Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[o_mlly]

What moral argument? I think this is your perception of what was said.

I think not; see below. Nothing was said; it was clearly written in Evangelium Vitae.

And Cardinal Ratzinger told us JP II’s position was a prudential judgement that Catholics need not necessarily concur with.

The prudential option only applies to the determination of the penal technology’s capability to constrain the prisoner.

Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent (EV p56).

What is not prudential is the requirement to evaluate that circumstance:

If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means (Ibid).

 

[Ender]

This is the very essence of the Americanist heresy. ‘Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae’

This is an assertion without any substance at all, starting with the facts that (a) no one has challenge the infallibility of the pope (when he teaches infallibly), and (b) absolutely no one has suggested that 2267 in all its variations is infallibly taught.

That came as a side note in a letter regarding the conditions for receiving Holy Communion in 2004. 16 years later there’s likely much more to consider since the Church has deemed it ‘inadmissible’.

If you’re going to appeal to Francis’ change then you have to abandon JPII’s change; they cannot coexist. If capital punishment is inadmissible then JPII’s concern with the state of a nation’s penal system is irrelevant; his position is no longer meaningful. Which pope have you chosen to believe?

What is not prudential is the requirement to evaluate that circumstance:

That “circumstance” (a State’s penal system) has been made irrelevant by Francis’ claim that capital punishment is now inadmissible. It doesn’t matter how bad a country’s jails are, or how dangerous the criminal, he cannot be executed.

If JPII’s comments were doctrine, and if Francis’ comments are new doctrine, then we’ve had at least two major doctrinal changes in the last 25 years to a doctrine that was previously unchanged for two millennia. That puts all the church’s doctrines on pretty shaky ground if they are that flexible.

 

[o_mlly]

That “circumstance” (a State’s penal system) has been made irrelevant by Francis’ claim that capital punishment is now inadmissible. It doesn’t matter how bad a country’s jails are, or how dangerous the criminal, he cannot be executed.

Please be consistent in your arguments. A development in teaching does not vacate prior teachings. Surely you believe so as one who quotes often from the Roman Catechism, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

 

[o_mlly]

The prior teachings never taught that CP is good. The state has always had a conditional right to its use, not an absolute right. The times have changed so circumstances have changed.

I have already agreed that Pope Francis’ revision is ambiguous. Stay tuned. The Spirit is at work, of that I am sure.

 

[Ender]

Please be consistent in your arguments. A development in teaching does not vacate prior teachings. Surely you believe so as one who quotes often from the Roman Catechism, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

This is true of a development, but in this case Francis’ teaching repudiates not just everyone prior to JPII, but JPII as well. So in what sense can it be called development? Capital punishment cannot be both admissible and inadmissible, but it was the former under JPII, and is now the latter under Francis. How do you resolve that?

The prior teachings never taught that CP is good.

Sure they did…

…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; (Aquinas ST I-II 19,10)

 

[o_mlly]

Capital punishment cannot be both admissible and inadmissible, but it was the former under JPII, and is now the latter under Francis. How do you resolve that?

Circumstantially, yes – CP can be admissible and inadmissable.

And I don’t pretend to have a resolution. Minds greater than mine are at work, though.

o_mlly:

The prior teachings never taught that CP is good.

Sure they did…

…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; (Aquinas ST I-II 19,10)

No. You read into Aquinas what is not there. Care for the common good and the common estate are good; not the thief’s death.

And your sources for such a claim are?

 

[o_mlly]

Nothing up there. Do you have anything to back your claim up?

 

[Ender]

Circumstantially, yes – CP can be admissible and inadmissable.

OK, but that means this is a prudential judgment, not a doctrinal development, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

You read into Aquinas what is not there. Care for the common good and the common estate are good; not the thief’s death.

Which is exactly what the quote says: " the aspect of good in relation to the common estate, and since the common good is more important that the good of the individual the “thief’s death” is, overall, good.

“Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil.” (Aquinas ST I, 19 - 6,1)

 

[o_mlly]

Really. That’s your goto source – tcreek.jimdofree.com? When was jim the pope?

None of the citations from the popes teach that “death is good”.

Read the entire citation. Aquinas explains the difference and priority of willing the particular to the general. The judge does well when he wills as God wills: “whatever He [God] wills, He wills it under the aspect of the common [good](CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Good)”

 

[o_mlly]

“Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good ; that he live is an evil.” (Aquinas ST I, 19 - 6,1)

Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will.

Aquinas “willingness” is akin to “tolerates” as has already been reviewed.

 

[Ender]

Aquinas “willingness” is akin to “tolerates” as has already been reviewed.

Thus your imaginative interpretation of Aquinas in one place serves to cancel out the simple and exact meaning in another: “to kill him is a good.” Both (of his) points are valid: in one sense it is never good to kill: “Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil.” But there is a second and overriding sense where the opposite is true: “if…a man is a murderer…to kill him is a good”.

“Now a thing may be considered in various ways by the reason, so as to appear good from one point of view, and not good from another point of view.” (Ibid I-II 19)

You have focused solely on good in the first sense, and simply ignored the second - and greater - condition. The good is not merely tolerated; it is to be desired.

“Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual.” (Ibid II-II 25, 6 ad 2)

All punishment is evil in the sense that it takes away a good, but you cannot focus solely on that to argue that punishment is not in fact a good in the greater sense. If your argument was valid it would mean that all punishment was merely tolerated, not just capital punishment, but punishment is an act required by justice which is one of the cardinal virtues. Since justice is a great good, those things which attain to justice are equally good, therefore all just acts are good - including executions.

“Now evil is privation of good. And since man’s good is manifold, viz. good of the soul, good of the body, and external goods, it happens sometimes that man suffers the loss of a lesser good, that he may profit in a greater good…” (Ibid I-II 87,7)

 

[o_mlly]

Thus your imaginative interpretation of Aquinas …

Rather your strained interpretation of Aquinas would purport an “Evangelium Mortem” (Gospel of Death).

The opposite of physical life is physical death. That which affirms the goodness of life simultaneously affirms the evil of death. From "Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life):

Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.

God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide

See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. … I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live

Life is always a good. This is an instinctive perception and a fact of experience, and man is called to grasp the profound reason why this is so.

the disobedience of Adam had ruined and marred God’s plan for human life and introduced death into the world

God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things that they might exist

Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty.

But the overall message, which the New Testament will bring to perfection, is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person.

(Continued)

 

[o_mlly]

By his words and actions Jesus further unveils the positive requirements of the commandment regarding the inviolability of life.

Thus the deepest element of God’s commandment to protect human life is the requirement to show reverence and love for every person and the life of every person.

Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves ?the creative action of God’, and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being".41 With these words the Instruction Donum Vitae sets forth the central content of God’s revelation on the sacredness and inviolability of human life.
*> *
> God thus shows that he does not delight in the death of the living (cf. Wis 1:13). Only Satan can delight therein: for through his envy death entered the world (cf. Wis 2:24). He who is “a murderer from the beginning”, is also “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44). By deceiving man he leads him to projects of sin and death, making them appear as goals and fruits of life.

This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life!

Further, Aquinas’ teachings do not rise to the level of Magisterial unless cited in a magisterial document.

 

[o_mlly]

Sorry, friend. Those words just are not there.

 

[o_mlly]

None of your citations even have the word “death” in them.

Moreover, none teach that death is a good event. Read DV and EV.

 

[Rau]

The prior teachings never taught that CP is good.

The moral object was not taught to be good?

 

[o_mlly]

The moral object was not taught to be good?

I know of no Magisterial document that teaches so.

Circumstances which change the species of the act must be elevated and incorporated into the object. If the identity or guilt are not fully determined or if bloodless means are available to protect society then the moral object is evil.

 

[Rau]

If the identity or guilt are not fully determined or if bloodless means are available to protect society then the moral object is evil.

But otherwise, it is…good?

 

[o_mlly]

But otherwise, it is…good?

I would say the death of the prisoner is the tolerated evil effect. The protection of society is the good effect and the act is moral as are other acts of self-defense.

 

[Motherwit]

It’s the quotes, and yes, they do teach the death penalty is good.
[/quote]

Which I guess accounts for the cheering, celebrations, salivations, bbqing parties outside prison. Teared seating on a viewing platform. We killed a man. Woohoo. We are so good.