Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[Rau]

Today, the Church is doing the same thing. Addressing an ideology that interferes with the civil authorities duty to the common good. That is the ideology that the dp is not accountable to the common good first and foremost. The Church is affirming the societies right to abolish the dp.

I’ve no objection to that view. But I note many are unclear what the new formulation says and how it is to be understood alongside what came before.

 

[Motherwit]

This is the dilemma. If “illegitimate” means intrinsically evil it is a repudiation of the church and all she claims. If it means “prudentially believed harmful” then it is unambiguously an opinion, does not oblige our assent, and creates no problems with church doctrine, let alone unresolvable ones.

My concerns are with those who refuse to unambiguously take one position or the other. There are only two possibilities: the death penalty is intrinsically evil or it isn’t. I have little patience for arguments where that choice is deliberately ignored.

Even if you need to define the Popes teaching as a ‘prudential judgment’, a prudential judgment is not an arbitrary decision. It implies a reasoned conclusion based on objective moral principles that safeguard the common good (natural law), with the additional force of the magisteriums authority. A conclusion that all society is capable of sharing. It carries much more authority than a mere opinion.

 

[Rau]

Even if you need to define the Popes teaching as a ‘prudential judgment’, a prudential judgment is not an arbitrary decision. It implies a reasoned conclusion based on objective moral principles that safeguard the common good (natural law), with the additional force of the magisteriums authority. A conclusion that all society is capable of sharing. It carries much more authority than a mere opinion.

It’s not a “choice” to define it as a prudential judgement, it would seem that it cannot be anything but that for the reasons expounded at length.

Good earnest people may come to differing conclusions (judgements), and it can be that in following a course that the other believes is immoral (Eg. In light of the harm vs good done analysis) neither sins. The Pope’s judgements deserve very special regard for sure.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s not a “choice” to define it as a prudential judgement, it would seem that it cannot be anything but that for the reasons expounded at length.

The novelty in St. JP II’s teaching is that one must now make that prudential judgment as to the circumstance of penal technology. If one judges the technology adequate to protect society then CP is evil. Further, if one judges the technology adequate but not affordable then, I think, CP is still evil.

Along with others, I await further clarification on Pope Francis’ teaching.

 

[Rau]

Along with others, I await further clarification on Pope Francis’ teaching.

One may not get it.

Do you recall the remarks several years ago about Zika virus and contraception? I struggled to understand those and as far as I know, there has not been clarification. Of course, those remarks did not find their way into the CCC.

 

[Ender]

Even if you need to define the Popes teaching as a ‘prudential judgment’, a prudential judgment is not an arbitrary decision…It carries much more authority than a mere opinion.

This is a bit like the question of whether capital punishment is intrinsically evil or not, only the question here is whether this judgment obliges our assent or not. Since it is a judgment the answer is no, we are not required to accept it.

That said, it does not mean we may simply ignore or dismiss it. It must be carefully considered:

They are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord. (Cardinal Dulles)

To disagree with is not to disregard. Arguments are made and considered, and ultimately accepted or rejected based on one’s understanding of the reasonableness of the position. Of more significance, however, is this: what the disagreement is about is not just agreeing or disagreeing with the pope, but agreeing or disagreeing with interpretations of what his words mean…words the bishops found ambiguous.

 

[Raxus]

No, we in America (and some other countries) are able to incarcerate with fairly high certainty that the prisoner will not escape, but that isn’t true in many other places. For example, look at the drug lord in Mexico who escaped from their most secure facility.

That sounds like a problem with the country’s leadership and use of resources, not with abolition of the death penalty.

 

[MikeInVA]

The issue is that morals are not relative, but with the death penalty the need for CP is actually dependent on the ability of the state to adequately incarcerate criminals to protect the general population.

 

[Raxus]

The issue is that morals are not relative, but with the death penalty the need for CP is actually dependent on the ability of the state to adequately incarcerate criminals to protect the general population.

So the answer is for others with more resources to provide allied states with those resources, not to just shrug and say “Eh, looks like we need to keep electrocuting / beheading / poisoning / hanging people to death…”

 

[Ender]

The issue is that morals are not relative, but with the death penalty the need for CP is actually dependent on the ability of the state to adequately incarcerate criminals to protect the general population.

Morals surely are not relative, but the death penalty is not justified by whether or not the State has an adequate prison system. All punishment is justified by whether or not it is just, not by whether it protects, and the justness of a punishment depends on whether it is of a severity commensurate with the crime.

Just as morality does not change, neither can the severity of the crime of (at least) murder, so if the death penalty was a commensurate (just) punishment before it is equally commensurate now.

 

[Rau]

Just as morality does not change, neither can the severity of the crime of (at least) murder, so if the death penalty was a commensurate (just) punishment before it is equally commensurate now.

Who says that it is the only commensurate punishment? Assuming it’s not, we have a choice.

 

[graciew]

They can’t . We can’t. It’s wrong.

“But as Jesus showed again and again by his words and in his actions, the only true road to justice passes through mercy. Justice cannot be served by more violence. In the world of 2005, capital punishment has become just another narcotic we Americans use to ease other, much deeper anxieties about the direction of our culture. Executions may take away some of the symptoms for a time (living, human “symptoms” who have names and their own stories before God), but the underlying illness — today’s contempt for human life — remains and grows worse.”

The death penalty, again

More than half of surveyed Americans now support the death penalty for murder and similar crimes, writes Archbishop Charles Chaput. But morality exists regardless of popular opinion, and killing persons in the name of justice is needless and wrong.

catholicphilly.com

 

[Ender]

Who says that it is the only commensurate punishment? Assuming it’s not, we have a choice.

That was not my point. I was addressing the error that protection determines what punishment is appropriate. As I have said before, however, if death is a just penalty what moral objection can there be to its use?

They can’t . We can’t. It’s wrong.

They can. We can. It’s not wrong, or the church wouldn’t have sanctioned it for 2000 years. It cannot have been right and then suddenly become wrong; morality doesn’t work like that. I have enormous respect and admiration for Archbishop Chaput, but I disagree with him here.

 

[Rau]

As I have said before, however, if death is a just penalty what moral objection can there be to its use?

While a punishment should be just, that is not sufficient to authorize the punishment Ender. Were you to conclude that the DP did more harm than good, I believe you would not pursue it notwithstanding holding the view it is just.

 

[Ender]

While a punishment should be just, that is not sufficient to authorize the punishment Ender. Were you to conclude that the DP did more harm than good, I believe you would not pursue it notwithstanding holding the view it is just.

There are two criteria that determine whether a punishment is just: (1) it must be of a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime (CCC 2266), and (2) it must not do more harm than good.

The death penalty clearly satisfies the first criterion or the church could never have considered it just. This is a doctrinal position. The second criterion is a prudential judgment that is the right of those who have responsibility for the common good to make.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

HIJACKING TO ASK A QUESTION RELATED TO THE DEATH PENALTY

This CCC change is just prudential and can be freely disagreed with if you can argue against it right? No one actually has to believe this and the world goes on as if this had not happened? I do not want to make a new thread for this sorry

 

[Rau]

There are two criteria that determine whether a punishment is just: (1) it must be of a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime (CCC 2266), and (2) it must not do more harm than good.

I didn’t realize (2) fell into the definition of justness. We must thus conclude that its Justness is to be judged and may vary with the times.

 

[Rau]

Read this thread.

 

[TMC]

This CCC change is just prudential and can be freely disagreed with if you can argue against it right? No one actually has to believe this and the world goes on as if this had not happened? I do not want to make a new thread for this sorry

No. Read this thread, or any of the several other threads on the topic.

 

[goout]

if death is a just penalty what moral objection can there be to its use?

Do the moral evaluation.
Can you identify the good object, the circumstances, and the intent?

This really is not a difficult thing.