Capital punishment...again

[Sophie111]

Thanks for the Thomistic insights.
I have always thought it logical myself that intrinsically good moral acts are capable of being defined in their objects if it is possible to do so with intrinsic evil.

 

[Richca]

It certainly would prevent another one.

Good point. With the new wording of the Catechism, there appears to be no limit to the number of murders a person can commit before the application of the death penalty, it is potentially infinite in or out of prison.

And yes, I would agree that not all prison murders are by those previously convicted of murder.

However, what signal does the Washington Supreme court give to those who have murdered before, in terms of the safety of others in the system - guards and inmates? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that if you are doing life anyway, settling what you perceive as a score has no consequences.

Yeah, retributive justice and punishment is practically non-existent. The life taken from the victims is virtually meaningless.

And I say this having represented to murderers when I was doing criminal defense work. As I noted, I am generally against the death penalty.

 

[Sophie111]

the church is no more likely to edit the words of the covenant with Noah than she is to edit one of the ten commandments.

In fact the Magisterium as done just that by steadfastly translating/interpretting the 5th as thou shall not kill.

Judaism insists thou shall not murder is closer to the original Hebrew.

This insistance in the universal Catechism is no doubt linked to the recently evolving condemnation of State killings by the last three Popes and this insistence in the CCC has been underestimated and overlooked by the Catholic pro-death lobby you well represent.

 

[Elf01]

However, what signal does the Washington Supreme court give to those who have murdered before, in terms of the safety of others in the system - guards and inmates? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that if you are doing life anyway, settling what you perceive as a score has no consequences.

I think the same argument could easily be applied to prisoners already on death row.

 

[Ender]

I can only observe its in the same list as what you see as Gods alleged covenant command for the State to always kill killers.

Again, I have never asserted that the State is obligated to execute everyone convicted of murder. There are always exceptions. The decision to employ capital punishment or not involves a judgment, it is not an inflexible command, but the right to make that choice that cannot be rescinded. It cannot become immoral per se in every case even if its use can be immoral in a particular case.

 

[Ender]

Yes, stangely the Church sees merit in defining intrinsic evils but not intrinsic goods. Yet there is no principled reason why this is not possible.

As you are aware, there are three components of an act for which we are morally accountable, and if any one of them is immoral then the act is immoral. The reason something like abortion is always immoral is that the first font - the object chosen - is always immoral, therefore the intention behind the act is irrelevant. The reason there can be no intrinsically good act is because there could always be an immoral intention behind it.

Charitable giving is always and everywere good is it not?

Not exactly.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

 

[Ender]

Thus Catholics MUST give assent to this development of doctrine, which the Vicar of Christ has articulated

Catholics are indeed required to assent to doctrines proclaimed by the church. Such assent, however is not required of prudential judgments.

Mr. Akin has stated this matter quite clearly and I quote him rather than the Cardinal Prefect simply because of the absolute submission Catholic Answers Forum participants must give to Catholic Answers apologists.

If we are not obliged to assent to the opinions even of the pope we certainly have no obligation to assent to those of Mr. Akin.

I’m really at a loss to understand why The Catholic Answers Forum is allowing itself to be used to, in any way, encourage what is actually dissent from the doctrine of Church teaching.

Because the discussion here does not involve dissent from church doctrine.

To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)

This is not a matter that is any longer open to any debate on the part of Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium.

Let me quote the Akin article you cited:

It appears that Pope Francis has made a prudential judgment that, given present circumstances in society, there are no longer situations in which the death penalty is warranted.

So, given that even the article you cited recognizes this as a prudential judgment, and as Cardinal Dulles was very clear that prudential judgments do not oblige assent, I see no reason to believe these discussion are in any way inappropriate.

 

[StarMapp]

Anytime before the next switch gets thrown. Seriously, the urgency for this resolution would suggest in the interim a postponement of the practice, or at least sentencing to a lessor sentence. In his defense he can count on the judicial axiom, “doubt in favor of the accused”. Rawls,Theory of Justice. “Doubt” on the legitimacy of the practice would seem a priority. Somewhere in the works of Emer de Vatell I would guess there is support also.

Surely, an emergency encyclical would be in order that would help to substantiate the “dignity” and worth we claim a human has. Somewhere a distraught mother can find hope, one who at one time was considering Catholicism.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Because obsequium is demanded by the nature of this exercise of the Petrine ministry by the Vicar of Christ, I’m really at a loss to understand why The Catholic Answers Forum is allowing itself to be used to, in any way, encourage what is actually dissent from the doctrine of Church teaching

Disagreeing with a Pope’s prudential judgment is not tantamount to dissenting from the “doctrine of Church teaching.”

 

[Ender]

Mr. Akin has stated this matter quite clearly and I quote him rather than the Cardinal Prefect simply because of the absolute submission Catholic Answers Forum participants must give to Catholic Answers apologists

Regarding that article, there are several points that merit a closer look, particularly this comment:

First, the revision notes that “a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.” This refers to the fact that in the past the state’s penal sanctions were understood principally as administering justice (including divine justice) to wrongdoers, but today the Church understands them principally as seeking to protect society and (hopefully) rehabilitate the offender (see Ladaria 7 and the changes made to paragraph 2266.

It appears that the “changes made to paragraph 2266” refers to the changes made from the 1992 version to the 1997 edition, because the 1997 version of that paragraph, unlike 2267, was unchanged by this newest update. This is significant because Mr. Akin asserts that the primary objective is “today” protection and rehabilitation while (the current) 2266 states that it is retribution (“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”) That is, and contrary to the claim, the primary objective of punishment is unchanged: it is still the administration of (retributive) justice.

This is no small matter: either justice is the primary objective of punishment or it isn’t, but if it isn’t then we are free to impose unjust penalties if we believe they will better ensure our safety. That seems a pretty clear case of doing evil that good may come of it, so I do not believe that Akin’s claim can possibly be true.

 

[exnihilo]

For a loyal Catholic you have an unusual reaction to self perceived contradiction. Instead of waiting it out and see how the ensuing debate unfolds amongst respected theologians (and the Popes ongoing response to such debate) you would rather just say the Pope has contradicted set doctrine (or at least your view of it) and is presumably heretical?

Ideally the teachings of the Magesterium will make doctrine more clear. When they don’t do that the problem may not be with the faithful. We live in a time when the Church produces more words of instruction than at any other time in history. And yet the teaching seems less clear. This isn’t irnonic to me because I’ve always found that more words produce less clarity.

This is no small matter: either justice is the primary objective of punishment or it isn’t, but if it isn’t then we are free to impose unjust penalties if we believe they will better ensure our safety.

I think this outlook perfectly sums up modern culture. We are more worried about safety than justice. This reflects a focus on the temporal rather than the eternal.

 

[Sophie111]

When you can provide me a concrete example of a charitable giving that is personally sinful do come back.
I would think this the least significant of the points I made…are you unable to address the most important?

 

[Sophie111]

@Ender unable to provide a Magisterial quote?

 

[Ender]

This is an interesting claim in light of the change to 2267 calling it inadmissible. The article by Jimmy Akin, to which it has been asserted we must not dissent, says this:

“…in light of this new understanding of the function of the state’s penal sanctions, the death penalty could still be justified as a means of protecting society.”

Now, if it could still be justified that would seem to suggest that “inadmissible” cannot mean “completely inadmissible” but only “mostly inadmissible.” So it seems that your position has support.

Regarding the possibility that believing “the death penalty is admissible” could be a heresy it is worth noting that believing the opposite actually was considered a heresy. We will have come a long way if we are now required to believe something it was a heresy to believe before.

One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. (Cardinal Bellarmine, De Laicis ch 2)

 

[Ender]

When you can provide me a concrete example of a charitable giving that is personally sinful do come back.

I would have thought citing the catechism making that exact point (post #90) would be sufficient. Is that not Magisterial enough for you?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

According to Cardinal Ladaria:

The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine (7).

As Mr. Akin states in his commentary:

As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.

According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.

To refuse assent from this development of doctrine is to imperil your own soul as well as your relationship with the Church as also to imperil the gift of faith itself.

To add the issue of public dissent from the Magisteriium of the Church on the forum of a Catholic apostolate is a matter to be placed in the hands of the Catholic apostolate and dealt with in this case by @cawebmaster and @camoderator since such behaviour has effects that can touch – and harm – the souls of others.

Mr. Akin well addresses this when he writes:

Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching. Fortunately, those experiencing such difficulties can have the consolation that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church “into all the truth” (John 16:13).

Since this is a development of doctrine, the above quote expresses exactly what has happened – it is the Holy Spirit who has guided the Church to the deeper understanding that has been expressed in the Catechism’s revision.

The statement of Cardinal Dulles, of blessed memory, is no longer appropriate in light of this development of doctrine.

Again, it is the occasion to give thanks to God for gift to the Church of the person of Pope Francis.

 

[Sophie111]

The CCC is vacuous re your somewhat weighty assertions.
Nor have you in anyway proven that CP is intrinsic to the Noadhic covenant, nor explained how eating blooded flesh isnt…though it be commanded just as, allegedly, CP is.

You assert this is apparantly well accepted yet provide absolutely no Magisterial support for this serious teaching and inconstency…re not having to obey the Covenantal blooded flesh prohibition.

In 60 years of Catholic learning I somehow missed that crucial doctrine.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Because the discussion here does not involve dissent from church doctrine.

To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)

Could you cite the source of this quote from Cardinal Dulles so we can read the context?

 

[Pug]

As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm, against Justice Scalia, that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning with which Justice Scalia seems not to be familiar. It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.

(I bolded the thing you wanted a context for) As given in a 2002 article in the journal “First Things”, a series of replies or remarks about Justice Scalia/death penalty.

Edit: Probably not an article, but the letters to the editor or wherever in the front matter of the magazine. I’d have to try to locate a hard copy to know (I have many of them).

 

[Sophie111]

Sophie111:

When you can provide me a concrete example of a charitable giving that is personally sinful do come back.

I would have thought citing the catechism making that exact point (post #90) would be sufficient. Is that not Magisterial enough for you?

Post #90 is my own post is it not???
In any case you come across as unwilling to dialogue seriously, intelligently or in good faith re opposing challenges. I can only conclude you contribute on this forum in some form of lobbying fashion that is not open to a change of view based on reasoned argument or clear Magisterial quotes.