Capital punishment...again

[Buddyroe]

If the Death Penalty is regarded intrinsically evil then God is evil. For the cause of homicide God decreed a specific penalty for killing another man, because man was created in the image of God. This decree predates the Decalogue and applies to everyone; Jews, Christians, and atheists. However God is not evil He is loving and He is just .

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis seems to be saying …

This is a major part of the problem: what was said isn’t clear.

…the types of State killings that are acceptable cannot be found in modern society.

What qualifies as a modern society, and where in the new version of 2267 is there any mention of that section being applicable to some societies and not to others?

What it is about modern society that makes them illicit in principle is another matter.

This would seem to be the central question. Can anyone answer it?

 

[Buddyroe]

If it were in the USA Pope Francis would likely prudentially say it is a FE type and so immoral.
If it were in Quatemala which is not known for a modern penal system, he may well prudentially decide it is a CP type and therefore regretable but acceptable…provided the country is working to improve its penal system so one day it can be done away with.

Is this to imply that ecclesiastical rules punishment by death can have varied and even contradictory applications based on culture? If so then the Church is ruled by culture and not by the Holy Ghost.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Buddyroe]

The topic du jour is lawfulness of human execution by the state not usury etc. State killings outside of the punishment role also do not seem to fit the generally understood meaning of capital punishment.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

You are piggy backing your position which is one of dissent from Catholic teaching…

Before you can claim I am dissenting from church teaching we first have settle on what is actually being taught. One of the problems in the new version of 2267 is the ambiguity of the word inadmissible.

It is ‘inadmissible’ like slavery is ‘inadmissible’. Like torture is 'inadmissible. Like polygamy is ‘inadmissible’. Not difficult at all.

Ender:

I have never seen or read anyone here claim that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. That appears to be your strawman.

Fine, but if its use is not intrinsically evil then there are circumstances when its use can be justified…when in fact it is not inadmissible. That is, the determination of when to use it is not a moral judgment but a practical one: does it benefit or harm society by its use.

Do you believe the abolition of slavery was merely a ‘prudential judgement’ rather than being based on the morality of slavery?

Ender:

The Church is impelled to clarify the doctrine now in response to the false claim that capital punishment can never be immoral in legal justice.

No one has ever made such a claim. This assuredly has never been something I have suggested.

This is where I get the duplicity alarm bell warning. So let us be clear about what you have previously claimed.

In post #74 your stated.

You’ve missed the point of my comments. I have never held that capital punishment is always justifiable. What I am saying is that it can never be absolutely condemned as intrinsically evil so there will always be situations where its use is justifiable. All objections to its use are prudential, not moral.

Clarify what you mean by this. Bear in mind that the reason that the death penalty has been abolished in other countries directly cites that it is morally unacceptable. Pope StJPII cites the movement as due to ‘a growing moral sensitivity’ regarding human dignity. How do you respond to those objections? Is everybody including the Church, just wrong but you?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The Church’s teaching, as expressed clearly and authoritatively in the Catechism and The Gospel of Life, should not be ignored or dismissed as just one opinion among others.

This is very true, and I have acknowledged it:

…they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord. (Dulles)

That said, even the USCCB recognizes this is an opinion, and dissent from opinions may be legitimate.

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

And this is the duplicity. Cardinal Dulles refers to Pope JPII’s judgement that the concrete circumstances today warrant abolition of the death penalty. He says that if other experts were to consider this an imprudent judgement in today’s circumstances, that can be a legitimate disagreement.

However, you are piggy backing that explanation to justify your own position that there is no legitimate cause to ever abolish the death penalty. That is outside the doctrine which capital punishment serves and ethically, you should be clear about that position so as not to fool Catholics who disagree in a legitimate way.

 

[Ender]

The Church is impelled to clarify the doctrine now in response to the false claim that capital punishment can never be immoral in legal justice.

Ender:

No one has ever made such a claim. This assuredly has never been something I have suggested.

I distinguish between the morality of capital punishment per se and the justness of its use in specific situations. To say that it was wrong to execute Fred says nothing about whether Bill should be executed. The doctrine and the application of the doctrine are very different things. I have never suggested that capital punishment could not be, or has not been, wrongly applied, but only that the morality of capital punishment in general is pretty much settled by 2000 years of doctrine, and that the objections to its use now are prudential, not moral.

It is ‘inadmissible’ like slavery is ‘inadmissible’. Like torture is 'inadmissible. Like polygamy is ‘inadmissible’. Not difficult at all.

You have denied that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, therefore there must be instances where its use is appropriate, but if its use is legitimate in any case no matter how rare, what does it mean to say it is inadmissible?

 

[Ender]

And this is the duplicity.

I’m tired of this. Make whatever argument you can without the insults.

However, you are piggy backing that explanation to justify your own position that there is no legitimate cause to ever abolish the death penalty. That is outside the doctrine which capital punishment serves and ethically, you should be clear about that position so as not to fool Catholics who disagree in a legitimate way.

I have never made such a claim. This is your own invention, which you would realize if you tried citing my specific words instead of making up a position and ascribing it to me.

 

[adgloriam]

@Emeraldlady

but her “ordinary” magisterium, also capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine,

it requires popes and bishops around the world and over a long, long time

@Emeraldlady not a single bishop dissented, not a single bishop will dissent. It’s done !! For centuries, millenniums, to come. Everything else are just sour misleading claims.

 

[Ender]

That’s what the OP is doing, oversimplifying, distorting, and minimizing.

More insults? Have you nothing positive to contribute? Take a specific comment I’ve made and challenge it; you might find it more difficult than you expect.

 

[Ender]

I DID NOT INSULT YOU! STOP LYING!

You said I was distorting, by which I assume you meant distorting the truth. Perhaps you don’t consider that insulting. I do. Pretty much like being called a liar. I’m not a fan of that either.

 

[adgloriam]

I stated fact and the only fact necessary. Not a single bishop dissented and not a single bishop will dissent.

THE ONLY FACT NECESSARY.

 

[Ender]

It’s done !! For centuries, millenniums, to come.

If it is such a simple thing to reverse 2000 years of doctrine that any pope can do it, why would you believe that the current doctrine cannot be reversed again in the future? If doctrines are nothing more than the positions taken by the most current pope then nothing can be considered “done” - everything would be open to revision.

 

[adgloriam]

I stated fact and the only fact necessary. Not a single bishop dissented and not a single bishop will dissent.

THE ONLY FACT NECESSARY.

 

[exnihilo]

However his defining/clarification of a new type of State Killing (FSEs) would not be a prudential judgement. It is clearly an exercise of his teaching Magisterium and a moral judgement at the level of principle.

To be clear, you believe Francis has discovered a novel form of state killing that did not exist before?

Do you believe the abolition of slavery was merely a ‘prudential judgement’ rather than being based on the morality of slavery?

Slavery hasn’t been declared intrinsically evil and if someone thinks it has been then there is a far worse problem with the Catholic Church changing doctrine than with capital punishment. Slavery is also a prudential judgment.

Pope StJPII cites the movement as due to ‘a growing moral sensitivity’ regarding human dignity.

While I would say it is a growing insensitivity to human dignity mainly the dignity of the victims.

 

[Ender]

adgloriam:

I stated fact and the only fact necessary. Not a single bishop dissented and not a single bishop will dissent.

THE ONLY FACT NECESSARY.

How to sum up the traditional understanding of this matter so far? Maybe thus: If it’s not extraordinary, it’s at most ordinary, but if it’s ordinary, it requires popes and bishops around the world and over a long, long time , and not just a pope in a claim or two. (Edward Peters J.D. J.C.L.)

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

adgloriam:

I stated fact and the only fact necessary. Not a single bishop dissented and not a single bishop will dissent.

THE ONLY FACT NECESSARY.

How to sum up the traditional understanding of this matter so far? Maybe thus: If it’s not extraordinary, it’s at most ordinary, but if it’s ordinary, it requires popes and bishops around the world and over a long, long time , and not just a pope in a claim or two. (Edward Peters J.D. J.C.L.)

NOT A BISHOP !!

[lawyer with blog don’t qualify.]

See a difference?

I stated fact and the only fact necessary. Not a single bishop dissented and not a single bishop will dissent.

THE ONLY FACT NECESSARY.

 

[Feanor2]

Why do you feel the Last 3 popes have been calling for it’s abolitionment?

Are they just mistaken?

 

[Ender]

So there are two ways in which an execution may be judged wrong:
…by means of its unique circumstances
…by means of the recognition of a contrary principle always activated in a clearer understanding of what applies in the object of characteristic sub classes of execution.

But this is my point. If an execution is wrong based on its circumstances then it is the circumstances that are judged inappropriate, not the execution itself. That was true before, and seems no less true today.

The concrete details (not “circumstances”) have caused redefinition of the object font. That recognition is a prudential judgement.

Are you saying executions are now judged to be objectively immoral? That is, they are intrinsically evil?

 

[Ender]

I stated fact and the only fact necessary. Not a single bishop dissented and not a single bishop will dissent.

92 “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”

“Manifest” means to demonstrate, to show. It does not mean being silent. Silence is not assent.