Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[o_mlly]

What of the update Francis made? If capital punishment is now “inadmissible” then what does it matter whether society cannot be protected? Francis did not include any caveat that makes it admissible depending on circumstances. Why do you refer to JPII’s comments when they have been superseded by Francis?

The Tradition of the Church can be developed but not superseded in the legal sense of repealing or replacing what has come before. ST. JPII’s teaching has at least as much authority as Pope Francis’, and, perhaps more.

St. JPII used the Encyclical mode and Francis introduced his teaching as an “Apostolic Letter”. Encyclicals “counsel and shed light on existing doctrine as part of the Holy Father’s ordinary teaching authority”. Apostolic Letters “are not considered legislative or doctrinal documents but to give counsel in light of particular circumstances”.

Circumstances can be such that they change the very species of the human act.

It’s a one-way street. “Circumstances … can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” An evil circumstance can, however, make an act good in its object and intent to be an evil act.

 

[Rau]

To be inadmissible based on it being “evil in its circumstance” implies that circumstances all over the earth are such that no circumstances exist anywhere that could possibly justify its use.

The statement can’t be read as definitive. For “inadmissible”, I mentally substitute “unthinkable”.

 

[Ender]

The Tradition of the Church can be developed but not superseded in the legal sense of repealing or replacing what has come before. ST. JPII’s teaching has at least as much authority as Pope Francis’, and, perhaps more.

This makes no sense. Are we to judge what source is the most authoritative in deciding which of two competing teachings is valid? The first obvious problem is that this sets up a conflict within the church: how can the church have two teachings that contradict one another? The second problem is that JPII’s teaching is different than that of every pope, council, and catechism that preceded him as none of them included his caveat that protection was a requirement.

St. JPII used the Encyclical mode and Francis introduced his teaching as an “Apostolic Letter”.

So what are we to do with Francis’ change? Ignore it?

It’s a one-way street. “Circumstances … can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” An evil circumstance can, however, make an act good in its object and intent to be an evil act.

I have always been disappointed with the way that passage was written, but your interpretation of the second half of that sentence would completely nullify what was just said in the first half. It also ignores the first sentence in that section: “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act.”

The passage says that circumstances can’t make make an intrinsically evil act acceptable. It is simply silent on the reverse possibility, probably because there are no such things as “evil circumstances” or intrinsically good objects.

 

[Rau]

It’s a one-way street. “Circumstances … can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” An evil circumstance can, however, make an act good in its object and intent to be an evil act.

This is Correct.

 

[Motherwit]

The passage says that circumstances can’t make make an intrinsically evil act acceptable. It is simply silent on the reverse possibility, probably because there are no such things as “evil circumstances” or intrinsically good objects.

If the death penalty is not an ‘intrinsically good act’ then it’s subject to moral misuse like every other act is it not?

 

[Ender]

If the death penalty is not an ‘intrinsically good act’ then it’s subject to moral misuse like every other act is it not?

Of course. Given that an evil intent can make any act immoral it’s difficult to imagine an intrinsically good object. Inasmuch as even things like an act of alms giving can be immoral yes, certainly capital punishment can be applied immorally. Just like every other act we consciously perform.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

If the death penalty is not an ‘intrinsically good act’ then it’s subject to moral misuse like every other act is it not?

Of course. Given that an evil intent can make any act immoral it’s difficult to imagine an intrinsically good object. Inasmuch as even things like an act of alms giving can be immoral yes, certainly capital punishment can be applied immorally. Just like every other act we consciously perform.

It’s for this reason that torture is no longer an acceptable punishment. You’d agree with that?

 

[SantaFe]

Torture AND the death penalty are ALWAYS WRONG, never a good.

 

[Ender]

It’s for this reason that torture is no longer an acceptable punishment. You’d agree with that?

I don’t understand your question. That torture is not intrinsically good? That it is subject to misuse?

Torture AND the death penalty are ALWAYS WRONG, never a good.

Please, at least acknowledge what the church unambiguously taught at least until two years ago.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

It’s for this reason that torture is no longer an acceptable punishment. You’d agree with that?

I don’t understand your question. That torture is not intrinsically good? That it is subject to misuse?

Punishments like scourging, stocks, being stoned, hung by the thumbs, that kind of punishment that was previously considered just and legitimate.

They have been abolished as cruel and immoral. You accept that?

 

[Ender]

Punishments like scourging, stocks, being stoned, hung by the thumbs, that kind of punishment that was previously considered just and legitimate.

They have been abolished as cruel and immoral. You accept that?

If “torture” is understood as evil per se then everything that can be categorized as torture would be evil. It is less clear that all physical punishment constitutes torture. Are you saying that torture is per se evil? (We can ignore for the present what constitutes torture).

 

[MarysLurker]

It’s for this reason that torture is no longer an acceptable punishment. You’d agree with that?

No, because the Church has said that torture is wrong since at least the 800s AD.

 

[MarysLurker]

Torture AND the death penalty are ALWAYS WRONG, never a good.

Why? For torture you can point to a long line of authority against the practice. Capital punishment is the opposite.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

Punishments like scourging, stocks, being stoned, hung by the thumbs, that kind of punishment that was previously considered just and legitimate.

They have been abolished as cruel and immoral. You accept that?

If “torture” is understood as evil per se then everything that can be categorized as torture would be evil. It is less clear that all physical punishment constitutes torture. Are you saying that torture is per se evil? (We can ignore for the present what constitutes torture).

Instead of getting bogged in the mud of the irrelevant so that you can avoid an answer… I’ll answer for you.

Sentences that were in the past just and legitimate have been abolished as cruel and immoral today. There is no difference between those sentences and the death sentence.

 

[MarysLurker]

Sentences that were in the past just and legitimate have been abolished as cruel and immoral today

What makes you think that the actions of civil judges or legislators are an adequate barometer of objective morality?

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

It’s for this reason that torture is no longer an acceptable punishment. You’d agree with that?

No, because the Church has said that torture is wrong since at least the 800s AD.

Prior to 800 AD torture in sentencing was considered just and moral. That shows that the society and the Church can come to recognize sentences as inhumane and immoral.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

Sentences that were in the past just and legitimate have been abolished as cruel and immoral today

What makes you think that the actions of civil judges or legislators are an adequate barometer of objective morality?

Society in general has rejected the death penalty through the witness of Sr Helen Prejean in large part. The Church has affirmed this is due to a "heightened moral awareness’ and has now established that ideologies that are rejecting abolition aren’t Catholic.

 

[MarysLurker]

That shows that the society and the Church can come to recognize sentences as inhumane and immoral.

What basis is there for applying this to the death penalty today? An argument for lack of necessity fails given what just happened in Austria.

Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty? Moral Theology

Here is another one. The “experts” said he posed no risk the last time he was arrested.

And if you’re going to argue that life imprisonment was a valid alternative, then you have contradicted Pope Francis.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

That shows that the society and the Church can come to recognize sentences as inhumane and immoral.

What basis is there for applying this to the death penalty today? An argument for lack of necessity fails given what just happened in Austria.

Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty? - #871 by MarysLurker

And if you’re going to argue that life imprisonment was a valid alternative, then you have contradicted Pope Francis.

Austria will no doubt apply a sentence that will keep those criminals from ever hurting anyone again. It’s just how it is in most countries.

 

[MarysLurker]

Austria will no doubt apply a sentence that will keep those criminals from ever hurting anyone again. It’s just how it is in most countries.

Did you not read the news story?

Fejzulai had been jailed in April 2019 for trying to join Islamic State but he was granted early release in December under juvenile law because he was under 19-years-old at the time of his offending.

Fejzulai was not deemed capable of carrying out an attack and Interior Minister Karl Nehammer admitted that the terrorist had fooled the country’s judiciary be enrolling on a de-radicalisation course.