Capital punishment...again

[Ender]

3 of 3

To the pro Capital punishment posters who regard Ender as their spokesperson please look more deeply into the context of the many quote mined citations he uses.

Those who follow this topic and are inclined to give me the benefit of the doubt can be assured that, while I may very well misinterpret something (and Aquinas is especially challenging), I would never deliberately take anything out of context or misrepresent the statements I cite. Aside from personally being disinclined to do that, there is simply no need. After 2000 years of addressing the topic the church has left a plethora of comments that support the position I am attempting to defend.

 

[Ender]

You quoted me out of context, which judging from what others are saying is something you do often.

Why does this have to get so nasty? And why would you simply accept those uncharitable charges when there is no reasonable argument to support them? If you think I’ve taken your comment out of context perhaps you should rethink it. That was your charge. I never intimated to what it pertained so your complaint that it really referred to Reason A instead of Reason B seems immaterial.

What I said you “are decidedly wrong” about is the cavalier dismissal of arguments others have raised as being mere “assertions” or something less than the arguments you raise.

And, if you’re such a stickler for accuracy, there is absolutely no way to categorize my comments as “cavalier”. I provided several responses from serious writers who reached a different conclusion. I consider those positions you refer to as refuted, not dismissed, and certainly not “cavalierly dismissed.”

Based on the way at least two other posters have caught you manipulating quotes, and the way you have now done it to me…

No one has caught me manipulating quotes, despite the number of times this has been alleged. The arguments to support those charges are without any merit. Even your case is weak. I was referring to the many charges leveled against me, of which yours was only one of many, just like the charges of manipulating quotes. I have to deal with that a lot. Perhaps I should take some consolation from the fact that this is where debates end up when better arguments are hard to come by.

 

[graciew]

But what is that , Exnihilo?
Nobody is advocating for releasing anyone who will be murdering…
Please think, that except a list of countries you may find even in Wiki, the rest of us who have abolished it do not advocate for “peace , love and rock’n roll” if you know what I mean …
So part from our responsibility for the common good ,not from the idea that the rest of the world has lost its senses…
You have great resources to restore people to society and the families, or make every possible attempt. You really do.
I have heard of people in prison who have made incredible progress thanks to all the help and support received when in prison.
Keep that up… you ve got very valuable people to help people in prison in many ways.
Do not be afraid…it isn’t t just releasing anyone anytime whimsically what the church is advocating,that is out of the question. It is about not putting person to death.
And the following day, the sun will come out as usual and there may be a chance to making real improvement in the treatment of victims and persons imprisoned to step by step give society and families new hope of something better.
As it is being mindful of how important our families are,and how important that time to listening,playing,sharing with our children is to help them grow healthy in mind, body and spirit.
May Jesus help us always with our families…

 

[CamelJoe]

The Church is not 50 years old.

 

[Mboo]

Its just sad that you can only appeal to an outdated, superceded and non universal Catechism to bolster your position

Even the CCC (the version corrected by Francis) also makes it clear that one can kill in self-defense, or in a just war.
And catechism concil of thirty (which is an official catechism) say that we can kill:

• in self defense
• in a just war
• in the execution of a death sentence
• when God orders to do it

 

[ChristMyLife]

been stated nor do I know any theologian who advances Pope Francid did??

Of course the Holy Father didn’t say that - it would be heretical to say capital punishment is intrinsically evil.

The Holy Father defined that in light of today’s circumstances in the developed world, the use of capital punishment can no longer be justified; therefore, when capital punishment is used in the developed world today, it is immoral. Which means that we as Catholics and pro-life people, have an obligation to pray and work for the abolition of capital punishment in today’s developed world.

 

[Ender]

Here is what His Excellency said after the revision:

Thank you for that link, but you didn’t answer the question I asked: “is what was true in 2016 still true today?” Which if any of those five statements Archbishop Gomez made then is no longer valid now?

As for his new statement, this comment seems significant:

The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral

If abortion and euthanasia are always immoral, and capital punishment is not equated to them doesn’t this indicate that capital punishment is in fact not always immoral? Otherwise how would it differ from them? But, again, if capital punishment is not always immoral then the objections to its use can only be prudential, as in “It is immoral in this instance…” as opposed to “It’s use is always immoral.”

Personally I don’t see anything in his new statement that contradicts anything he said just two years ago…which I don’t find surprising. It is what I would expect to find.

 

[Ender]

First, the use of punishment and execution springs from a natural impulse specific to the welfare of the human community since they are witnessed in cultures and tribes in history not even visited by the One God.

Yes. It is a matter of simple justice which is common to everyone.

Logically it is implicit to the use of execution, that it serves the common good first and foremost.

Yes again. I have never held otherwise.

Logically we can also recognise that the ‘severity of a crime’ is influenced by the conditions that exist in the community in which it happens.

I disagree. While it is true that the belief about the severity of particular crimes is locally dependent, the actual severity (for at least the crime of murder) cannot change and is independent of how a particular society responds to it. Life may have been more cheaply held in the past, but murder was no less evil in such times than it is in ours.

Those in charge of these communities are most disposed to determine this and to recognise if the climate warrants abolition of a sentence altogether.

While I accept that any particular society is free to make this determination, they are no more free to bind future societies by their prudential judgments than they were bound by the judgments of their predecessors.

I guess you’ll have to keep saying it for as long as you experience condescension towards the Church and those defending her teaching.

Why does disagreement have to be condescension? Can’t we disagree without being disagreeable?

 

[Ender]

I absolutely agree with this. In fact I posted a comment earlier from Edward Feser saying exactly the same thing:

The faithful would be confronted with the dilemma of having to dissent either from past or from present magisterial teaching.

This is a very non-trivial concern.

 

[Ender]

I should be ungrateful indeed to take offense at one of the politest disagreements I have yet encountered, and for demonstrating that disagreement does not rule out civility.

…my views diverge from the “anti-death penalty” faction (for most of the reasons you have previously enumerated), I am largely in agreement with Don Ruggero when he stated, with what I imagine to have been a long-suffering tone, that,

“When persons ask: “What is really meant by unacceptable?” “What is really meant by inadmissible?” it is nothing short of bizarre in the present context.

Ah, well if you have been following this discussion you will have seen how much trouble I’ve gotten into without flatly saying “The Holy See is apparently in error.” You should be able to imagine the response I’d have gotten for that. Not wanting to be banned from the forum it seemed more prudent to take a different approach.

So, ahem, I disagree with your assessment that the question about the meaning of “inadmissible” is odd. It seems to me that everything turns on why capital punishment is now seen as inadmissible: does it mean it is always morally wrong, or does it simply mean it is now judged to be universally unwise and socially harmful?

I keep trying to show that it is the latter, because if that is the case then I don’t see there has essentially been a change since the proclamation of JPII - which I also took to be prudential.

In any case, it is a real pleasure to be able to argue our differences without it turning personal.

 

[Ender]

That isn’t true. The purpose of punishment was primarily justice. If rehabilitation was a traditional purpose then they wouldn’t have been executing people for all the various capital crimes of the past. You can’t rehabilitate a dead man because he is dead. So that just doesn’t make sense.

Ah, rehabilitation is a valid objective of punishment, but as you say, it is not primary. Also, I think rehabilitation means more than just making someone fit to rejoin society. The church would clearly include ones eternal salvation under that objective, an objective that can clearly be achieved via capital punishment.

 

[Ender]

In the Pentateuch, there is a phrase that is used repeatedly whenever death is prescribed for a certain act.

It is the phrase “ Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst .” or something similar, like “ the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them .” and “ the man and the two women as well shall be burned to death, so that shamefulness may not be found among you. ”

I’m suggesting that punishment is not the purpose of the death penalty, and I’m providing scripture to you as well.

Separating the death penalty from the concept of punishment simply makes it incoherent, as is the argument that capital punishment is somehow not…punishment. The only thing that justifies punishment in general is sin.

“Nothing but sin deserves punishment.” (Aquinas)

The only thing that justifies capital punishment in particular is that the severity of the sin requires an equally severe punishment.

2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

One cannot “purge the evil from your midst” unless the evil deserve it, and because it is a just punishment for their actions. This is an issue of justice by which sin and punishment are inextricably joined.

A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. (Pius XII)

 

[Ender]

You are now trying to moralise re State Killings purely from the Church’s system of “punishment principles”…

Yes, because it is only within the concept of crime and punishment, which is an obligation of justice, that any of this makes sense.

… and simply blinkering yourself re any other related system of principles that may override an absolute approach to State Killings from any other angle…such as its system of killing principles and teachings.

I think of the church’s teachings as all interconnected and try to see them that way. Make whatever case you can and I will respond to it.

That you “hear this a lot” is not a counter argument. (You have in fact not refuted my argument but it ignored it).

Sorry, I’ve responded to so many objections it’s hard to keep up with them all. Either repeat your argument or point me to the post where you made it and I will deal with it, but I really wish you wouldn’t introduce the term “state killings” because that suggests it means something other than “capital punishment” or “the death penalty”, and I’m at a loss to imagine what that might be.

 

[Ender]

If you are the one who disagrees I think you are the one who needs to do more than just disagree.
You need to refute my provided reasons

But you didn’t provide reasons, you simply made an assertion: “Punishment in general is not universally prohibited by Jesus … but killing is.” Do you not recognize that if Jesus universally prohibited killing then virtually every Father as well as every Doctor of the Church, plus every pope up to now, and all the catechisms and councils of the church were wrong? The church for 2000 years never understood Jesus to have prohibited all killing. If Jesus meant to do this how do you explain his direction to the soldiers:

Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” (Lk 3:14)

Surely he would have told them to leave the army if what they were doing was sinful.

Its about State Killings. State killings are not simply about punishment - to refuse to admit any other moral principles (eg the 5th Commandment) to solely decide matters on Old Testament principles is a clear “sitting on your eyes”.

How can church teaching in one are (killing) contradict church teaching in another (punishment)? Surely what the church teaches on one subject must agree with what it teaches elsewhere. There is no conflict between these concepts; they must fit together as a unified whole.

 

[Pug]

That is John the Baptizer, not Jesus. (soldiers,wages).

 

[Ender]

Its just sad that you can only appeal to an outdated, superceded and non universal Catechism to bolster your position.

Well, I could cite any catechism older than 20 years and it would say the same thing, but if your position is that what is said today nullifies everything said before yesterday then it hardly matters what I cite.

Do try something more recent (say the last 50 years) from the Magisterium - d’oh, there isn’t anything!

OK, how about this (from the catechism of 1992, first edition)

2266 The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.

(Now, before someone accuses me yet again of taking things out of context let me point out that, despite what else is said, this statement - and only this statement - describes the “traditional teaching of the church”, which is the point of citing it.)

The prohibition of direct killing is also an absolute position for Church members. Which is why Church leaders, as Ambrose states, may not kill.

Ambrose may have excluded the clergy from being complicit in executions, but he assuredly did not exclude Christian judges from passing such sentences. “Church members” is an ambiguous term.

I think we can see where the next development in State Killing teaching will go.
Namely, State Killings will be seen as just as gravely evil as a personal direct killing.

If this is where the church will go next then clearly they are not there now. Doesn’t this accord with my position that the current objections are prudential and not moral? After all, if they were moral then we would already have to believe they were gravely evil.

I repeat, if we have to choose an absolutist proposition between Moses/Noah (according to Ender) and Jesus on these two teachings (which at times conflict) it is clear that Jesus’s view on killing is the greater and more absolute.

Actually the choice is between your interpretation of what Jesus taught and the understanding of the Fathers, Doctors, and virtually everyone else living before this century.

 

[Ender]

That is John the Baptizer, not Jesus. (soldiers,wages).

Oh, rats (but thank you for the correction). Still, Jesus dealt with soldiers on many occasions and never once suggested they “go and sin no more.” Given that we repeat the words of a centurion at every mass I struggle to accept the idea that Jesus condemned their occupation.

 

[Ender]

It is fairly clear this is exactly how the Magisterium has defined the 5th C for the last 5 Popes or so.
“Thou shall not (directly) kill.”

I refuse to accept the implications of this statement: either that the truth is whatever the latest Magisterium says it is, or that the entire church up until last year failed to correctly understand the Fifth Commandment. It seems more reasonable to doubt your interpretation.

Clearly evil killing can be tolerated morally if the act is indirectly intended in proportionate cases.

No, an evil act is not acceptable regardless of the intention.

1756 One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Unfortunately for you if you recognise the authority of 2266 in this document you must also factor in and accept 2267 as well.

It is not a question of authority, but of historical accuracy. The statement about the traditional teaching of the church in the 1992 edition was accurate. The statement in the 1997 version appears less so.

 

[CamelJoe]

Arianism was never Catholic. I find it disturbing that you are comparing a heresy that says Jesus was not God with what the Church taught for 2000 years, implicitly claiming that the Church was teaching heresy for 2000 years.

If you are not implying that then the comparison is incorrect and should be withdrawn.

 

[CamelJoe]

Before 325 Arianism was if anything the mainstream position

Absotutely incorrect. Arianism was always a heresy and was never the “mainstream” position of the Church.

You have a very flawed understanding of the Church’s history and of the theology of the Catholic Faith if you think something affirmatively and doctrinally taught for millennia can ever become heresy.