Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[MarysLurker]

the Catechism says the death penalty can never be used

So then everyone who allowed the death penalty in the past died in sin?

(Of course not, but this shows the danger of oversimplification.)

 

[Ender]

Are you arguing that the state’s execution of an innocent person is not an evil act?

I am unhappy with the way you use terms. Knocking into someone and causing him to spill coffee on himself might qualify as an evil act, but bumping someone accidentally and doing it deliberately are entirely different actions, a difference your use of the term disguises entirely.

“Evil act” implies a morally evil action; a sin. That you use it to describe physical loss (hurricanes…spilled coffee) is a source of confusion, and the fact that you deliberately use it without qualification is disturbing.

So, to answer your question: I do not consider the inadvertent execution of an innocent person a moral evil. There is no moral question involved.

If not then are you arguing that the state’s agents are not causally responsible for the intrinsically evil act of directly killing an innocent person?

Of course the state is causally responsible for the death. What I reject is the notion that (a) this represents a moral failure, and (b) that the inadvertence is intrinsically evil.

If so then are you arguing that, therefore, Catholics can still maintain the death penalty?

Yes, of course.

Where are you trying to go with this notion of distinguishing physical vs. moral evil?

It is necessary to distinguish what is accidental from what is intentional. It would be wrong to label someone an “evildoer” who inadvertently causes injury to another person, yet that is precisely where your argument leads.

For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. (Aquinas ST II-II 39,1)

We have Aquinas and the catechism teaching that invincible ignorance …

Their use of that phrase has no relationship to the way you use it. There are certain actions that are forbidden, where it can legitimately be said “He should have known better”. That assuredly is not the case in a trial where in fact the truth cannot be completely known by anyone. Natural Law may be written on our hearts, but the knowledge of John Smith’s guilt in the murder of Mary Jones is not.

The teaching is that the guilt of the prisoner must be “fully” determined before capital punishment may be morally employed. I submit that that condition cannot have been met in all concrete cases in which the state executed an innocent person.

This debate would have been much more straightforward had you started here. This is simply an opinion; it is not a moral or theological argument based on church doctrines.

 

[o_mlly]

I am unhappy with the way you use terms. Knocking into someone and causing him to spill coffee on himself might qualify as an evil act, but bumping someone accidentally and doing it deliberately are entirely different actions

The error in your thinking continues to be an attempt to meld two separate fonts of morality – moral object and intention – into one and give primacy to intention, i.e., making morality entirely subjective. As the Catechism explains but you continue to ignore is that the criteria that determines an evil act and a sin are completely different. The former are objective criteria and the latter subjective criteria.

#1750 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
#1857 For a sin to be mortal , three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

Secondly, you appear to wish to define a human act which is neither good nor evil. That is impossible.

#1749 Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

“Evil act” implies a morally evil action; a sin. That you use it to describe physical loss (hurricanes…spilled coffee) is a source of confusion, and the fact that you deliberately use it without qualification is disturbing.

While I cannot help that you are unhappy or disturbed by the Church’s teaching on the morality of human acts, all I can do is provide magisterial citations for you to consider:

If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself (Veritas Splendor, p 72).

 

[o_mlly]

That assuredly is not the case in a trial where in fact the truth cannot be completely known by anyone. Natural Law may be written on our hearts, but the knowledge of John Smith’s guilt in the murder of Mary Jones is not.

Awkwardly, the above claim fully supports Pope Francis’ teaching. The universals in the Natural Law are known to all with certainty, e.g., “Thou shalt not Kill”. The particulars, e.g., John Smith killed Mary Jones, are not. Therefore, one may not transgress the Natural Law with an uncertain conscience.

The teaching is that the guilt of the prisoner must be “fully” determined before capital punishment may be morally employed. I submit that that condition cannot have been met in all concrete cases in which the state executed an innocent person.

No, not an opinion but Church teaching:
#2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty

An untruth can never be fully determined to be other than what it is, i.e., false.