a heart of its own’ so to speak.

I’ve read Cardinal Dulles presentations as fully as what I could find on the net and find that he is addressing two extremes of confusion. Those that see the death penalty as an intrinsic evil… and those who see it as an intrinsic good. When he explains the idea of 2267 being a prudential judgement, he is speaking to the nature of the death penalty. Sometimes people forget that the law has to serve Truth… not that the Truth has to serve the law.

This is how I would see it. In the same manner as God said “an eye for an eye, blood for blood” …God made man and He said ‘go forth and multiply’. That is a pretty clear law to direct human purpose of sexual function. However, over a good long time, there have been whole institutions embrace the practice of chosen celibacy within the Church. (Priests, nuns, brothers). On the face of it that sounds like a direct affront to Gods direction to ‘go forth and mulitply’… but it isn’t. Within the spiritual environment of a culture, it is actually honouring God and creation, to forsake a thing so true in both natural and divine law, if the culture has perverted this gift given by God to the degree that it does more harm than good to souls. A culture forced to honour the practice of celibacy is shown that the sexual function has a purpose for procreation, but in itself, it is just a function and very vulnerable to being usurped by the devil to achieve his ends which are the opposite of Gods purposes.

In the same way that that marriage was instituted for procreation, punishment was instituted for retribution. The sexual function being the gift to effect that end, and the “blood for blood” death penalty was gifted for the ends of Gods justice. But we have to regard the sexual function and the ability to kill for justice… not as institutions in and of themselves but as ‘functions’. Either can be appropriated for good or bad and either can be used in a way that does more harm than good in the world and they have to respected for what they are lest we are using the law against the purposes and will of God.

(Dranu, I’ll answer your post later as I’m busy at the moment… but I have reread my post and feel sorry that it was so insulting in its delivery. My bad and I apologise. )

 

[Ender]

Beyond the Papal letters and addresses, the CCC exists as an authoritive and reliable guide to Catholic doctrine. Here is how it is explained…

This argument is an explanation of why you don’t believe prudential judgments are in the catechism. That doesn’t change the fact that the third sentence in 2267 is just that, a judgment, an opinion. There is no other reasonable definition for an evaluation of the penal capabilities of modern societies. No one could seriously take this as doctrine. Cardinal Ratzinger himself recognized this point when he said:“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”
No one believes he is suggesting we may legitimately disagree about doctrine.

By 2267, the death penalty is revealed to be not an exception to the fifth commandment…

Yet the church has always taught that there are three exceptions to the fifth commandment and that the death penalty is one of them. This is what I meant by employing arguments that involve the repudiation of the Traditional teaching of the church.

… but a means of legitimate defence against an unjust aggressor qualified by the double effect rule. Causing a death of a person, when that death is a consequence of trying to save an innocent life, does not have to be defended as an exception to the fifth commandment.

First, killing in self defense has always been considered an exception to the fifth commandment so even if the defense argument was accurate it doesn’t change that fact. Second, the self defense argument does not stand because the principle of double effect would not permit it. We may kill in self defense but we may not intend to kill; killing cannot be the objective. In an execution, however, killing is the objective. Beyond that,* “The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself.”* Clearly if someone is executed for protection the good effect - protection from future crime - comes directly from the evil effect, the death of the criminal.

Now I’ve perused a number of the Church documents you’ve presented by way of isolated paragraphs from Aquinas, Augustine and by Cardinal Dulles, and I genuinely don’t find any explicit evidence that the death penalty ever had the nature of an inalienable right of public authority.

If there was no right of public authority to execute someone then how could the church even theoretically recognize the right of states to employ capital punishment? As for church documents, they have for centuries recognized the very thing you reject: the state has the right to employ capital punishment.*Notwithstanding we see that Princes and Governors put thieves and other malefactors to death, who nevertheless are men, and it is not holden that they do evil herein, but well. Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as ministers of God, as St. Paul saith. Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace. And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. *(Catechism of St. Bellarmine)

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Beyond the Papal letters and addresses, the CCC exists as an authoritive and reliable guide to Catholic doctrine. Here is how it is explained…

Quite the contrary. I believe that by nature, the Catechism is a living document that accompanies the age that has inspired it and therefore necessarily presents doctrine in the light of the times. I listed in earlier posts other doctrines that have seemed hard to reconcile between the Catechism of Trent and the new Catechism.

What I think is wrong, is the frantic search for ways to deny the spirit of 2267. If it needs to be called a ‘prudential judgement’ to be accepted as congruent with doctrine, that’s no problem, but if it needs to be called a ‘prudential judgement’ to justify rejecting it, I believe that is definitely wrong.

We have to acknowledge that the Trent Catechism accompanied a fairly violent and judgemental age in Catholicism, where the public authorities in Papal States found justification to execute hundreds of men and women as heretics. The heavy emphasis on retributive justice detached from the qualification of safeguarding the common good, effectively undermined the charity and humility of the people in the matters of justice. That weighed heavily on Pope John Paul especially and he made many unqualified apologies for past sins of the Church. Why wouldn’t he be in a unique position to understand the spiritual needs of the modern day Catholic and how to redress what were effectively came from the ‘prudential judgements’ of the past concerning this doctrine.

By 2267, the death penalty is revealed to be not an exception to the fifth commandment…

I’m sorry, Ender. But this is either right or wrong… ***“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.” *** That is the Pope telling us what the traditional teaching of the Church is. Black and whitel

I believe with all my heart, that John Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is redressing by this sentence, an error of interpretation that crept into the culture to cleanse the Church of heresies. The death penalty is specifically in the section entitled ‘Legitimate Defense’ and it begins…

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

Second, the self defense argument does not stand because the principle of double effect would not permit it. We may kill in self defense but we may not intend to kill; killing cannot be the objective. In an execution, however, killing is the objective. Beyond that, “The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself.” Clearly if someone is executed for protection the good effect - protection from future crime - comes directly from the evil effect, the death of the criminal.

That would mean an ectopic pregnancy was untreatable also. Removing the embryo (person), is a deliberate act against its life to ultimately save the mothers life. Whether the act is the punishment of the guilty or the sacrifice of the innocent, the death is not willed by a sense of control or power… it is forced into the equation by circumstances. That’s where the state of the heart renders the action blameless or indicts it as guilty and I question whether people wanting to retain the death penalty are concerned more with the right to wield that power, than the temporal and spiritual good of humanity??

 

[LongingSoul]

If there was no right of public authority to execute someone then how could the church even theoretically recognize the right of states to employ capital punishment? As for church documents, they have for centuries recognized the very thing you reject: the state has the right to employ capital punishment.Notwithstanding we see that Princes and Governors put thieves and other malefactors to death, who nevertheless are men, and it is not holden that they do evil herein, but well. Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as ministers of God, as St. Paul saith. Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace. And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. (Catechism of St. Bellarmine)

Ender

Again, you’ve left the very qualifying sentence unbolded.

"Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace."

There’s the qualifier that strips away any pretensions to power we may have developed at being relegated ‘ministers of God ‘.

 

[Ender]

Again, you’ve left the very qualifying sentence unbolded.

"Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace."

There’s the qualifier that strips away any pretensions to power we may have developed at being relegated ‘ministers of God ‘.

The important qualifier here is “when they deserve it.” That means when someone has committed a crime for which the appropriate penalty is death. This is the whole idea behind retributive justice: sin deserves a punishment of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime.the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)
Note also that Bellarmine does not say “God allows death” but that “God willeth and commandeth” that criminals be killed when they deserve it. He also said*“when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice”*
It is justice that allows an execution, not protection. “That good men be safe” is certainly an objective but it is not the primary objective and it does not determine the just punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Quite the contrary. I believe that by nature, the Catechism is a living document that accompanies the age that has inspired it and therefore necessarily presents doctrine in the light of the times.

Morality does not change with time or place but is constant for all people at all times. The application of doctrine - which is prudential - may change with the times but doctrines themselves do not.

I listed in earlier posts other doctrines that have seemed hard to reconcile between the Catechism of Trent and the new Catechism.

I don’t recall a comment on this point. I don’t recognize any such problems.

We have to acknowledge that the Trent Catechism accompanied a fairly violent and judgemental age in Catholicism, where the public authorities in Papal States found justification to execute hundreds of men and women as heretics. The heavy emphasis on retributive justice detached from the qualification of safeguarding the common good, effectively undermined the charity and humility of the people in the matters of justice.

The Catechism of Trent was the official catechism of the church for 400 years until it was supplanted by the 1997 version. Do you really want to argue that the “judgmental age” lasted until the end of the 20th century?

I’m sorry, Ender. But this is either right or wrong… ***“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.” *** That is the Pope telling us what the traditional teaching of the Church is. Black and white!

Then find some examples of it. Why does it not show up in the half dozen other catechisms preceding the 1997 version, including the 1992 version? If it really is the traditional teaching then why has no one cited it? 2267 fails to identify anything to support its assertion.

I believe with all my heart, that John Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is redressing by this sentence, an error of interpretation that crept into the culture to cleanse the Church of heresies.

You cannot conceive of how I can disagree with the catechism but you seem to have no problem accepting that the church taught heresy for 20 centuries. In fact the church taught that it was a heresy to deny that states had a moral right to employ capital punishment.

That would mean an ectopic pregnancy was untreatable also. Removing the embryo (person), is a deliberate act against its life to ultimately save the mothers life.

No, the intent of the act is not to terminate a pregnancy but to cure a medical condition threatening the life of the mother. The death of the embryo is not intended but merely accepted. The intent of an act of execution is just that: the death of the condemned.

Whether the act is the punishment of the guilty or the sacrifice of the innocent, the death is not willed by a sense of control or power… it is forced into the equation by circumstances.

Even if that was true it wouldn’t suffice. The principle of double effect does not allow the beneficial effect to come directly from the unintended effect, which is exactly what happens when someone is executed to protect society.

That’s where the state of the heart renders the action blameless or indicts it as guilty and I question whether people wanting to retain the death penalty are concerned more with the right to wield that power, than the temporal and spiritual good of humanity??

You may judge others as you choose but your opinion of them has no effect on the strength of their arguments. Whatever their intentions, arguments are either weak or strong and that is what you have to deal with.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

Oh hey fun, another death penalty thread. This seems to be something I care about a whole lot all of a sudden, so I’ma comment on this one too.

My main argument against the death penalty is that we have executed innocent people before and we will execute more as long as the DP remains around. This will never be proven because district attorneys have far more to lose than to gain by investing time and money into proving that they executed an innocent person, but anyone who’s done a little research knows it’s true. Dozens of people have been released from death row since its reinstatement in the U.S. after new evidence proved their innocence or demonstrated that they didn’t get a fair trial. These people were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” by a jury of their peers. I’ma say that again: they were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” by a jury of their peers. Then they were lucky enough to have new evidence come to light before their execution date. And as we all know, not everyone gets lucky.

Our system is not perfect. People can and do get convicted of crimes that they did not commit. On those occasions where innocent people are convicted, they can then be exonerated and released from prison. You can’t take back an execution. In killing the person you are removing the possibility of making any sort of restitution for the grave injustice they were done, especially since as I just said the judicial system has a vested interest in never proving executed men innocent.

From Wikipedia:

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed February, 2004, for murdering his three young children by arson at the family home in Corsicana, Texas. Nationally known fire investigator Gerald Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene and said in December 2004 that “There’s nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire.”[12] In 2010, the Innocence Project filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, seeking a judgment of “official oppression”.[13]

Statistics likely understate the actual problem of wrongful convictions because once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case open, and it becomes unlikely at that point that the miscarriage of justice will ever be exposed. In the case of Joseph Roger O’Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, a prosecuting attorney bluntly argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O’Dell, “it would be shouted from the rooftops that … Virginia executed an innocent man.” The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed.[14]

There is no sane argument that innocents have never been executed since the DP’s reinstatement. The only sane argument you can have while still being in favor of capital punishment is “Yes, we have executed innocents, but it’s worth it.” Death penalty advocates are seldom honest and sincere enough to say this, though.

One argument I’ve seen come up is that this risk of loss of innocent life is outweighed by the fact that people who have killed might kill again from inside prison. But the reality of our system is that people aren’t executed based on the probability of their becoming repeat offenders, they’re executed based on the severity of their crimes. And even if that weren’t the case it’s still a flawed argument; we have no way of knowing who will commit violent acts in the future. If we start killing people to prevent statistically probable future acts of violence we should start killing children who come from violent homes. Children who torture animals are showing warning signs of becoming future serial killers; we should kill them too. If someone has killed, society can seclude and restrain them. We have the ability to do that in modern developed nations. That way if it turns out they were wrongfully executed, we can still take it back.

Here’s a fun article I found from the above wiki quote. Please read it: Cameron Todd Willingham

 

[Ender]

My main argument against the death penalty is that we have executed innocent people before and we will execute more as long as the DP remains around.

Arguments against capital punishment fall into one of two groups: practical objections and moral ones. This is a practical objection, not a moral one.

This will never be proven because district attorneys have far more to lose than to gain by investing time and money into proving that they executed an innocent person…

There are a number of organizations that are highly motivated to find an innocent person who has been executed and they have invested a fair amount of time and money to prove this assertion. So far their efforts have been fruitless.

But the reality of our system is that people aren’t executed based on the probability of their becoming repeat offenders, they’re executed based on the severity of their crimes.

This is the way a justice system is supposed to work.

And even if that weren’t the case it’s still a flawed argument; we have no way of knowing who will commit violent acts in the future.

Nonetheless this is the sole justification 2267 uses to, in theory, allow capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

Arguments against capital punishment fall into one of two groups: practical objections and moral ones. This is a practical objection, not a moral one.

Giving it a label of your choosing doesn’t invalidate it.

There are a number of organizations that are highly motivated to find an innocent person who has been executed and they have invested a fair amount of time and money to prove this assertion. So far their efforts have been fruitless.

Moot point, because we both know that you know that innocents have been executed. But read the link I provided above on Cameron Todd Willingham. Just read it. Seriously, read it.

This is the way a justice system is supposed to work.

Yes. And my point was that that makes the argument I was addressing a stupid one.

Nonetheless this is the sole justification 2267 uses to, in theory, allow capital punishment.

I believe that the death penalty can possibly be moral, in a just society where only the guilty are convicted and one’s odds of acquittal aren’t directly influenced by the size of their bank account. We do not live in such a society, unfortunately. Anyways, the Church also allowed slavery.

 

[Ender]

Giving it a label of your choosing doesn’t invalidate it.

True, but moral arguments are useless against practical objections and practical arguments say nothing whatever about the morality of the practice. It’s useful to understand the distinction.

Moot point, because we both know that you know that innocents have been executed.

You’re not a scientist are you? You don’t make the proper distinction between knowing and believing. I may believe that innocents have been executed but I cannot say I know it to be true if I cannot prove it. I believe that God exists but I cannot claim to know this is so.

But read the link I provided above on Cameron Todd Willingham. Just read it. Seriously, read it.

I have read about a number of “innocents”, including Willingham, and I have acknowledged that a strong case can be made for their innocence, but neither you nor I nor anyone else knows for sure whether he did or did not commit the crime for which he was executed.

And my point was that that makes the argument I was addressing a stupid one.

I suppose if anyone had actually made that argument it would be a stupid one, but since no one has the argument deserves a different label.

I believe that the death penalty can possibly be moral, in a just society where only the guilty are convicted and one’s odds of acquittal aren’t directly influenced by the size of their bank account. We do not live in such a society, unfortunately.

There have been people convicted of murder with absolute certainty of their guilt. Do you have an objection to executing them?

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

True, but moral arguments are useless against practical objections and practical arguments say nothing whatever about the morality of the practice. It’s useful to understand the distinction.

Executing innocent people is immoral.

You’re not a scientist are you? You don’t make the proper distinction between knowing and believing. I may believe that innocents have been executed but I cannot say I know it to be true if I cannot prove it. I believe that God exists but I cannot claim to know this is so.
I have read about a number of “innocents”, including Willingham, and I have acknowledged that a strong case can be made for their innocence, but neither you nor I nor anyone else knows for sure whether he did or did not commit the crime for which he was executed.

That’s like saying you don’t know that anyone on earth has masturbated today, because it hasn’t been scientifically proven that anyone has. Would you take that bet? That nobody on earth has masturbated today? Of course not, because you know with virtual certainty that you’d be wrong due to the ridiculous odds stacked against you. The only difference is that you have nothing invested in believing that nobody has masturbated today.

There have been people convicted of murder with absolute certainty of their guilt. Do you have an objection to executing them?

I think maybe I’d be okay with that. But like I keep saying, that isn’t the reality of the system we have. If you want to argue that the death penalty would be moral in some hypothetical fantasy land where justice is always served and only the guilty are convicted, I won’t argue with you. I’ll only argue with you if you say it’s moral in the real world that actually exists.

 

[LongingSoul]

Suppose 2267 speaks of a prudential judgment (for sake of the following argument). Going on that assumption, suppose one says 2267 ‘does not speak of a prudential judgment’ and another says 2267 ‘does speak of a prudential judgment’. In that matter that latter person would be on the side of not rejecting 2267 but the former would. Now the former does not have to do so willfully, but objectively what matters is what 2267 says, not what we subjectively think about it. The side you are defending indeed may be wrong, and, from what I can tell, it most likely is. Thus I can well say to your quote

It has to continually be reminded here in this debate, I (Dranu) am not on the side of rejecting Church teaching here. I (Dranu) am on the side of defending what is [really] spoken in 2267.

Since the Catechism itself has not indicated in any way that 2267 is a matter of ‘personal conscience’, we surely can’t say that being a ‘prudential judgement’ makes it a matter of ‘personal conscience’? It stands to reason that the 3rd part of 2267 is a prudential judgement and I suspect that if the third part sat under the wording from the Trent CCC, no one would have even bothered to distinguish it as a ‘prudential judgement’. It would be self evident. The sticking points are the qualifying aspects of parts 1 and 2. Those are the aspects that make the death penalty a retributive act, contingent upon its role in protecting and safeguarding others. Pope John Paul described the death penalty as an ‘unworthy punishment’ in one address and at another time saying “the dignity of human life must never be taken away” by the death penalty and that it is “cruel and unnecessary”. The words are compelling and straight from a morally authoritative source and the magisterium have found it to be suitable to the Catechism of the Catholic Church without further qualification. Even when 2267 is a prudential judgement, why would it be less morally binding on the Christians attitude? When the Church is saying that the death penalty in the environment of today, is unworthy, cruel, unnecessary, not in keeping with human dignity… would we even want to say ‘well too bad’, human dignity doesn’t matter, retribution is all that matters. God said so. Is it right to pit the Church against God? The prudential judgement idea, explains why a Divine instruction which accomplished Gods will at one time, can accomplish Gods will in the withholding of it, at another time. I gave the example in an earlier post, of celibacy (withholding natural sexual inclination) in living out Gods will. We already know that the death penalty is ‘always’ forbidden if it is solely an act of vengeance for humans even though for God, it is always good. Gods vengeance is always in keeping with perfect justice. If He casts me into Hell, it is an act of perfect justice and I could not be offended or outraged. God is perfect and all knowing and always good where humans are flawed, vulnerable to sin and perversion and limited in knowledge. We have to be sure never to forget that the devil roams among us seeking the ruin of souls and God has given us the Church and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

In summary I say, in a godly culture where humankind deeply appreciates their brokenness and ignorance and Gods supremacy and merciful and undeserved love for us… we are justified instruments of Gods accounting. However, in an ungodly culture where humankind is swelled with the delusion of his own supreme place in existence (just like the deluded devil)… we are unworthy instruments of Gods accounting. We are dangerous instruments of our delusion of supremacy. The Church has with great prudence, judged the culture of today thus, and with great passion and directness, implored us to withhold a penalty, that in our hands is rendered ‘cruel and unnecessary’. Why would we ignore this?

 

[LongingSoul]

Then find some examples of it. Why does it not show up in the half dozen other catechisms preceding the 1997 version, including the 1992 version? If it really is the traditional teaching then why has no one cited it? 2267 fails to identify anything to support its assertion.

Are you talking only of the 3rd part of 2267 now, or the whole section? The Church discerning that today the reasons for using the death penalty, that is the protection of others, are virtually non existent, doesn’t render all punishment void. The conditions that have always justified the death penalty, ie. a sentence warranted by the safety needs of the community, are perhaps no longer legitimate.The aspect of public safety which has always been there as part of the code justifying the death penalty as punishment, is now not so clear cut. There are lots of arguments about how this and that criminal can order hits from prison or cut up his cellmate, but are these situations the real motive behind the fight to keep the DP… or are they merely unwitting pawns for another agenda?

I’ve said before that the phenomenon created by the movement of the sun during the day, whereby a thing is illuminated differently at those different times whilst still remaining what it is and always has been… explains what can seem to be irreconcilable. A hat and sunscreen in the midday sun is prudent and dictated, but in the evening conditions it is unnecessary. Teaching a child about the absolute necessity of a hat at midday won’t necessarily require you to say ‘but at evening’ you won’t need it. You can take it off. When evening arrives, that becomes self evident. The importance of the hat is vital and lifesaving in its moment, but when the day’s conditions change, it becomes evident that skin protection is the most important point of it all. Not the wearing of the hat in and of itself.

When you consider some of the writings you presented, but in the whole context, you can see that pattern. At times one aspect is explicit while the other remains implicit and then vice versa at other times. It reminds us that we have imperfect sight as human beings.

Take Thomas Aquinas famous words and bold them the opposite of what you would normally do…

Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole.* Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community**, on account of some sin, **it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, **since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). *
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)

Protecting and safeguarding the community is clearly the justification to kill as punishment.

*The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, **for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good *which may be expected from their improvement.

(Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146)

Again, the danger which threatens justifies their death as punishment.

*The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates **because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. **Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.
(Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)

That specific qualification; protecting the innocent… stands firmly there to render this fatal act of punishment just.

There is of course legitimate debate as Pope Benedict says, about whether those conditions are right that we may have recourse to the death penalty, but we also have to examine whether as a culture, we are legitimate for the purposes of being ministers of God in these matters. The Popes think not.

 

[Ender]

Executing innocent people is immoral.

Knowingly executing an innocent person is immoral. Inadvertently executing an innocent person is a tragedy but not a sin.

As of May of this year, 1,328 people have been executed since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. You claim to know that at least one of those people was innocent but as a matter of fact you don’t know that because you can’t identify anyone who you know to be innocent. If you were a betting man you would bet your house that an innocent person has been executed but that is a very different thing than knowing it has actually happened. You believe it has happened but unless it has been proven then no one can say they know it has happened. You are misusing the term.

But enough space has been wasted on that point. The discussion as to whether an innocent person has been executed or not is not decisive. I’m willing to assume that if it hasn’t already happened it will happen in the future. The real question is which choice - executing or not executing - will lead to the deaths of more innocent people?

I think maybe I’d be okay with that.

Then your objections to capital punishment are purely practical. You have no moral objection to its use.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

Knowingly executing an innocent person is immoral. Inadvertently executing an innocent person is a tragedy but not a sin.

I meant to say ***risking ***executing innocent people is immoral. And it is. And we do.

You claim to know that at least one of those people was innocent but as a matter of fact you don’t know that

Yes I do. And so do you. I can’t name anyone who has masturbated today (because like executing innocent people it’s something people are ashamed of and try to keep hidden), but I know that there are people on earth who have. You know this also.

The real question is which choice - executing or not executing - will lead to the deaths of more innocent people?

No. You can’t answer that question with math. A state’s judicial system executing an innocent person is far more unconscionable and unjust than some meth addict stabbing somebody. There are plenty of horrible things we could do which would ultimately lead to the saving of innocent lives, but “the ends justify the means” is decidedly not a Church teaching.

Then your objections to capital punishment are purely practical. You have no moral objection to its use.

I have a moral objection to capital punishment as it exists today, in the United States, in the real world. As I said, if you want to argue for the morality of the DP in an imaginary alternate universe in which justice is always served and only the guilty are convicted, be my guest. I’m interested in discussing the real world which actually exists in reality.

 

[Dranu]

The sticking points are the qualifying aspects of parts 1 and 2. Those are the aspects that make the death penalty a retributive act, contingent upon its role in protecting and safeguarding others.

Agreed, that is where the debate is. Not the 3rd line which is clearly prudential.

Even when 2267 is a prudential judgement, why would it be less morally binding on the Christians attitude?

I think it is debatable whether line 2 of 2267 is prudential or not, but given it is (as I think so) it is less binding based on the doctrines of the Church. The Apostolic Constitutions of Vatican I and Lumen Gentium of Vatican II seem to make this fairly clear (i.e. that only matters of faith and morals are binding; the Church is not in the business of being the final arbiter on science quo science). Surely you do not agree with all the Church’s prudential judgments throughout her history (some even perhaps in Papal Bulls!), do you?

Also a prudential statement of this level ought to be given careful and serious consideration before being rejected.

When the Church is saying that the death penalty in the environment of today, is unworthy, cruel, unnecessary, not in keeping with human dignity… would we even want to say ‘well too bad’, human dignity doesn’t matter, retribution is all that matters.

I am certainly not saying that. There are other purposes that matter in punishment (rehabilitation carrying a particular importance; yet we Catholics NEED to remember rehabilitation of the soul which is far more important than rehabilitation of life). As for human dignity, it matters, I just fail to see how the death penalty hinders its advancement in most of its application in the West today. Just note that language you selected though. Isn’t it clear even to you such a judgment is a matter of prudence (based on empirical and scientific judgments)?

In summary I say, in a godly culture where humankind deeply appreciates their brokenness and ignorance and Gods supremacy and merciful and undeserved love for us… we are justified instruments of Gods accounting. However, in an ungodly culture where humankind is swelled with the delusion of his own supreme place in existence (just like the deluded devil)… we are unworthy instruments of Gods accounting. We are dangerous instruments of our delusion of supremacy. The Church has with great prudence, judged the culture of today thus, and with great passion and directness, implored us to withhold a penalty, that in our hands is rendered ‘cruel and unnecessary’. Why would we ignore this?

And you have a point there. Though I disagree on how prudential it is, I do not really disrespect all such positions as my own judgment is not infallible (I only really disrespect the humanist/secular/overemphasis-on-temporal-life position which is incredibly pervasive even among the faithful). My main argument here is not whether the death penalty is good or bad as applied (I happen to think there are actually too many safeguards against it in the U.S.), but rather that 2267 in line 2 and 3 is a matter of prudential judgment.

 

[Ender]

I meant to say ***risking ***executing innocent people is immoral. And it is. And we do.

How do you determine what is moral? Is it whatever each of us believes is wrong or is it objectively determined? If this is nothing more than your personal opinion then it isn’t all that compelling.

Yes I do. And so do you.

What I know is that you don’t know what it means to know.

No. You can’t answer that question with math.

Does this mean that you would prefer to see 100 innocent people murdered than to risk executing one innocent person?

A state’s judicial system executing an innocent person is far more unconscionable and unjust than some meth addict stabbing somebody.

Why is it more conscionable to allow 100 murders instead?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Are you talking only of the 3rd part of 2267 now, or the whole section?

Here is how I understand 2267:
1st part: The first clause is accurate; the clause beginning with “when this is…” is not. The church has never had the caveat that capital punishment be limited to its necessity for protection.
2cd part: This presents two reasons for not using capital punishment: because it “better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good” and other punishments are *“more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” *The first is prudential, the second is troubling. Gn 9:6 explains that the life of a murderer is forfeit because of the dignity of the life of the victim. 2267 reverses that and holds that the life of a murderer is protected because of the dignity of his life.
3rd part: This is prudential.

The conditions that have always justified the death penalty, ie. a sentence warranted by the safety needs of the community, are perhaps no longer legitimate.

Capital punishment has always been justified by the church as a matter of retributive justice and that is a condition that cannot change with time or circumstances.

Take Thomas Aquinas famous words…
Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, **it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, **since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).

First, while this comment acknowledges the benefit to society of executing dangerous criminals (safeguarding the common good), nowhere does Aquinas say that this is the only or even the primary reason for executing them. Protection has always been a legitimate objective of punishment but it has never been the primary justification.

Second, if you interpret the phrase “to safeguard the common good” as meaning physical protection only you interpret it much too narrowly and certainly not the way Aquinas understood it, for he also said:*…because the judge has care of the common good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief’s death, which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate *(ST I-II 19,10)

Protecting and safeguarding the community is clearly the justification to kill as punishment.

*The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, **for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good ***which may be expected from their improvement.

Your interpretation goes way too far. A person may not be executed unless he has committed a crime for which the just punishment is death. That is the primary consideration: the punishment must be deserved. Clearly we may not execute a person even to protect the community unless he has already committed a capital crime.

Again, the danger which threatens justifies their death as punishment.

*The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates **because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. ***Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

*“Punish the guilty and protect the innocent.” *What justifies putting protection of the innocent above punishing the guilty? But again, there is nothing here that makes retribution dependent on protection. As for the “purpose of the law …”, that may well be to protect life but the purpose of punishment is different; these are not at all the same things. The primary purpose of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the crime already committed, not preventing new ones.

The primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice.

That specific qualification; protecting the innocent… stands firmly there to render this fatal act of punishment just.

No, it does not. A punishment is just if its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime and protection does not enter into that determination. There are other considerations - protection, rehabilitation, deterrence, circumstances - but none of them can justify an unjust punishment.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

How do you determine what is moral? Is it whatever each of us believes is wrong or is it objectively determined? If this is nothing more than your personal opinion then it isn’t all that compelling.

Lol, dude if you’re out of arguments just tap out and admit it. Everything you’re posting is your personal opinion. “The death penalty as it exists today in the U.S. is moral because the Catholic Church says blah blah blah” = your opinion.

Does this mean that you would prefer to see 100 innocent people murdered than to risk executing one innocent person?
Why is it more conscionable to allow 100 murders instead?

You have no way of knowing who will murder again. You have no way of knowing if a guilty convict who’s locked up for life without the possibility of parole will kill again. You also have no way of knowing with certainty if every convict actually committed the crime of which they were convicted. There are many horrible things we could do to prevent folks from getting killed, such as exterminate every HIV positive person in Africa, but the ends don’t justify the means and the plight of few isn’t necessarily outweighed by the good of the many.

The difference between a convict shanking another convict in prison and the state executing an innocent is that the judicial system is per definition the vehicle by which ***justice ***is carried out. If my state risks executing an innocent by putting a man or woman to death, the integrity of that vehicle has been permanently defaced. And that disgrace is carried by the entirety of every citizen in my state, as we allowed this to happen. That innocent was executed in our name. If a dude shanks another prisoner, that’s his crime and his alone.

There are people in this world who, because of my own personal shortcomings, I would be happy to see die. But I don’t go and kill them myself, because I don’t want that potential sin on my hands, and because I might be completely wrong about them. Why then should I ask the state to do something I’m not willing to do myself?

The death penalty as it exists today is immoral. We know that we have executed innocents, we know that the guilty often go free, and it’s often because of the size of their bank accounts and the quality of lawyers they can afford. The death penalty is the most glaring, undisguised example of class warfare that exists in our society. We don’t need it, it harms the integrity of the state, and it should be done away with.