Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[humilityseeker]

Was the death penalty always an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person and contrary to the gospel, even 500 years ago or is it only today?

I don’t know. That would have to be researched through the Church documents. This document does say there is increasing awareness, so perhaps there was not the awareness previously, doctrine does not change, the difference being more light and awareness is shed on doctrine down through the ages.

OK. So the teaching on artificial birth control could be wrong because the teaching was not ex cathedra?

Humanae vitae July 1968 Pope Paul VI , taught against contraception because as part of the Sacrament of Marriage, a couple is to be open to life, to procreation. One reason is the couple living out their vocation in cooperation with the Creator in the increase of His Christian family

Humanae Vitae: Sex and authority in the Catholic Church

Fifty years ago, Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical that shook the Catholic Church to its core by declaring that every use of artificial contraceptives is immoral.

www.ncronline.org

(I hope you dont mind me responding, I am getting in practice on using this forum.)

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

And of course Pope JPII made no bones about where the course of the Church was going.

Where the church was going? The church can predict what will be moral in the future but not what is moral at the moment?

That is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Pope Paul VI predicted that the normalization of contraception would lead to the normalization of abortion. There are clear trajectories when man’s base nature loses touch with the ‘common good’.

Ender regularly claims that the death penalty can never be unjust. It would merely be unwise.

So when I read statements like this from you…

"I am very skeptical of claims that something is a moral issue. I can agree that if something is a problem we have a moral obligation to address it, but that’s it. There is rarely any moral component in determining what ought to be done. Specific solutions are normally neither moral nor immoral. They can be workable or unworkable, helpful or harmful, wise or foolish, just not good or evil.

You can (conceivably) make the argument that capital punishment is unwise, but there is no argument that its use is immoral." #53

Aren’t you saying just what I stated?

 

[AlNg]

Understanding their comments to be prudential, however, eliminates all those problems.

So it is prudential as to whether or not the death penalty is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person and contrary to the gospel ? Maybe yes, maybe no? So it is OK to vote for the death penalty and it is OK to pull the switch, even though the Pope says we are not supposed to support the death penalty?

 

[humilityseeker]

Well, that’s the problem with assuming those were doctrinal statements: you would have the situation where one pope can simply repudiate what another one says, which would also suggest that morality is nothing more than what a pope claims at the moment.

Understanding their comments to be prudential, however, eliminates all those problems.

Firstly we must understand what doctrinal statements, encyclicals and Apostolic Letters are and mean to the faithful. A Pope can change , and has done so, Canon Law in an Apostolic letter.

 

[Ender]

That is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Pope Paul VI predicted that the normalization of contraception would lead to the normalization of abortion. There are clear trajectories when man’s base nature loses touch with the ‘common good’.

Paul was in no doubt about the morality of contraception or abortion. That’s not the same as suggesting JPII didn’t know CP was immoral, but somehow “the church” could see this development coming.

So when I read statements like this from you…
You can (conceivably) make the argument that capital punishment is unwise, but there is no argument that its use is immoral." [#53]
Aren’t you saying just what I stated?

That’s actually a claim that capital punishment is not per se immoral, not that it cannot be used immorally.

 

[Ender]

So it is prudential as to whether or not the death penalty is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person and contrary to the gospel?

Support for capital punishment is Scriptural, and it is difficult to believe we are meant to accept that Scripture and Gospel contradict one another.

So it is OK to vote for the death penalty and it is OK to pull the switch, even though the Pope says we are not supposed to support the death penalty?

If his words are prudential, then yes.

Firstly we must understand what doctrinal statements, encyclicals and Apostolic Letters are and mean to the faithful

True, and this would include all the doctrinal statements, encyclicals and Apostolic Letters, as well as all the catechisms and councils that preceded Vatican II. You cannot ascribe significance to the new ones and dismiss it for all those which preceded them, and that’s going to pose a problem, because how do you resolve the issue if they are interpreted to contradict one another?

A Pope can change…

…but morality cannot.

 

[Motherwit]

You can (conceivably) make the argument that capital punishment is unwise, but there is no argument that its use is immoral." [#53]

Help me understand what you are claiming.

"I am very skeptical of claims that something is a moral issue. I can agree that if something is a problem we have a moral obligation to address it, but that’s it. There is rarely any moral component in determining what ought to be done. Specific solutions are normally neither moral nor immoral. They can be workable or unworkable, helpful or harmful, wise or foolish, just not good or evil.

You can (conceivably) make the argument that capital punishment is unwise, but there is no argument that its use is immoral."

If there is a moral obligation to address a problem, there must logically be an ability to see an injustice or immorality occurring. Why does that ability suddenly disappear in the process of making judgments about the correction? Is there an objective standard of moral conduct or isn’t there?

 

[Ender]

If there is a moral obligation to address a problem, there must logically be an ability to see an injustice or immorality occurring.

I don’t think so. That someone is poor doesn’t mean that someone else treated him unjustly. What it means is that we have an obligation to help others, and if my neighbor can’t get his car started it means I should help him. There is no question of injustice or immorality involved - except in deciding to help. Once that decision is made there is no further moral question involved except for that small handful of issues that actually deal with questions that are themselves about intrinsic evils.

Why does that ability suddenly disappear in the process of making judgments about the correction?

Making judgments about fixing (e.g.) immigration problems is no more a moral concern than finding out why my neighbor’s car won’t start. It is obviously more complex and more significant, but it is not any more of a moral problem. They both face us with practical questions, not moral ones.

Is there an objective standard of moral conduct or isn’t there?

There are absolute, objective moral standards and doctrines, but there is no absolute fixed way to apply those standards in different situations. The doctrines involve truth, but the applications involve judgment.

 

[humilityseeker]

True, and this would include all the doctrinal statements, encyclicals and Apostolic Letters, as well as all the catechisms and councils that preceded Vatican II. You cannot ascribe significance to the new ones and dismiss it for all those which preceded them, and that’s going to pose a problem, because how do you resolve the issue if they are interpreted to contradict one another?

A Catechism is a piece of teaching work. It is built up from all the other things you list.
We let the Church do that. We have councils and commissions and all those official offices to resolve the issues of our ongoing understanding of Doctrine and Dogma, as life goes on down through the years. It took some 300 years (381AD, Council of Constantinople) to really understand and define and declare Jesus and His works and life and what His Passion and Resurrection was all about. This continued to be defined , declared and confessed through the centuries. Many Clergy and Church Fathers worked on the big issues. Look at Marriage, between the Council of Trent and Vatican II, the Sacrament of Marriage was seen on a lower rung then other Sacraments, due to the sex part. Vatican II put it back on an equal footing and expanded this Sacrament and what it means to be Sacramentally married and what the vocation to marriage means. Tertullian started defining it in the 3rd Century in Ad uxorem . Even today we cannot move, add or change anything from a Liturgy, not even the Priest can do so, it has to be a decision and directive from the Apostolic See/Bishops Conferences.

…but morality cannot.

The Pope has the keys to bind and loosen. The Pope can change Canon Law. He cannot change doctrine but he can add to its understanding and expand its understanding. This is done usually after a lot of consultation and collaboration with different Vatican bodies. When you read a document put out by a Pope, it wont be his own work. It will be a collaborative work.

 

[Rau]

The Pope has the keys to bind and loosen. The Pope can change Canon Law. He cannot change doctrine but he can add to its understanding and expand its understanding.

I’ve not seen binding and loosening understood to mean “whatever the Pope says today God stands by today”. Has it not been interpreted to mean the Church is guided to avoid error (in appropriate circumstances)?

I don’t know why you mention Canon Law. It’s entirely irrelevant in this discussion is it not?

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

If there is a moral obligation to address a problem, there must logically be an ability to see an injustice or immorality occurring.

I don’t think so. That someone is poor doesn’t mean that someone else treated him unjustly. What it means is that we have an obligation to help others, and if my neighbor can’t get his car started it means I should help him. There is no question of injustice or immorality involved - except in deciding to help. Once that decision is made there is no further moral question involved except for that small handful of issues that actually deal with questions that are themselves about intrinsic evils.

Who decides what is intrinsically evil and what is just unwise? As far as Catholicism has formed me, it is the Church who is the moral guide. Why would I not trust that in her judgment of intrinsic evil and extrinsic evil? It seems like you are cherry picking from Church teaching to serve another ideology that rejects the Church as a moral teacher?

Why does that ability suddenly disappear in the process of making judgments about the correction?

That’s the antithesis of what we know about sin. If a stranger comes to us in need there is an inbuilt capacity to know an evil response from a good response. The good response is one that assists them in their practical need. The evil response is to say go away I’m not responsible for your problem.

Is there an objective standard of moral conduct or isn’t there?

The bottom line of the Christian response is to “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” That directs a moral response. (Outside of sociopaths who just can’t feel for others), most Christians and other good people would want to be treated fairly and mercifully.

 

[Rau]

Who decides what is intrinsically evil and what is just unwise?

Intrinsic evils conflict with the negative precepts. The church has never concluded that of CP.

The bottom line of the Christian response is to “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” That directs a moral response. (Outside of sociopaths who just can’t feel for others), most Christians and other good people would want to be treated fairly and mercifully.

But the positive precepts - such as to love neighbour - are not definitive. They provide a direction but don’t prescribe the extent.

 

[Rau]

Making judgments about fixing (e.g.) immigration problems is no more a moral concern than…

I understand why you say that Ender. And there is the objective sense in which that’s right.

But at least at the personal level, there is a bit more to the moral assessment. The manner in which refugee challenges are addressed (example) ought to be analysed with the right intention and with an honest (albeit personal) judgement about the balance of good and bad consequences flowing from the policy options. How often do we see politicians choose a course overly influenced by what looks to be popular today? Politicians (not meaning to pick on them) can and do act improperly - and this can be called an immoral (personal) act. Of course, another politician might genuinely choose the same course because he’s honestly judged it to be the right course - and we can say his act is (at a personal level) - moral.

 

[Ender]

The Pope has the keys to bind and loosen.

Yes, but as you say, this does not extend to creating new doctrine. His word does not determine right and wrong.

He cannot change doctrine but he can add to its understanding and expand its understanding.

Again, this is true, but if we agree that he cannot change doctrine this would mean that he cannot unilaterally change the doctrine on capital punishment so that what was heretical to believe before becomes an obligation to believe now.

Who decides what is intrinsically evil and what is just unwise?

The church does this. Abortion is on that list, capital punishment is not.

Why would I not trust that in her judgment of intrinsic evil and extrinsic evil?

“Extrinsic evil” is a term you have introduced; it is not one the church employs, and its meaning is undefined here. If by it you mean something that has harmful consequences then the term is misleading inasmuch as the consequences do not reverse the moral nature of an act.

It seems like you are cherry picking from Church teaching to serve another ideology that rejects the Church as a moral teacher?

Either you can refute my arguments or you can’t, and if we’re down to name calling then it’s probably the latter.

That’s the antithesis of what we know about sin. If a stranger comes to us in need there is an inbuilt capacity to know an evil response from a good response. The good response is one that assists them in their practical need. The evil response is to say go away I’m not responsible for your problem.

I am truly baffled: that is exactly what I said.

There is no question of injustice or immorality involved - except in deciding to help. Once that decision is made there is no further moral question involved…

 

[Ender]

The manner in which refugee challenges are addressed (example) ought to be analysed with the right intention and with an honest (albeit personal) judgement about the balance of good and bad consequences flowing from the policy options.

Absolutely true, and this is exactly why calling political issues moral issues is so harmful: it encourages us to challenge the intentions of our opponents, which is something we are absolutely forbidden to do.

How often do we see politicians choose a course overly influenced by what looks to be popular today?

This is called a rash judgment; it is uncharitable, and it is forbidden.

Politicians (not meaning to pick on them) can and do act improperly - and this can be called an immoral (personal) act.

It is only an immoral act if the intention is immoral, and that is something we may not judge, so no: we cannot call politicians immoral based on our judgment of their motivations.

Of course, another politician might genuinely choose the same course because he’s honestly judged it to be the right course - and we can say his act is (at a personal level) - moral.

Charity obliges us to assume the best of others in all cases (absent clear indications to the contrary), so we cannot say this politician acts morally while that one acts immorally. We cannot make those judgments.

 

[Rau]

It is only an immoral act if the intention is immoral, and that is something we may not judge, so no: we cannot call politicians immoral based on our judgment of their motivations.

Choosing an act which one believes does more harm than good is to act immorally. The person acting sins. Of course, another person might do the same thing, but believing the act to do more good than harm - and he acts morally.

We are not talking about the charitableness of making such a charge against another. And you’re correct that the minds of others can’t be read. (But some folks do give hints…)

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

Who decides what is intrinsically evil and what is just unwise?

The church does this. Abortion is on that list, capital punishment is not.

If the Church is wrong about the inadmissibility of the dp today, she can be wrong about abortion being intrinsically evil. If you can’t trust the Church in one area there’s no point in trusting her in another.

 

[Motherwit]

Politicians (not meaning to pick on them) can and do act improperly - and this can be called an immoral (personal) act.

So Just War theory is pretty irrelevant? It can’t be discerned objectively and is only relative to a governments opinion of what is just or unjust?

 

[Motherwit]

You are getting this backwards. If the church is right about the inadmissibility today then that means that it was wrong before. If it was wrong before then it could be wrong about anything. This is the issue we are having with it.

[/quote]

The Church has explained the current inadmissibility as due to the current culture of death coupled with the States ability to safeguard the community from dangerous people. So we know by that that the death penalty was never a commandment. It was a permission to serve the common good of a community.

Encyclicals are encyclicals. They all came from Popes. If Pope Francis’ encyclicals are just one mans judgment, then all of them are.

And the Church has also taught that the dp is forbidden when it does more harm than good.

"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)." - Summa Theologica II II 64.2

 

[humilityseeker]

Yes, but as you say, this does not extend to creating new doctrine. His word does not determine right and wrong.

Could you please point to the new doctrine Pope Francis has created so we can be on the same page (as they say) in discussing it.