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

[Ender]

The ban on women speaking in Church is considered unjust now but was appropriate to the past. (Male only Priesthood of course serves a natural purpose).

The death penalty is now a cruel and unnecessary option but considered godly in the past. (The killing of Osama Bin Laden is a just end though).

We get to change our minds on what behaviors are or are not acceptable but cruelty is more than a mere matter of opinion. It is not something that moves in and out of fashion like double breasted sport coats. Something either is cruel or isn’t but it cannot be both at different times. Still less can something be opposed to man’s dignity in one era but not in another. Man’s dignity is fixed and what was not an offense against his dignity in the past is not an offense against it now. There may be valid reasons to oppose capital punishment but the idea that it has newly become either cruel or contrary to human dignity isn’t a supportable argument.

Ender

 

[Portrait]

My observation of some death penalty proponents, is that they see the fifth commandment as the exception to the death penalty. That strange view has arisen out of firstly beholding the death penalty as a sacred and enshrined institution in and of itself. The Death Penalty. … rather than a mere legal tool of the State in service of the communities safety and wellbeing. The Church has dis-endorsed its use as being in service to the will of God in this day and age. It is now cruel and unnecessary and not in keeping with human dignity.

Dear LongingSoul,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

The death penalty, dear friend, was instituted and sanctioned by God Himself as part of the Noahic covenant - “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9: 6). As regards the perpetuity of the divine institution of capital punishment, no consideration is more important than this: the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man is one that has permanent relevance and continuing validity; for how can there be a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God. It is this that provides the whole rationale for the death penalty, even under the New Covenant. Moreover, progressive revelation or ‘maturer’ thinking cannot change this, which is why the Catholic Church Catechism says, after citing Genesis 9: 6, “This teaching remains necessary for all time” (para. 2260, added emphasis mine). “Blood is a sacred sign of life” and should never be shed by murderous violence, be it in Noah’s age or our own. Violence done to a man is an outrage against Almighty God that will always cry out for just retribution in any age. It represents an attack upon the divine majesty and that grave disorder can only be satisfactorily redressed, according to God, by the murderer forfeiting his own life. This is why the death penalty for murder will always be necessary, irrespective of what age one happens to live in. Indeed, to argue that it was no longer necessary you would have to cogently demonstrate that man had ceased to be made in the image of God which is, of course, an impossibility.

In view of the fact that it was God who mandated the death penalty for murder, how can one seriously argue that it is a cruel and unworthy punishment that dehumanizes society? To espouse such an impious viewpoint surely impugns the character of God and makes Him into a vengeful and unmerciful ogre. This seems to me, dear friend, to have more in common with the maudlin sentimentality of secular humanism, rather than an authentic Catholicism. The Catholic Church has consistently taught that the death penalty for murder is morally licit and that the civil authority, as “minister of God”, has the right and duty to inflict it (Rom. 13: 4): - “It must be remembered that power was granted by God (to the magistrate), and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rom. 13: 1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority” (Pope St. Innocent I, Epist. 6, c. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, (20 Feb. 405) added emphasis mine).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

We get to change our minds on what behaviors are or are not acceptable but cruelty is more than a mere matter of opinion. It is not something that moves in and out of fashion like double breasted sport coats. Something either is cruel or isn’t but it cannot be both at different times. Still less can something be opposed to man’s dignity in one era but not in another. Man’s dignity is fixed and what was not an offense against his dignity in the past is not an offense against it now. There may be valid reasons to oppose capital punishment but the idea that it has newly become either cruel or contrary to human dignity isn’t a supportable argument.

Ender

Dear Ender,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Jolly well said.

It is of vital importance, dear friend, that we distinguish between things which essentially differ, otherwise we will surely err. The death penalty for murder is unique because it involves man being made in the image of God and that is obviously something that does not change from one generation to the next, unlike the temporal rite of circumcision, which belonged to the old economy and eventually found its fulfilment in the Christian Sacrament of Baptism (cf. Col. 2: 11-12).

The divine mandate of Genesis 9: 6, requiring the death penalty for wilful murder, is timeless teaching (see CCC, para. 2260) which cannot be discarded on the grounds that supposedly more enlightened thought has found it to be cruel and unnecessary. Such a view is untenable, dear friend, because it implies that God originally instituted a punishment that was unworthy and cruel, which is surely an insulting affront to our Maker. Clearly if it is cruel and unworthy now then it was cruel and unworthy when it was sanctioned by God in Noah’s day. Moreover, I cannot see how arguments concerning the “evolutionary nature of man” or the “pilgrim nature of the Church” can obviate this difficulty for the Catholic abolotionist.

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that the poison of secular humanism has had a profound impact upon the way modern man has come to view the death penalty for murder. As a consequence, the whole rationale for the death penalty, that is man being created in God’s image, has gradually been lost sight of in the last 50 years. Nevertheless, the reason annexed to God’s command to put the wilful murderer to death is the fact of his being made in God’s image (Gen. 9: 6). This has not and will never change and neither will the punishment for murder. Man is a creature dear to his creator and, therefore, ought to be to us as well. Such vestiges of God’s image are still upon man, even in his fallen estate, so that he who unjustly kills his fellow-man defaces the image of God and does dishonour to him. All men have something of the image of God upon them and this why murder is such a heinous crime and must be visited with capital punishment, according to the divine mandate. It is not for us to say that the death penalty is a barbaric, cruel or unworthy punishment, having no place in a civilised society. Have we finally, in the 21st. century, become more wiser and humane than God Himself?

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[LongingSoul]

The death penalty, dear friend, was instituted and sanctioned by God Himself as part of the Noahic covenant - “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9: 6). As regards the perpetuity of the divine institution of capital punishment, no consideration is more important than this: the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man is one that has permanent relevance and continuing validity; for how can there be a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God. It is this that provides the whole rationale for the death penalty, even under the New Covenant.

Moreover, progressive revelation or ‘maturer’ thinking cannot change this, which is why the Catholic Church Catechism says, after citing Genesis 9: 6, “This teaching remains necessary for all time” (para. 2260, added emphasis mine). “Blood is a sacred sign of life” and should never be shed by murderous violence, be it in Noah’s age or our own. Violence done to a man is an outrage against Almighty God that will always cry out for just retribution in any age. It represents an attack upon the divine majesty and that grave disorder can only be satisfactorily redressed, according to God, by the murderer forfeiting his own life. This is why the death penalty for murder will always be necessary, irrespective of what age one happens to live in. Indeed, to argue that it was no longer necessary you would have to cogently demonstrate that man had ceased to be made in the image of God which is, of course, an impossibility.

Even Thomas Aquinas doesn’t say what you are saying.

Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. 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 (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). 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 that 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 latter may be lawfully put to death. (Summa Theologica > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 64)

Our Lord commanded …. ***commanded no ***less, to withhold a judgement of death when the environment/age in which it is used means that the good will suffer as a result of its use. It doesn’t follow that “to argue that it was no longer necessary you would have to cogently demonstrate that man had ceased to be made in the image of God which is, of course, an impossibility.” It’s use in these circumstances would be what demonstrates that man had ceased to be made in the image of God. Wouldn’t that make it a cruel, unnecessary and inhumane practice?

In view of the fact that it was God who mandated the death penalty for murder, how can one seriously argue that it is a cruel and unworthy punishment that dehumanizes society? To espouse such an impious viewpoint surely impugns the character of God and makes Him into a vengeful and unmerciful ogre. This seems to me, dear friend, to have more in common with the maudlin sentimentality of secular humanism, rather than an authentic Catholicism.

Considering that the Lord Himself commanded that death be withheld to sinners when the good were in danger by it, it seems to me that to insist upon it unconditionally would ‘impugn the character of God and make Him into a vengeful and unmerciful ogre’.

The Catholic Church has consistently taught that the death penalty for murder is morally licit and that the civil authority, as “minister of God”, has the right and duty to inflict it (Rom. 13: 4): - “It must be remembered that power was granted by God (to the magistrate), and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rom. 13: 1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority” (Pope St. Innocent I, Epist. 6, c. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, (20 Feb. 405) added emphasis mine).

The Catholic Church has now deemed it counter to Gods purpose for it by virtue of the times and conditions that render it harmful to the good. To continue its use knowing that the Church strongly condemns it for its harm to the good and to Gods relationship with His people, is highly questionable to my mind I’m afraid.

 

[Portrait]

Even Thomas Aquinas doesn’t say what you are saying.

Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. 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 (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). 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 that 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 latter may be lawfully put to death. (Summa Theologica > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 64)

Our Lord commanded …. ***commanded no ***less, to withhold a judgement of death when the environment/age in which it is used means that the good will suffer as a result of its use. It doesn’t follow that “to argue that it was no longer necessary you would have to cogently demonstrate that man had ceased to be made in the image of God which is, of course, an impossibility.” It’s use in these circumstances would be what demonstrates that man had ceased to be made in the image of God. Wouldn’t that make it a cruel, unnecessary and inhumane practice?

Considering that the Lord Himself commanded that death be withheld to sinners when the good were in danger by it, it seems to me that to insist upon it unconditionally would ‘impugn the character of God and make Him into a vengeful and unmerciful ogre’.

The Catholic Church has now deemed it counter to Gods purpose for it by virtue of the times and conditions that render it harmful to the good. To continue its use knowing that the Church strongly condemns it for its harm to the good and to Gods relationship with His people, is highly questionable to my mind I’m afraid.

Dear LongingSoul,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

With regards to your quotation from Thomas Aquinas, dear friend, I do not see how this has any bearing on the topic currently under review, namely the infliction of the death penalty on those found guilty of wilful murder. In this instance there is decidedly no reason to withhold administering capital punishment as there is no risk of the good being put to death with the wicked. The malefactor has been found guilty of murderous violence and therefore, in accordance with the divine mandate (Gen. 9: 6), he must forfeit his own life so as to redress the disturbed moral balance. To refuse to do so is to “act contrary to God’s authority” (Pope St. Innocent I), for it was He who commanded the death penalty for murder at the first.

Irrespective of the age in which we happen to live, dear friend, the good will never suffer as a result of wilful murders being put to death, for if that were true then it would have always been true, even when God first instituted the punishment in Noah’s time. The whole rationale for capital punishment is that man is created in God’s image and this is the primary reason why it must needs be administered when a murder has been perpetrated. Therefore unless it can be demonstrated that there has been and abrogation of this image of God in man, the entire basis for the death penalty remains perpetually valid and has continuing relevance. Moreover, if it is deemed to be cruel, unnecessary and dehumanizing now then clearly this must have been the case when God first commanded it back in Noah’s age. To argue the contrary is to contend that God instituted a punishment that was unworthy and unnecessary. As I have stated in previous posts, our Church Catechism explicitly states after citing Genesis 9: 6, which says that murders must be put to death, “This teaching remains necessary for all time” (para. 2260, added emphasis mine). Blood is a “sacred sign of life” and thus murderous violence requires the infliction of the death penalty to redress the disorder occasioned by this most heinous offence.

The “good” are not in danger of the death penalty only those who have been found guilty of wilful murder.

How, dear friend, can the “times and conditions” render capital punishment for murder “harmful to the good”? Man being made in God’s image is a timeless truth from one generation to the next and it is this, not the “times and conditions”, that provide the entire justification for capital punishment? Moreover, a disturbed moral balance must always be redressed by the murder forfeiting his own life and thus the “teaching remains necessary for all time” (CCC, para. 2260).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ender]

Considering that the Lord Himself commanded that death be withheld to sinners when the good were in danger by it, it seems to me that to insist upon it unconditionally would ‘impugn the character of God and make Him into a vengeful and unmerciful ogre’.

No one has suggested that capital punishment be unconditionally applied. The argument is simply this:

• The just punishment for the crime of murder is death. God himself has set this penalty. This is the rule.
• That penalty should not be applied in those cases where it creates an unacceptable danger to society. This is the exception to the rule.

The Catholic Church has now deemed it counter to Gods purpose for it by virtue of the times and conditions that render it harmful to the good.

You phrase this in such a way as to suggest this is now church doctrine when in fact it is simply a judgment about the application of doctrine. The church has in no way deemed capital punishment counter to God’s purpose. Certain of her bishops have concluded that, for the time being at least, the exception to the rule should apply but the rule itself has not changed.

To continue its use knowing that the Church strongly condemns it for its harm to the good and to Gods relationship with His people, is highly questionable to my mind I’m afraid.

Had you stopped after “harm to the good” you would have had a reasonable position but to suggest the application of the punishment God himself set would harm “God’s relationship with his people” is not reasonable.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The divine mandate of Genesis 9: 6, requiring the death penalty for wilful murder, is timeless teaching (see CCC, para. 2260) which cannot be discarded on the grounds that supposedly more enlightened thought has found it to be cruel and unnecessary.

The difficulty faced by those who oppose the use of capital punishment is to find a way to fault its use today without at the same time faulting the church for supporting its use in the past. It would be reasonable (although debatable) to hold that capital punishment ought not be used in contemporary societies because its use is misunderstood and reinforces the culture of death mentality. This appears to be how Cardinal Dulles understood JPII’s opposition to its use. Most opponents, however, oppose capital punishment per se and would object to its use under virtually any circumstances … which puts them at odds with what the church teaches.

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that the poison of secular humanism has had a profound impact upon the way modern man has come to view the death penalty for murder.

Secular humanism may account for opposition from outside the church but that does not adequately explain opposition from within. I am disturbed by the arguments used to oppose capital punishment which seem so counter to what the church teaches on a multitude of subjects, most basically the nature of punishment itself.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

With regards to your quotation from Thomas Aquinas, dear friend, I do not see how this has any bearing on the topic currently under review, namely the infliction of the death penalty on those found guilty of wilful murder. In this instance there is decidedly no reason to withhold administering capital punishment as there is no risk of the good being put to death with the wicked. The malefactor has been found guilty of murderous violence and therefore, in accordance with the divine mandate (Gen. 9: 6), he must forfeit his own life so as to redress the disturbed moral balance. To refuse to do so is to “act contrary to God’s authority” (Pope St. Innocent I), for it was He who commanded the death penalty for murder at the first.

Irrespective of the age in which we happen to live, dear friend, the good will never suffer as a result of wilful murders being put to death, for if that were true then it would have always been true, even when God first instituted the punishment in Noah’s time. The whole rationale for capital punishment is that man is created in God’s image and this is the primary reason why it must needs be administered when a murder has been perpetrated. Therefore unless it can be demonstrated that there has been and abrogation of this image of God in man, the entire basis for the death penalty remains perpetually valid and has continuing relevance. Moreover, if it is deemed to be cruel, unnecessary and dehumanizing now then clearly this must have been the case when God first commanded it back in Noah’s age. To argue the contrary is to contend that God instituted a punishment that was unworthy and unnecessary. As I have stated in previous posts, our Church Catechism explicitly states after citing Genesis 9: 6, which says that murders must be put to death, “This teaching remains necessary for all time” (para. 2260, added emphasis mine). Blood is a “sacred sign of life” and thus murderous violence requires the infliction of the death penalty to redress the disorder occasioned by this most heinous offence.

The “good” are not in danger of the death penalty only those who have been found guilty of wilful murder.

How, dear friend, can the “times and conditions” render capital punishment for murder “harmful to the good”? Man being made in God’s image is a timeless truth from one generation to the next and it is this, not the “times and conditions”, that provide the entire justification for capital punishment? Moreover, a disturbed moral balance must always be redressed by the murder forfeiting his own life and thus the “teaching remains necessary for all time” (CCC, para. 2260).

The passage I quoted was from the very section regarding the killing of sinners. This link gives the whole of the teaching by Aquinas. It clearly indicates that there are times and conditions when the death penalty should be withheld…
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm

You phrase this in such a way as to suggest this is now church doctrine when in fact it is simply a judgment about the application of doctrine. The church has in no way deemed capital punishment counter to God’s purpose. Certain of her bishops have concluded that, for the time being at least, the exception to the rule should apply but the rule itself has not changed.
Had you stopped after “harm to the good” you would have had a reasonable position but to suggest the application of the punishment God himself set would harm “God’s relationship with his people” is not reasonable.

You are continually going further than the Pope or Bishops are going in order to make the Churches position on the death penalty today, benign and irrelevant. It has been noted many centuries back that St Augustine in speaking to the heresy of Manicheanism spoke ardently on mans freedom of will so as to seem itself the heresy of Pelagius. At a later time speaking against the heresy of Pelaginism his teachings on the freedom of will had a strikingly different locus. Historical context dictates the tone and emphasis of a teaching as being mere humans, our language cannot fully convey the whole of a law for every age and condition that is known to man. If indeed the death penalty is being applied by a culture that has diminished regard for the true nature of man as Gods creation in His own image, then that audiences heresy should rightly be addressed in no uncertain terms about the cruelty, inhumanity and unworthiness of their practices. As Augustine showed by his addresses to different audiences on the freedom of the will, the language needs to be context appropriate and relevant to the times.

 

[Portrait]

The passage I quoted was from the very section regarding the killing of sinners. This link gives the whole of the teaching by Aquinas. It clearly indicates that there are times and conditions when the death penalty should be withheld…
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm

Dear LongingSoul,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

The passage in St. Matthew 13 has reference to the wheat and the tears (the good and bad) and does not, dear sister, have any relevance as regards to the infliction of the death penalty for those found guilty of wilful murder. The parable in St. Matthew. a parable of the Kingdom, is about the good being mingled with the bad in the Visible Church of Christ (not in the world) and that because it is often difficult to distinguish between the two our Lord forbids us trying to separate them prematurely before the final Judgment - “Let them both grow together until the harvest”. This does not address the issue of those found guilty of murder and who must therefore be put to death by the civil authority (Rom. 13: 4) in accordance with the perpetually valid divine mandate (Gen. 9: 6).

There is, dear friend, no danger to the good when capital punishment is administered to those found guilty of murder, for they are the ‘bad’.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[sw85]

We get to change our minds on what behaviors are or are not acceptable but cruelty is more than a mere matter of opinion. It is not something that moves in and out of fashion like double breasted sport coats. Something either is cruel or isn’t but it cannot be both at different times. Still less can something be opposed to man’s dignity in one era but not in another. Man’s dignity is fixed and what was not an offense against his dignity in the past is not an offense against it now. There may be valid reasons to oppose capital punishment but the idea that it has newly become either cruel or contrary to human dignity isn’t a supportable argument.

Ender

Yeah, that was a strange way of putting it on LS’ part. On the other hand, it’s pretty emblematic of the way discourse on the death penalty is conducted in the modern Church, because the Church’s current position on the death penalty is just baffling and efforts to defend, explain, and justify this position are even more baffling, as Ender has pointed out consistently in this thread.

If the death penalty is a moral evil “today,” then we are left with two choices. Either it’s a moral evil “today” in contrast to the past, or it’s moral evil “today” and also everywhere, always, past and present and future.

We can safely rule out the latter because that would implicate the Church in the authoritative issuance of doctrinal error, which is supposed to be impossible. It also makes our understanding of the Crucifixion pretty much incoherent: if sin does not merit death, then what did the Crucifixion accomplish?

But, if the former, then we have to ask what has changed. As Ender has pointed out, the obligation to execute murderers belongs to divine revelation, to pre-Mosaic divine revelation at that. It would seem its suppression requires something a little more than spontaneous intuition, i.e., a comparable act of divine revelation. We can’t assume the Incarnation/Crucifixion/Resurrection/Ascension/whatever suppressed this along with the rest of the Mosaic law because, well, wouldn’t it have taken more than 2000 years to figure that out? So when did the change occur? Where?

Since neither of these positions are credible we have to conclude that the Church simply isn’t saying that the death penalty is a moral evil but, as Ender has been saying, prudentially a bad idea at the moment. This is why it uses phrases like “more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good.” “Concrete” in this context means “particular.” i.e., the conditions are particular to the present age. They weren’t around before and they may not be later. But then there’s that baffling phrase “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” which doesn’t even rhyme with “prudential judgment.” Sigh.

 

[Ender]

You are continually going further than the Pope or Bishops are going in order to make the Churches position on the death penalty today, benign and irrelevant.

I don’t know what you mean by this partly because I find the language you use imprecise. What do you mean by “the Churches position on the death penalty today”? The church’s doctrine on capital punishment has not changed; it is today what it has always been. In the judgment of the last two popes and the Magisterium it ought not be employed by modern societies. That is a judgment about the application of doctrine; it is not a doctrine itself. There is no problem with this as different circumstances can lead to different actions in different times and places … even as doctrine itself is fixed and unchanging.

Ender

 

[Ender]

the Church’s current position on the death penalty is just baffling and efforts to defend, explain, and justify this position are even more baffling

Discussing this subject makes me think of a debate with a person who claims to prefer hamburger to steak because he likes the citrus tang of bananas. The position is dubious but the explanation is incomprehensible.

I can accept that people believe the use of capital punishment today is harmful to society because of the way such an action is viewed, and if that was as far as they went - while I might still disagree with them - I would see that as a very reasonable position. Unfortunately that is never as far as they go and the discussion inevitably becomes entangled in assertions that are in fact contrary to any number of church doctrines. It seems like the deeper the discussion goes the more doctrines there are that get called into question.

There is only one argument that supports the idea that executions should be opposed: it was the opinion of the last two popes. That is not an inconsiderable reason and as long as people stick to this point they are on secure ground. Beyond that oasis however are the lightening sand and the ROUS.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Yeah, that was a strange way of putting it on LS’ part. On the other hand, it’s pretty emblematic of the way discourse on the death penalty is conducted in the modern Church, because the Church’s current position on the death penalty is just baffling and efforts to defend, explain, and justify this position are even more baffling, as Ender has pointed out consistently in this thread.

This is my take on why this strong position of the Church on the death penalty seems sudden and baffling, especially to American Catholics. I live in Queensland Australia where the death penalty was abolished in 1922. The last execution in Australia itself was in the 60’s around the same time that the death penalty was removed from the laws of the Vatican state. The death penalty has been abandoned gradually in the Christian world for the last century. America is the only Christian country that uses it. This really isn’t a sudden and baffling development for Catholics outside America. Far from being a whim of intuition by the Popes, it’s been a growing force of fervour within the Catholic heart for that long. To illustrate the authority of the holy fervour of the united Catholic heart, take the development of the teaching on the Immaculate Conception. By medieval times, many of the western Churches had begun celebrating Mary’s nativity including her sinless conception without Papal permission. This caused some theologians much angst. However…

“Popular opinion remained firmly behind the celebration of Mary’s conception. In 1439, the Council of Basel, which is not reckoned an ecumenical council, stated that belief in the immaculate conception of Mary is in accord with the Catholic faith.[48] By the end of the 15th century was widely professed and taught in many theological faculties, but such was the influence of the Dominicans, and the weight of the arguments of Thomas Aquinas (who had been canonised in 1323 and declared “Doctor Angelicus” of the Church in 1567) that the Council of Trent (1545–63)—which might have been expected to affirm the doctrine—instead declined to take a position.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Another example of the authority of the Catholic faithfuls holy fervour is the beautification of Pope John Paul II (and his imminent canonisation!!! ) This extraordinary step was not just a whim of intuition of Pope Benedict. It’s arisen from the force of the Catholic faithful.

If the death penalty is a moral evil “today,” then we are left with two choices. Either it’s a moral evil “today” in contrast to the past, or it’s moral evil “today” and also everywhere, always, past and present and future.

Here is where I detect the core of the error in your perception. The Church has gone to great lengths to state that the death penalty is not an ‘intrinsic evil’. The assumption that some are falling to in the light of that… is that it is and ‘intrinsic good’. This default error, is what I see the Churches strong and clear wording, undermining.

We can safely rule out the latter because that would implicate the Church in the authoritative issuance of doctrinal error, which is supposed to be impossible. It also makes our understanding of the Crucifixion pretty much incoherent: if sin does not merit death, then what did the Crucifixion accomplish?

It’s only a problem within the false dichotomy that you’ve created through assumptions.

But, if the former, then we have to ask what has changed. As Ender has pointed out, the obligation to execute murderers belongs to divine revelation, to pre-Mosaic divine revelation at that. It would seem its suppression requires something a little more than spontaneous intuition, i.e., a comparable act of divine revelation. We can’t assume the Incarnation/Crucifixion/Resurrection/Ascension/whatever suppressed this along with the rest of the Mosaic law because, well, wouldn’t it have taken more than 2000 years to figure that out? So when did the change occur? Where?

I don’t suggest that the sacrifice of Christ suppressed the law as in prohibiting it altogether. ie. making it an intrinsic evil. I believe Christs sacrifice relieved us of shedding blood for the primary purpose of atoning for the sins of mankind. (retribution) We are permitted to use the death penalty now for the purpose of justice “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Being relieved of the dire responsibility of killing for atonement, we now honour Gods requirement for a reckoning by bloodshed by receiving the body and blood of Jesus at the memorial of His death every Sunday (or everyday where many are so moved). There is no danger that man will not know the importance of blood shed for the atonement of sin whilst the Mass and Eucharist form the heart of the life of mankind.

Since neither of these positions are credible we have to conclude that the Church simply isn’t saying that the death penalty is a moral evil but, as Ender has been saying, prudentially a bad idea at the moment. This is why it uses phrases like “more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good.” “Concrete” in this context means “particular.” i.e., the conditions are particular to the present age. They weren’t around before and they may not be later. But then there’s that baffling phrase “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” which doesn’t even rhyme with “prudential judgment.” Sigh.

It seems so strained and arduous (to me anyway) to have to keep searching for a way to understand the Popes statement without letting go of your rigid position, but I do respect that this is what Philosophy is about. (I did one semester of it and knew it just wasn’t my natural approach to faith.)

 

[LongingSoul]

There is only one argument that supports the idea that executions should be opposed: it was the opinion of the last two popes. That is not an inconsiderable reason and as long as people stick to this point they are on secure ground.

I’ve had no issue whatsoever with the position of the last two popes and the whole of the CCC section on capital punishment under legitimate defense. My angle has only ever been to defend that position against charges that it is wrong, misinformed or worse. That’s all I’m about in this discussion. I’ve not been inclined in the least to enter into the debates about whether the current penal system can genuinely restrain unjust aggressors.

 

[sw85]

This is my take on why this strong position of the Church on the death penalty seems sudden and baffling, especially to American Catholics. I live in Queensland Australia where the death penalty was abolished in 1922. The last execution in Australia itself was in the 60’s around the same time that the death penalty was removed from the laws of the Vatican state. The death penalty has been abandoned gradually in the Christian world for the last century. America is the only Christian country that uses it. This really isn’t a sudden and baffling development for Catholics outside America. Far from being a whim of intuition by the Popes, it’s been a growing force of fervour within the Catholic heart for that long. To illustrate the authority of the holy fervour of the united Catholic heart, take the development of the teaching on the Immaculate Conception. By medieval times, many of the western Churches had begun celebrating Mary’s nativity including her sinless conception without Papal permission. This caused some theologians much angst.

This is exactly the kind of meaningless baffling nonsense marshalled in support of the current Catholic discourse on the death penalty I referenced earlier.

Is that discourse doctrinal or not? If it is doctrinal then we are left with the dichotomy I referenced earlier, which devours itself and the Church both. If it is not doctrinal then why are you using doctrinal development as an example of how certain bishops’ prudential opinion re: the death penalty has evolved, and why are you insisting that certain bishops’ prudential opinion re: the death penalty commands a level of assent normally reserved for doctrine?

Are you equivocating between doctrine and prudential opinion deliberately or negligently?

Here is where I detect the core of the error in your perception. The Church has gone to great lengths to state that the death penalty is not an ‘intrinsic evil’. The assumption that some are falling to in the light of that… is that it is and ‘intrinsic good’. This default error, is what I see the Churches strong and clear wording, undermining.

No, I am not making that error. We all know that the object, intentions, or circumstances of an act may be disordered. A thing is intrinsically evil to the extent its object is disordered, and it is intrinsically evil because there are no intentions or circumstances that can make it licit.

If a thing isn’t intrinsically evil then it can only be evil because of the circumstances or the intentions motivating it. But bishops aren’t qualified to judge any particular person’s intentions re: the death penalty (or anything else, which is why they don’t) and their prudential opinion re: the circumstances under which it can be licitly applied without detracting from the common good (which involve boring, mundane, technical and statistical evaluations on which bishops are far from an unqualifiedly superior authority) is, well, just that – prudential opinion. Meaning not doctrine. Meaning people can disagree with the assessment in good faith.

It’s only a problem within the false dichotomy that you’ve created through assumptions.

The “dichotomy” isn’t false because it exhausts all possible assumptions. Go back and read what I wrote. If the Church’s stance that the death penalty is evil today is doctrine, then we have to ask whether it’s evil only today or whether it’s always been evil. If both options are false that only means the conditional statement “If the Church’s stance that the death penalty is evil today is doctrine” is false. It means the alternative, that the Church’s stance is not doctrine but prudential opinion (i.e., not “the death penalty is morally evil” but “the death penalty is currently a bad idea”), is true. If it is not doctrine then there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion re: it.

I don’t suggest that the sacrifice of Christ suppressed the law as in prohibiting it altogether. ie. making it an intrinsic evil. I believe Christs sacrifice relieved us of shedding blood for the primary purpose of atoning for the sins of mankind. (retribution) We are permitted to use the death penalty now for the purpose of justice “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Wait, so your position is that the Crucifixion literally abolished the Noachide covenant in toto and that no one noticed this until about 20 years ago? So when you say “we are permitted to use the death penalty now,” by “now,” you don’t mean “post-1960s,” you mean “post-Resurrection”?

If so, then is it your opinion that the Church taught error for the preceding 20 or so centuries when it insisted that the execution of the wicked was morally nonnegotiable?

It seems so strained and arduous (to me anyway) to have to keep searching for a way to understand the Popes statement without letting go of your rigid position, but I do respect that this is what Philosophy is about. (I did one semester of it and knew it just wasn’t my natural approach to faith.)

Since my “rigid position” just is actual doctrine, I have to ask what yours is. You seem to be trying to fit the square peg of prudence into the round hole of moral teaching and, finding the task nearly impossible, lubricating both with the grease of gibberish.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is exactly the kind of meaningless baffling nonsense marshalled in support of the current Catholic discourse on the death penalty I referenced earlier.

Is that discourse doctrinal or not? If it is doctrinal then we are left with the dichotomy I referenced earlier, which devours itself and the Church both. If it is not doctrinal then why are you using doctrinal development as an example of how certain bishops’ prudential opinion re: the death penalty has evolved, and why are you insisting that certain bishops’ prudential opinion re: the death penalty commands a level of assent normally reserved for doctrine?

Are you equivocating between doctrine and prudential opinion deliberately or negligently?

It’s my understanding that the term ‘prudential judgement’ bridges a natural disjunct that occurs within the doctrine in its continuous life from age to age. Something like that moment within the day at sunrise when it’s beginning to get light but you still need the electric light on to smoothly make the transition to full daylight. That moment requires a prudential judgement. However, I don’t see that judgement as meaning we should always keep the electric light burning continuously into the future, ignoring the fact that the natural light conditions have changed. When the Bishops are teaching these things…

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

… we can trust in the **“Preservation from error of the bishops of the Catholic Church. They are infallible when all the bishops of the Church are assembled in a general council or, scattered over the earth, they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. They are assured freedom from error provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority. The scope of this infallibility, like that of the Pope, includes not only revealed truths but any teaching, even historical facts, principles of philosophy, or norms of the natural law that are in any way connected with divine revelation.” **(From Fr John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. INFALLIBILITY, EPISCOPAL.)

In the light of that, I don’t accept that prudential judgement means completely outside and separate from the continuous life of a doctrine.

If a thing isn’t intrinsically evil then it can only be evil because of the circumstances or the intentions motivating it. But bishops aren’t qualified to judge any particular person’s intentions re: the death penalty (or anything else, which is why they don’t) and their prudential opinion re: the circumstances under which it can be licitly applied without detracting from the common good (which involve boring, mundane, technical and statistical evaluations on which bishops are far from an unqualifiedly superior authority) is, well, just that – prudential opinion. Meaning not doctrine. Meaning people can disagree with the assessment in good faith.

The Church and the Bishops are much better positioned to make clear and strong judgements about the spiritual condition of the society. When that society approves of abortion, euthanasia and other soul destroying practices, that assert man’s right to choose life or death for another … and only the force of the Church’s God given authority can halt it, the Church has to speak up for the innate dignity of man lest the good, albeit ignorant and weak, are swept up in the belief of man’s right over life. These statements are prudential in this sense. The Church sees the devastating lack of respect that society has for man’s dignity and knows that the practice of the death penalty is only used by this society to justify their warped belief even more turning a tool of justice into a tool of cruelty and inhumanity.

The “dichotomy” isn’t false because it exhausts all possible assumptions. Go back and read what I wrote. If the Church’s stance that the death penalty is evil today is doctrine, then we have to ask whether it’s evil only today or whether it’s always been evil. If both options are false that only means the conditional statement “If the Church’s stance that the death penalty is evil today is doctrine” is false. It means the alternative, that the Church’s stance is not doctrine but prudential opinion (i.e., not “the death penalty is morally evil” but “the death penalty is currently a bad idea”), is true. If it is not doctrine then there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion re: it.

But why do you keep stating “If the Church’s stance that the death penalty is evil today** is doctrine**…etc”? These are all movements happening within the doctrine. The death penalty isn’t the sum total and core of the doctrine. It’s the dignity of man and mans need to shed blood in atonement for great sin to illuminate within him the degree of his worth.

Wait, so your position is that the Crucifixion literally abolished the Noachide covenant in toto and that no one noticed this until about 20 years ago? So when you say “we are permitted to use the death penalty now,” by “now,” you don’t mean “post-1960s,” you mean “post-Resurrection”?

If so, then is it your opinion that the Church taught error for the preceding 20 or so centuries when it insisted that the execution of the wicked was morally nonnegotiable?

Again, the shedding of blood for the atonement of mans bloodlust crimes is morally nonnegotiable but having read reams of documents from the Fathers and Church, I don’t see anywhere where it says that the death penalty is morally nonnegotiable. What was the point of Christ’s sacrifice if some part of the Noahide covenant was not relieved by it?

… continued

 

[LongingSoul]

Since my “rigid position” just is actual doctrine, I have to ask what yours is. You seem to be trying to fit the square peg of prudence into the round hole of moral teaching and, finding the task nearly impossible, lubricating both with the grease of gibberish.

My position is that in keeping with the guidance of the pilgrim Church on earth, the death penalty has been rendered cruel and inhumane by the depravity of society. Even as the reception of Christs body and blood through Eucharist is rendered immoral by the immoral state of the receiver. To reject communion when not in the state of grace does not make communion immoral, just as rejecting the death penalty doesn’t make the death penalty immoral, but the lack of respect for its true meaning that engaging in both regardless of worthiness promotes, can certainly condemn and scandalise a great number by it.

 

[LongingSoul]

The passage in St. Matthew 13 has reference to the wheat and the tears (the good and bad) and does not, dear sister, have any relevance as regards to the infliction of the death penalty for those found guilty of wilful murder. The parable in St. Matthew. a parable of the Kingdom, is about the good being mingled with the bad in the Visible Church of Christ (not in the world) and that because it is often difficult to distinguish between the two our Lord forbids us trying to separate them prematurely before the final Judgment - “Let them both grow together until the harvest”. This does not address the issue of those found guilty of murder and who must therefore be put to death by the civil authority (Rom. 13: 4) in accordance with the perpetually valid divine mandate (Gen. 9: 6).

There is, dear friend, no danger to the good when capital punishment is administered to those found guilty of murder, for they are the ‘bad’.

I think you are confining yourself to the literal meaning of Matthews passage but Aquinas doesn’t say that the passage is irrelevant to the issue of the killing of sinners.

"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 that 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 latter may be lawfully put to death. "

 

[Portrait]

I think you are confining yourself to the literal meaning of Matthews passage but Aquinas doesn’t say that the passage is irrelevant to the issue of the killing of sinners.

"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 that 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 latter may be lawfully put to death. "

Dear LongingSoul,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your response.

You are I think, dear friend, misunderstanding what St. Thomas is actually saying here. Whilst he is certainly discussing the killing of sinners he is not addressing the issue of the death penalty imposed by lawful authority as a just retribution for wilful murder. This he does in the next section and does not, I may add, raise any objection to it. He is saying, unless I have completely misunderstood his meaning, that a sinner should not be killed “when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them…” and in this case it is better to leave any retribution to God at the Last Judgment. To that extent I fully accept St. Thomas’s practical application of the parable in St. Matthew, as it is a perfectly legitimate way of bringing our Lord’s teaching into service. However, it is quite another thing to employ it as an argument against the death penalty for murder, which is just plainly wrong because it is making it serve a polemical purpose and one that it does not even treat.

Moreover, as I have remarked previously, dear friend, there is no risk of the ‘good’ being slain in the case of those who have been found guilty of murder by the magistrate, who “beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13: 4, added emphasis mine), for they are without question the ‘bad’. Indeed, St. Thomas himself clearly states that when the good “incur no danger” then the wicked “may be lawfully put to death”. Those found guilty of the heinous crime of murder, the wicked, may, therefore, be lawfully executed by the civil authority who acts as “minister of God”. Indeed, in the very next section, Article 3, St. Thomas recognizes that “public authority” (not the individual private citizen) can “lawfully put evildoers to death”, this is because he understood that the state, as “minister of God”, has been entrusted with right and duty to execute wilful murderers in accordance with the divine mandate (Gen. 9: 6). It should also be remembered that the civil authority in executing a murderer does not act out of revenge but is doing a licit act for the common good, as well as redressing a disturbed moral balance. It’s fulfilment of duty (Rom. 13: 4), far from being cruel, unnecessary or dehumanizing, is actually meritorious, which is what one would expect from a punishment that was mandated by God Himself (Gen. 9: 6). Motive makes morality, as the old adage goes.

Therefore, dear friend, you are quite right in stating that the parable in St. Matthew can be applied to the killing of sinners where it involves an obvious risk to the lives of the good, but wrong in making the passage serve as an argument against the death penalty for wilful murderers, found guilty by the civil authority, who are inherently worthy of such retributive justice.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ender]

These are the sorts of arguments I was referring to earlier when I pointed to the problems of supporting the new position on capital punishment other than by noting “The pope said so”.

We are permitted to use the death penalty now for the purpose of justice “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

It is certainly true that (retributive) justice is the primary objective of punishment but justice has nothing whatever to do with protection; they are two completely separate objectives. In fact it has always been the obligation of justice that not only permitted but mandated the death penalty for murderers. What is new is that - for capital punishment alone - justice has been separated from punishment.

Being relieved of the dire responsibility of killing for atonement, we now honour Gods requirement for a reckoning by bloodshed by receiving the body and blood of Jesus at the memorial of His death every Sunday (or everyday where many are so moved).

Has this responsibility been removed only since 1995? Again, this argument has nothing to do with the putative reason for objecting to the use of capital punishment, so if this argument is true it is not because of something that recently occurred. Atonement has nothing to do with protection. If there is a responsibility for atonement it surely cannot be based on the effectiveness of prison systems since the objective is atoning for past sins, not preventing new ones so this cannot be the reason for the change.

I’ve had no issue whatsoever with the position of the last two popes and the whole of the CCC section on capital punishment under legitimate defense.

Capital punishment cannot be properly addressed under the concept of legitimate defense and there is no history in the church of its being done so. We are justly allowed to kill in self defense but not if that is our intent. Our objective cannot be the death of the aggressor. In an execution, however, it is precisely the death of the criminal that is desired, therefore capital punishment fails the test for killing in self defense. This is not all that surprising as the church has always listed executions as an exception to the mandate against killing separate from killing in self defense.

Ender