Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[MarysLurker]

You can quote your John Quigley’s and I’ll quote another paper based on the Catholic position citing the Compendium

You are engaged in special pleading, to wit, if a Vatican document says X and the evidence says Y then X is true; or in other words, every Vatican document is infallible.

What Popes Are Not | Catholic Answers Podcasts

And so one of the things that we get wrong, it’s kind of this expectation that every word the pope says is going to be carefully chosen and is guided by the Holy Spirit for the illumination of the church and that is the best way it could have been said or some variation of that, and that’s just not something we’re promised, not something we’re guaranteed. If that happens, great, that’s wonderful. But if you’re expecting that, I think that you’re in for a world of hurt in a way.

You must think all those countries not just Europe, that have abolished the death penalty on that very premise are communist dumbies? Would that be the case?

And ad hominem. Are you going to answer my questions or are you going to keep attacking me to change the subject?

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

You can quote your John Quigley’s and I’ll quote another paper based on the Catholic position citing the Compendium

You are engaged in special pleading, to wit, if a Vatican document says X and the evidence says Y then X is true; or in other words, every Vatican document is infallible.

It’s not the evidence that says Y, it’s someone’s opinion. In the ‘old days’ this was the same shots the Protestants would take at us. Now it’s coming from within, destroying faith in the authority of the Church.

And ad hominem. Are you going to answer my questions or are you going to keep attacking me to change the subject?

The ad hominem against other countries with the claim that socialism is the reason behind abolition of the death penalty. It isn’t ‘evidence’ as you claim. It’s just an opinion.

You are begging the question. How can you conclude that the death penalty does more harm than good in every case without seeing the evidence in each individual case?

Because nations moved by the injustice of racism and discrimination and their affront to human dignity could no longer in good conscience continue the brutal culling of ‘nobodies’. It was a hallmark of ‘the culture of death’.

 

[MarysLurker]

The ad hominem against other countries with the claim that socialism is the reason behind abolition of the death penalty. It isn’t ‘evidence’ as you claim. It’s just an opinion

You can’t publish “just” opinions in an academic journal. You have to support them with evidence. And if you would actually read the article, the author did a study of the legislatures of the European countries and found it was socialists, not Christian democrats, who ran on and delivered a platform of abolition. This was the case everywhere in Western Europe. It is a matter of historical fact.

Because nations moved by the injustice of racism and discrimination and their affront to human dignity could no longer in good conscience continue the brutal culling of ‘nobodies’. It was a hallmark of ‘the culture of death’.

Your turn. Substantiate this claim with evidence or withdraw it. Show us all the racism that was going on in Western Europe at that time in the administration of the death penalty.

 

[Motherwit]

Your turn. Substantiate this claim with evidence or withdraw it. Show us all the racism that was going on in Western Europe at that time in the administration of the death penalty.

One example was Spain. It abolished the dp in 1978 under Fernando de Santiago and “Falange” (Catholic nationalists) party. At that time the Basques were being persecuted and executed in large numbers.

 

[MarysLurker]

One example was Spain. It abolished the dp in 1978 under Fernando de Santiago and “Falange” (Catholic nationalists) party. At that time the Basques were being persecuted and executed in large numbers.

.

First of all, the persecution of the Basques took place under the Franco dictatorship. Franco died in 1975. That was not happening “at that time.”

Second, Falange was actually the ruling party under Franco. It was dissolved in 1977. As you point out, Spain adopted a constitution with a death penalty prohibition the following year which Falange had nothing to do with.

Third, Santiago resigned on September 21, 1976.

As stated in the article, what actually happened in Spain was that the leftists wanted the DP gone as a reaction to Franco’s (and Falange’s) excesses. Unless you’re prepared to argue that every government in Western Europe in 1978 was equivalent to the Franco regime, this argument will fall.

 

[o_mlly]

Are we to judge what source is the most authoritative in deciding which of two competing teachings is valid?

Welcome to the institutional church. Yes, we are to judge and I judge St. JPII’s teaching as developmental, in concert with the constant teaching of the church, and promulgated to be taken as so via Encyclical. Pope Francis’ teaching is less so, so far.

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 church has a venue to resolve conflicts which threaten her oneness as she did at the Jerusalem Council in 50AD. Personally, I do not think this issue rises to that level.

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.

The prior popes and councils did not have the penal security technology to detect and monitor inmates that came on stream during St. JPII’s pontificate.

Using Technology to Make Prisons and Jails Safer

This was no ordinary telephone call. A Baltimore man allegedly used a cell phone to arrange a murder, offering to pay $2,500 for the crime, according to Maryland federal prosecutors. Moreover, the man should not have had a cell phone — he was in the Baltimore City Jail on the evening he...

nij.ojp.gov

none of them included his caveat that protection was a requirement.

The common good always includes the protection of society, if not explicitly, then implicitly.

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

If you are presently a judge in a capital crime case or an executioner at a prison then seek special guidance. If not then be patient; the Spirit is at work.

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.

No, the post is consistent with the teaching. Catechisms are summary documents. You will have to go to primary source materials to amplify this teaching. Aquinas’ work is often cited.

The passage says that circumstances can’t make make an intrinsically evil act acceptable. It is simply silent on the reverse possibility

No, the circumstances of time, place and persons have their part in determining the morality of an individual act. The moral character of an act may be so affected by attendant circumstances, that an act good in itself may be evil when accompanied with certain circumstances. “Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu,” – “A thing to be good must be wholly so; it is vitiated by any defect.”

 

[Ender]

If the death penalty does more harm than good it is forbidden. It must serve the common good to be just. If it doesn’t it is unjust. Ender uses libertarian logic as to absolve the desire to maintain the death penalty from any moral accountability, but the Church who has a unique authority to address morality, rejects that logic.

Just stop. I have clearly articulated my position for years and it is nothing like what you ascribe to me. Since you are either unable or unwilling to accept my own words the least you can do is not try to explain to others what I believe, since my actual position bears no resemblance at all to what you wrote. Speak for yourself, and I will do the same.

How can you conclude that the death penalty does more harm than good in every case without seeing the evidence in each individual case?

If we are to understand Francis’ alteration to be what is implied, then the question of whether the death penalty helps or harms the community is irrelevant. This would be a JPII argument, but that position has been replaced; what he said no longer controls the issue. Aquinas’ comments are also out the window; it has all been overturned by Francis in 2018.

 

[Ender]

Welcome to the institutional church. Yes, we are to judge and I judge St. JPII’s teaching as developmental, in concert with the constant teaching of the church, and promulgated to be taken as so via Encyclical. Pope Francis’ teaching is less so, so far.

Well if we get to pick and choose our sources I will choose the Council of Trent. Given that councils are more weighty than mere encyclicals that must surely carry more weight, and as you dismiss the change Francis made because of its less imposing promulgation surely the same would justify dismissing the change JPII made. I think you can see where this leads, which suggests that your approach is not a valid one.

The prior popes and councils did not have the penal security technology to detect and monitor inmates that came on stream during St. JPII’s pontificate.

Truth and morality are not determined by technology, nor was there anything that occurred during JPII’s reign to support your claim. Even the most advanced countries still have problems with recidivist murders occurring in prisons, and I’m pretty sure inmates in the salt mines or on galleys weren’t ordering hits on their accusers via cell phone. The claim that technology has rendered inmates secure is based on nothing at all; it is an assertion empty of evidence.

Your article even makes that point. What it shows is not that technology has succeeded, but that the contest between inmates and jailers is an ongoing battle.

The common good always includes the protection of society, if not explicitly, then implicitly.

When it comes to sentencing, the protection of society is an objective, but it is not a requirement, nor did the 1997 catechism make it one.

“So what are we to do with Francis’ change? Ignore it?” How about an answer? “Be patient” is an evasion. You are falling back on the pick-and-choose option where you take what you like and ignore what you don’t.

Catechisms are summary documents. You will have to go to primary source materials to amplify this teaching.

No, you go somewhere and cite something that supports your interpretation. This is what the catechism says:

Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves…

You claim the exact opposite is true, and that this statement is completely backwards. Prove it.

 

[MarysLurker]

we are to understand Francis’ alteration to be what is implied, then the question of whether the death penalty helps or harms the community is irrelevant. This would be a JPII argument, but that position has been replaced; what he said no longer controls the issue. Aquinas’ comments are also out the window; it has all been overturned by Francis in 2018.

But we can’t because he can’t.

Pope Cannot Change Church Teaching

Not at all. He cannot teach that as the successor of St. Peter. Rather, what he has been teaching is that there are certain concrete cases that might permit div...

www.catholic.com

Do You Have to Accept the Pope’s Death Penalty Decision? | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Some conservatives are huffing and puffing about Pope Francis' statement disallowing the death penalty. They are raging against his over reach or they are biting their nails over the idea that "if he can change this he can change anything!!!" They're wondering "What next? Does this mean...

dwightlongenecker.com

Can the Pope Change Catholic Teaching?

Some people hope that Pope Francis will change the Church's teaching on contraception. He won't. He couldn't even if he wanted to — as Church history...

www.catholiceducation.org

 

[o_mlly]

Well if we get to pick and choose our sources I will choose the Council of Trent. Given that councils are more weighty than mere encyclicals that must surely carry more weight

The choice is not either/or but and/both as the Council of Trent and St. JPII’s encyclicals do not conflict.

and as you dismiss the change Francis

Strawman! I do not dismiss Pope Francis’ change. My position is as I wrote: I await clarification.

Truth and morality are not determined by technology,

? Whatever do you mean by that broad statement? Technology most certainly leads us to the truth about the physical world. The revealed principles of morality do not change but their application does as circumstances change. Technology changes the circumstance of “how”…

When it comes to sentencing, the protection of society is an objective, but it is not a requirement, nor did the 1997 catechism make it one.

Nor is capital punishment a requirement – ever, in Catholic teaching.

“Be patient” is an evasion

No. Patience is not an evasion, rather it is a virtue.

No, you go somewhere and cite something that supports your interpretation. This is what the catechism says:

Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves…

You claim the exact opposite is true, and that this statement is completely backwards. Prove it.

Article 10. Whether a circumstance places a moral action in the species of good or evil?
A circumstance, so long as it is but a circumstance, does not specify an action, since thus it is a mere accident: but when it becomes a principal condition of the object, then it does specify the action.

Example:

The human act.
The state puts to death a lawfully convicted criminal to protect society.

Moral object: Kill the prisoner to protect society.
Intent: Protect society.
Circumstance: The prisoner is innocent.

The human act is objectively evil.

no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being

 

[Ender]

But we can’t because he can’t.

Yes, and this is what I believe, but I point to Francis’ change to raise the issue about arguments people still use as if he never altered the catechism. JPII clearly recognized capital punishment as valid (however constrained), but Francis implies that it is not, therefore virtually all of the arguments made before 2018 based on JPII’s comments are now void…unless the claim is made that we can ignore Francis. The problem with that is it suggests we can ignore JPII as well. It is a problem (for those who believe JPII’s change was doctrinal) that has no real resolution.

 

[Motherwit]

Googling when it’s late and I’m tired is never a good idea but Spain had come to my mind because I was familiar with the Basques and the discrimination that still happens to this day. I don’t want to get bogged down in this side issue because I don’t accept the authority of your paper claiming abolition is a socialist flaw. A quick google of other western Europe history of abolition.

“Capital punishment in the Netherlands was abolished in 1870 in criminal law after the States General recognized it was “cruel and uncivilized”. The bill was introduced by liberal-catholic Minister of Justice Franciscus van Lilaar and debated in both the Senate and House of Representatives for seven days before approval.” Netherlands

Belgium abolished in 1996 under Jean-Luc Dehaene Christian Democratic and Flemish Party.

“The fight against the death penalty is a priority for both Belgium and the EU, which has developed guidelines on the death penalty. Belgium and the European Union are always and under all circumstances strong and unequivocal opponents of the death penalty. They believe that the death penalty is a serious violation of human dignity and constitutes a gross violation of human rights.”

It’s just a biased false narrative that abolition is socialist driven.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

If the death penalty does more harm than good it is forbidden

You are begging the question. How can you conclude that the death penalty does more harm than good in every case without seeing the evidence in each individual case?

How do you explain abolition in other nations?

 

[MarysLurker]

I don’t accept the authority of your paper claiming abolition is a socialist flaw.

Nobody ever said that only socialists want to abolish capital punishment.

What I have said is that the concept of “heightened moral awareness” of human dignity post 1951 supporting abolition is unhistorical. If you think otherwise, show us a country advancing abolition while simultaneously rejecting abortion in that time frame.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

I don’t accept the authority of your paper claiming abolition is a socialist flaw.

Nobody ever said that only socialists want to abolish capital punishment.

What I have said is that the concept of “heightened moral awareness” of human dignity post 1951 supporting abolition is unhistorical. If you think otherwise, show us a country advancing abolition while simultaneously rejecting abortion in that time frame.

In the culture of death where life is expendable it’s easier to identify with people we can see and hear and identify with their pain and injustices. I agree with the Church in that being able to really walk in others shoes nurtures the awareness of human dignity that will eventually abolish the destruction of the unborn, the elderly, the sick etc. People are just slow to take off the blinders as we saw in how long it took to give dignity and justice to black people.

 

[MarysLurker]

In the culture of death where life is expendable

If you want to get rid of the culture of death, get rid of irreformable serial killers who do not value life and can never be made to value it. In other news, 2 + 2 = 4. Do you disagree?

People are just slow to take off the blinders as we saw in how long it took to give dignity and justice to black people.

Playing race card = hasty generalization = rash judgment = evil.

CCC 2247

Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor

Also, playing the race card is irritating, annoying, and distracting from the substantive debate. Everyone is sick of this kind of demagoguery. If you are going to accuse someone of racism, you better back it up with evidence. We are sick and tired of hearing people who know zero about the criminal justice system calling it a racist enterprise. Please do not make this problem worse.

 

[Motherwit]

Also, playing the race card is irritating, annoying, and distracting from the substantive debate. Everyone is sick of this kind of demagoguery. If you are going to accuse someone of racism, you better back it up with evidence. We are sick and tired of hearing people who know zero about the criminal justice system calling it a racist enterprise. Please do not make this problem worse.

Wow.

How about answering one of my questions? You aggressively demand answers from me while interestingly don’t bother answering my civil questions.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

If the death penalty does more harm than good it is forbidden

You are begging the question. How can you conclude that the death penalty does more harm than good in every case without seeing the evidence in each individual case?

How do you explain abolition in all those other nations?

 

[MarysLurker]

How do you explain abolition in all those other nations?

Which ones? Western Europe? You’ve already been shown the study and the evidence and you just disagree without any evidence supporting your disagreement.

 

[Motherwit]

You ask the question “How can you conclude that the death penalty does more harm than good in every case without seeing the evidence in each individual case?” All these countries have deemed that to be the case. Are they all wrong or how would you explain the fact that they’ve concluded that the dp is more harmful than good overall?

ALBANIA	GEORGIA	NIUE
ANDORRA	GERMANY	NORWAY
ANGOLA	GREECE	PALAU
ARGENTINA	GUINEA	PANAMA
ARMENIA	GUINEA-BISSAU	PARAGUAY
AUSTRALIA	HAITI	PHILIPPINES
AUSTRIA	HOLY SEE	POLAND
AZERBAIJAN	HONDURAS	PORTUGAL
BELGIUM	HUNGARY	ROMANIA
BENIN	ICELAND	RWANDA
BHUTAN	IRELAND	SAMOA
BOLIVIA	ITALY	SAN MARINO
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA	KIRIBATI	SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE
BULGARIA	KYRGYZSTAN	SENEGAL
BURUNDI	LATVIA	SERBIA
CAMBODIA	LIECHTENSTEIN	SEYCHELLES
CABO VERDE	LITHUANIA	SLOVAKIA
CANADA	LUXEMBOURG	SLOVENIA
COLOMBIA	MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic)	SOLOMON ISLANDS
COOK ISLANDS	MADAGASCAR	SOUTH AFRICA
CONGO (REPUBLIC OF)	MALTA	SPAIN
COSTA RICA	MARSHALL ISLANDS	SURINAME
COTE D’IVOIRE	MAURITIUS	SWEDEN
CROATIA	MEXICO	SWITZERLAND
CYPRUS	MICRONESIA (Federated States)	TIMOR-LESTE
CZECH REPUBLIC	MOLDOVA	TOGO
DENMARK	MONACO	TURKEY
DJIBOUTI	MONTENEGRO	TURKMENISTAN
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC	MOZAMBIQUE	TUVALU
ECUADOR	NAMIBIA	UKRAINE
ESTONIA	NAURU	UNITED KINGDOM
FINLAND	NEPAL	URUGUAY
FIJI	NETHERLANDS	UZBEKISTAN
FRANCE	NEW ZEALAND	VANUATU
GABON	NICARAGUA	VENEZUELA