Capital punishment...again

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The Church is speaking now to endorse abolition as a movement of the Holy Spirit and a sign of “a growing moral sensitivity”.

The church’s hierarchy is indeed pushing for the elimination of capital punishment, but it’s doubtful this is due to a growth in moral sensitivity.

Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth. (Pius X)

Capital punishment is not a ‘sacred dogma’. This statement doesn’t apply. But secondly as I’ve posted before, Aquinas explains that justice is contingent on the welfare of the community.

“We may speak of a thing being good simply in two ways. First a thing may be good in every way: thus the virtues are good; and there is neither mean nor extremes in things that are good simply in this sense. Secondly a thing is said to be good simply through being good absolutely i.e. in its nature, although it may become evil through being abused. Such are riches and honors; and in the like it is possible to find excess, deficiency and mean, as regards men who can use them well or ill: and it is in this sense that justice is about things that are good simply.” (ST II II 58 art10)

This is a lesson regarding intrinsic and extrinsic natures. You never address it when it is posted. Just one of the many teachings of the Church that doesn’t fit with your version so will continue to ignore.

Many of the arguments turning up now were rejected when they appeared in previous manifestations.

Arguments from the progress of ethical consciousness have been used to promote a number of alleged human rights that the Catholic Church consistently rejects in the name of Scripture and tradition. The magisterium appeals to these authorities as grounds for repudiating divorce, abortion, homosexual relations, and the ordination of women to the priesthood. If the Church feels herself bound by Scripture and tradition in these other areas, it seems inconsistent for Catholics to proclaim a “moral revolution” on the issue of capital punishment. (Cardinal Dulles, 2004)

That is from a 2001 article and Cardinal Dulles has obviously misread the Church position. 18 years later we know where the Church stands.

 

[Dakota111]

Not even a pope can simply create new moral principles

This is exactly what Pope Francis has done. Please accept the face value facts Ender. If you still disagree please quote me where I have wrongly understood his very words.

Sure, you think “he cannot really mean what he is face value saying because he contradicts 1,2 and 3.”

But that is a very weak argument. He may well be contradicting 123. It is more intellectually honest to accept he has clearly explicitated a new moral principle (that intellectually offends you) and work logically from there letting the cards fall where they may.

At the moment your arguments seem no more likely than that of a 73 yr old man in good health told by an oncologist he is in stage 4 cancer and has 6 months left. He argues the test results are false positives, results got mixed up with somebody else, the doc is a quack (despite being recommended highly) etc etc.
Here it is grief that impedes right reasoning. This common syndrome is often recognised as the beginnings of a normal grief process as in “denial is the first stage of grief.”

You may well be doing a similar thing re this new moral teaching. A form of highly unlikely denial that over plays the credibility of alleged evidence that soothingly denies the doctors actual words.

When you can accept that Francis has actually declared the moral principle I briefly summarised above perhaps then we can discuss consistent solutions to your alleged “it cant be” objections to this actual statement it seems you cannot quite yet accept.

So over to you…

 

[Dakota111]

According to this “lesser penalty” theory there would be no justification for punishing him.

Um, no. There would be no justification for punishing him with death.

It is one particular punishment penalty (death) that is being restrained, not the punishment duty itself in toto.

Francis, in your terms, assumes your primary end of punishment (duty of commensurate penalties) still stands…but the duty is not absolute. Other secondary ends can limit that duty principle when it comes to the penalty of killing and the alleged duty of the State to penalise unto death in any circumstance.

There is long implicit tradition for this principle in personal self defence principles (lethal killing only allowed if that is the minimum force necessary to disable), in removal of death penalty for the 6th Commandment and the parable of the tares and wheat.

Whatever remaing penalty is justly due to the murderer, if that is truly the case after life imprisionment, is presumably left to God to administer either temporally or eternally.

I get it you will still say this contradicts your personal view of what constitutes past settled moral principles on this matter. So be it.

I dont see how Pope Francis’s CCC change and addresses on these matters can be seen in any other way if we are intellectually honest and brave.

Let the cards fall where they may then…

 

[Ender]

That is from a 2001 article and Cardinal Dulles has obviously misread the Church position. 18 years later we know where the Church stands.

Not being able to see into the future Dulles could only speak of what was true at the time. He was clearly unaware that what was truth one day could be untrue the next. One of the great errors within this debate is the willingness to discard centuries of church teaching the minute they become inconvenient. The desire to overthrow the doctrines on capital punishment have included the dismissal of much the church has claimed about herself.

 

[Ender]

[Create a new moral principle] is exactly what Pope Francis has done.

This is what I was referring to in my last post to Emeraldlady: the willingness to simply dispense with a significant church teaching whenever it becomes inconvenient to sustain it. No one, including a pope, can simply create moral principles, and the belief that morality is nothing more than what a pope proclaims it to be makes a mockery of the church.

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (First Vatican Council)

If you still disagree please quote me where I have wrongly understood his very words.

“…in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

Is the death penalty inadmissible here because it is intrinsically evil or because it is deemed universally harmful? Either it is always wrong in principle or it is judged to be wrong in current circumstances. Which is it?

 

[Ender]

Um, no. There would be no justification for punishing him with death.

It is one particular punishment penalty (death) that is being restrained, not the punishment duty itself in toto.

The standard which you enunciated had no such caveat. Do you want to restate your principle?

if civil society can be protected from the criminal by a lesser penalty then always and everywhere that lesser penalty must be used.

I think you will find that once punishment is separated from the concept of justice, as you have done, there is no reasonable definition that can be proposed.

There is long implicit tradition for this principle in personal self defence principles…

Punishment has never been justified on the basis of self defense. Punishment, self defense, and war have always been separately identified as exceptions to the prohibition against killing.

Whatever remaing penalty is justly due to the murderer, if that is truly the case after life imprisionment, is presumably left to God to administer either temporally or eternally.

You’re just making this stuff up. Cite anything at all that supports your assertion. The church has certainly never said anything like this. On the contrary:

Sometimes the guilty one is not punished now bodily, which is to his disadvantage since punishment of the body may be borne with patience and is conducive to the remission of sins; but nevertheless he shall be punished in the future life. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

Sins must be paid for, and it is better to remit them in this life. The whole concept of the remission of sin has been ignored.

Some men are punished here only; others suffer here no ill, but receive the whole punishment hereafter; others are punished both here and hereafter. Which, then, of these three classes do you esteem fortunate? Without doubt, the first; those who are punished and purged from their sins here. (St. Chrysostom)

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

That is from a 2001 article and Cardinal Dulles has obviously misread the Church position. 18 years later we know where the Church stands.

Not being able to see into the future Dulles could only speak of what was true at the time. He was clearly unaware that what was truth one day could be untrue the next. One of the great errors within this debate is the willingness to discard centuries of church teaching the minute they become inconvenient. The desire to overthrow the doctrines on capital punishment have included the dismissal of much the church has claimed about herself.

Cardinal Dulles was speaking his opinion at the time. What was true was something else. In 1995 St JPII had specifically stated in Evangelium Vitae (a doctrinal magisterial doccument) that the abolition of the death penalty was a result of “a growing moral sensitivity”. That is actually what was true. You insult our faith, the Church and Christ each time you claim that the Church is flipping off the past.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I think you will find that once punishment is separated from the concept of justice, as you have done, there is no reasonable definition that can be proposed.

The irony is that it is you continually separating punishment from justice by refusing to acknowledge that justice is bound to the good of society. Already I’ve quoted Aquinas twice explaining just that (legal justice serves the ‘real mean’ ie the good of the community) and both times you’ve ignored those posts just as you continue to ignore any Church teachings that don’t support your opinion.

 

[Dakota111]

The standard which you enunciated had no such caveat. Do you want to restate your principle?

It isnt my moral principle Ender, it is Pope Franciss very words and meaning. Do you accept this or not?

He clearly does not see your eye for eye punishment principle as an absolute when it comes to the penalty of death. It is modifiable in principle if less violent means are available for reasons stated.

Yes he palpably contradicts your personal moral principles which are absolute on this point.
Do you accept he so contradicts?

Punishment has never been justified on the basis of self defense.

And yet that is the fairly clear word and intent of Pope Francis in his pontificate re justifying State killings.
Do you accept he has stated this?

You’re just making this stuff up. Cite anything at all that supports your assertion

A little over aggressive here Ender. I am simply assisting you with a consistent hypothetical explanation of how Franciss principle could be likely reconciled with your view that all sin must be expiated. You are right, Francis never explained…so nobody knows…but I candidly admitted that with “presumably”.

I didnt invent this approach…it was debated a lot by the ancients to try and explain the parable of tares and wheat in terms of punishment principles…as even Chrystostum and Aquinas indicates regardless of their specifics.

 

[Ender]

Let me start with this (again): “Is the death penalty now inadmissible because it is intrinsically evil or because it is deemed universally harmful?”

It isnt my moral principle Ender, it is Pope Franciss very words and meaning. Do you accept this or not?

Here is the principle you stated:

“if civil society can be protected from the criminal by a lesser penalty then always and everywhere that lesser penalty must be used.”

Nowhere in the revision of 2267 does that phrase appear, so unless you can cite some other document saying that then no, I do not accept that those are his “very words and meaning.”

He clearly does not see your eye for eye punishment principle as an absolute when it comes to the penalty of death.

I have never claimed the death penalty was absolute; I have in fact made that point any number of times. Why do you keep ascribing to me a position I have flatly and repeatedly rejected?

Yes he palpably contradicts your personal moral principles which are absolute on this point.

Why do you call my position my “personal moral principles” when I virtually never make any assertion without citing the source supporting the claim? Does it become merely my personal opinion to cite the Catechism of Trent, Augustine, or Pius XII? You present a statement as being Francis’ “very words” yet never cite the document containing those “very words”. That seems like the very definition of personal opinion.

Do you accept he so contradicts?

No, I don’t. I accept that your interpretation of his words contradicts 2000 years of church doctrine on the point, but then I don’t think your interpretation is accurate.

And yet that is the fairly clear word and intent of Pope Francis in his pontificate re justifying State killings. Do you accept he has stated this?

Of course he didn’t state it, which is evident from the fact that you can’t cite any passage actually “stating” it. You infer it.

I didnt invent this approach…it was debated a lot by the ancients to try and explain the parable of tares and wheat in terms of punishment principles…as even Chrystostum and Aquinas indicates regardless of their specifics.

Then again, maybe not.

Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill (Exod. xx, 13): Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations.…
And as for both growing until the harvest, how that is to be understood appears from what follows: lest perchance in gathering the tares ye root out along with them the wheat also : in this passage then the killing of the wicked is forbidden where it cannot be done without danger to the good… (Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles)

This is not complicated. If there is danger to the public then the punishment that would otherwise be deserved is not to be used. The principle is preserving the common good, the judgment about a specific execution is made on a case by case basis.

 

[Weserthy]

I have been following this discussion for quite some time with interest, though I have not participated myself. I just wanted to add that Cardinal Muller was recently asked by NCR about the recent changes to the Catechism on the death penalty in an interview, here are the main excerpts that cover the portion of the interview on the death penalty:

What are your views on the Pope’s death-penalty comments and his revision of the Catechism to make capital punishment “inadmissible”?

We’re against executions, but theoretically we absolutely cannot deny them, if we look at the history of discussion on this subject. If there are capital crimes, the question is if the secular state has the right to perform an execution. But Jesus was condemned to death, he was innocent, and this belongs to soteriology; but these questions weren’t reflected on before the new declaration was made. And the impression is not good that the Pope, if he wants to do, can simply change the Catechism. Where are the limits? The magisterium is not above the word of God, but under it and serves it ( Dei Verbum, 10).

Do you think it sets a bad precedent, such unilateral action?

It was justified as a development of dogma, but the death penalty has nothing directly to do with dogma. This is a natural truth belonging to the natural ethics of the state. It’s not material related to God’s self-revelation of the truth and the salvation of all. This is the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ, or the sacraments belonging to the materia fidei . But we also have natural truths: The Church fights for human rights, for example, but natural human rights don’t belong to supernatural Revelation.

One argument is that Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II laid the path for this. John Paul, for example, called for an international moratorium on the death penalty.

This is another question: There’s the theoretical and the practical. The first thing to consider is: Are there crimes that result in loss of life, which take away the life of all, that mean the perpetrator has lost his right to life? The other question is whether and how that should be carried out. Some modern antidemocratic states and dictatorships have no respect for human dignity.

Cardinal Müller: Clergy Sex Abuse Involves Sexual Misconduct, Not Merely Clericalism

Speaking with the Register, the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says Church leaders must acknowledge the central role homosexuality has played in the abuse crisis.

www.ncregister.com

 

[Dakota111]

I have never claimed the death penalty was absolute; I have in fact made that point any number of times. Why do you keep ascribing to me a position I have flatly and repeatedly rejected?

Why do you ascribe a meaning to my statement I did not make?

Do you not see that you have made an absolute out of the eye for eye principle whereas Francis does not?
You believe a murderer deserves death and it is always just to deliver that do you not? In fact you regard it as a duty dont you?

Francis disagrees with you. The death penalty may be justly commutated to something lesser both for crimes against both the 5fh and 6th C.
In fact it can be immoral NOT to do so.

Do you understand now?

Hence you claim the punishment principle is absolute.

How have I misunderstood you?

 

[Ender]

Why won’t you answer this simple question: "Is the death penalty now inadmissible because it is intrinsically evil or because it is deemed universally harmful?” Well, I guess I understand: neither answer helps your position.

You believe a murderer deserves death…

Every criminal deserves a punishment commensurate with the severity of his crime. Death is a penalty of commensurate severity with the crime of murder, so from the perspective of what he deserves, yes, a murderer deserves to be put to death.

… and it is always just to deliver that do you not?

No, I have repeatedly said that the justness of a punishment in a particular case depends on two criteria: (1) whether it is appropriate for the severity of the crime, and (2) does it cause civil problems if it is administered.

In fact you regard it as a duty don’t you?

A State has a duty to administer a just punishment, that is, a punishment that satisfies both criteria.

How have I misunderstood you?

It’s a mystery to me. This is about the half dozenth time I’ve addressed this.

 

[adgloriam]

I have been following this discussion for quite some time with interest, though I have not participated myself. I just wanted to add that Cardinal Muller was recently asked by NCR about the recent changes to the Catechism on the death penalty in an interview, here are the main excerpts that cover the portion of the interview on the death penalty:

Do you think it sets a bad precedent, such unilateral action?

One argument is that Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II laid the path for this. John Paul, for example, called for an international moratorium on the death penalty.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...use-involves-sexual-misconduct-not-merely-cle

@Emeraldlady @graciew don’t let yourselves be fooled by quotes like the one above. I’ll explain why: It’s a pseudo-interview. The Cardinal gets asked about homosexuality, sex scandals, and the death penalty. Half the questions are disrespectful and bigoted, in total the Cardinal is quoted on 1,171 words (MEANING ANY ANSWER HE MIGHT HAVE GIVEN WAS EXTREMELY CUT-DOWN - if not completely distorted).

The fact is this: Some of the Marian dogmas we have today were held and defended by the Bishops of certain dioceses for 500 years before being proclaimed dogma…So, if some countries abolished the death sentence 150 years ago, it’s safe to say there haven been bishops defending the end of the death sentence for centuries…At times when the modern state or modern judicial system as we know them today didn’t even exist.

But off course, neither Cardinal Dulles nor Cardinal Muller had the scope or space to address the wider historical background within the Universal church - and they were talking for a US audience, were it a different audience their tone and scope would have been very very different…!!!

Don’t let yourselves be fooled about pseudo-historical quotes, as if no-one had ever before spoken against the death penalty. Whenever you see that sort of historical distortion know well there’s no truth to it.

 

[Emeraldlady]

@Emeraldlady @graciew don’t let yourselves be fooled by quotes like the one above. I’ll explain why: It’s a pseudo-interview. The Cardinal gets asked about homosexuality, sex scandals, and the death penalty. Half the questions are disrespectful and bigoted, in total the Cardinal is quoted on 1,171 words (MEANING ANY ANSWER HE MIGHT HAVE GIVEN WAS EXTREMELY CUT-DOWN - if not completely distorted).

The fact is this: Some of the Marian dogmas we have today were held and defended by the Bishops of certain dioceses for 500 years before being proclaimed dogma…So, if some countries abolished the death sentence 150 years ago, it’s safe to say there haven been bishops defending the end of the death sentence for centuries…At times when the modern state or modern judicial system as we know them today didn’t even exist.

But off course, neither Cardinal Dulles nor Cardinal Muller had the scope or space to address the wider historical background within the Universal church - and they were talking for a US audience, were it a different audience their tone and scope would have been very very different…!!!

Don’t let yourselves be fooled about pseudo-historical quotes, as if no-one had ever before spoken against the death penalty. Whenever you see that sort of historical distortion know well there’s no truth to it.

No worries. I’m not fooled. I have a suspicion that some people aren’t able to understand the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic values, for whatever reason. Perhaps we are too far away from the abolition of slavery and floggings and polygamy and the like, to appreciate how those evolved completely within doctrine.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

Though it is intrinsically evil because of the dignity of a human person, isn’t there a need to protect the public from certain individuals? Detention for most individuals keeps the public safe from them. However, this is not true of all individuals. We recently had an incident where someone in our hometown was killed from an MS-13 gang member from within prison. We had another who was killed remotely from another gang member in Honduras. That said, in modern times, the death penalty has been used way too much.

Gangs are very effective at using code to mark someone for dead outside of the prison walls. Thus, for some individuals, the death penalty should be an option because of the inability to contain the individual unless we can somehow successfully keep the individuals in solitary confinement. Also if there is an imminent pardon, I think it would have use too (i.e. there is knowledge a future president will pardon someone). Thus, I think someone should be sentenced to the death penalty for murder or treason, but whereby it’s not actually implemented unless the person is a danger from prison and/or there’s an imminent pardon that could occur solely for political purposes and you want to take the person out before the new administration comes in.

If code can be decoded and there are ways to keep the public safe, short of using the death penalty than I agree it could be past its time. I think that people who are opposed to the death penalty don’t truly understand the ability for a criminal to escape prison even if it’s just their body language that does so and not a physical escape. I think the death penalty unfortunately is used as a crime deterrent or to punish heinous crimes or multiple murders and thus is probably overused.

 

[adgloriam]

Perhaps we are too far away from the abolition of slavery and floggings and polygamy and the like, to appreciate how those evolved completely within doctrine.

Indeed. The one thought that hasn’t left me: Crimes against King and Country could imply lose of sovereignty for an entire nation - e.g. the end of a royal dynasty following regicide. Thus, historically, it was extremely difficult back then (if not impossible) to address the immorality of the death sentence in case of attempted regicide - without calling into question Monarchy itself, and thus the entire system society was based on, its guarantor of independence.

Not without surprise, the South American democracies were actually pioneers in abolishing the death sentence because the absence of a King and practical impossibility of being invaded allowed so. And -one has to wonder reading unhistorical comments- if the Bishops of the greater part of an entire Continent didn’t speak in favor of abolishion for a whole century, I’m certain they did.

 

[Ender]

This interview makes several of the same points I’ve addressed; thank you for posting it.

We’re against executions, but theoretically we absolutely cannot deny them…

This goes to the question of “inadmissibility”. Muller rejects the idea that capital punishment is now intrinsically evil, therefore objections to its use are prudential judgments.

And the impression is not good that the Pope, if he wants to do, can simply change the Catechism.

I pointed this out too: it is damaging to the church to believe that morality is merely whatever a pope says it is. Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1993: “The individual doctrines that the catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess.” Given that the new version of 2267 is based on no other document at all, what authority does it hold? Should we simply ignore Ratzinger’s statement now?

the death penalty has nothing directly to do with dogma. This is a natural truth belonging to the natural ethics of the state.

If the death penalty is a natural truth how can it change? How can it belong to the natural ethics of the state before but not belong to it now?

Many liberal Catholics are very content with the relativizing of moral dogma.

No comment required here.

 

[Ender]

Though it is intrinsically evil because of the dignity of a human person, isn’t there a need to protect the public from certain individuals?

You cannot claim that the death penalty is intrinsically evil and that there are still cases where its use is justifiable. Something that is intrinsically evil is never justifiable. A need for defense does not justify using immoral means to attain it.

 

[graciew]

Not exactly. There are times when taking a person’s life is justifiable and therefore not immoral. The church has always taught this.

Let me just share without being much off topic the following reflexion. It is personal.
As if engraved in my heart, as a strong voice inside, I know that to kill, to steal,as other commandments isn t what God wants from me. I know that I have the Church’s permission to defend myself or my children with whatever necessary means.
If I had a weapon, say a long distant taser that would render a person sort of frozen or paralyzed until further help could arrive, it wouldn’t cross my
mind to have a loaded weapon as I have because I am often alone where the chances to have to use it are not a remote possibility and my access to help isn t immediate.
It is a struggle inside to accept that permission. In fact ,I have plan A and plan B to avoid its use. But I have to humbly submit to my Church and accept this permission because she has discerned for me and that it enough.But it is a struggle…for me.
So in all honesty, my conscience dictates that all I do to avoid that point is to be in harmony with that strong voice inside that tells me that not to kill has always and will always be what God wrote in our hearts.
Avoid it for me, and for those who protect us.
I know though that those who protect us conscientiously have God’s protection and permission as well .
But if you ask, it is to love our enemy a command. As hard a struggle as possibly no other command.
I appreciate your understanding that self defense is honestly something one has to learn to accept and be able to use. It isn’t t that easy when it comes to a real possibility of using it to an extreme.
It is personal but well, that is where I am at,Ender. Thanks for this conversation before it gets off topic.