Capital punishment...again

[adgloriam]

COUNTLESS BISHOPS ALL OVER THE WORLD REJOICED WITH THE PAPAL DECISION.

WHOEVER SAID THE BISHOPS KEPT SILENT NEEDS AN Otorhinolaryngologist.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

I suggest that all readers of this thread analyse your history of posting on this forum concerning this topic, which goes back more than a decade, and what you have written that favours the death penalty.

When one reads post after post after post, year after year after year, it is abundantly apparent that what one is reading is not a search for understanding – it is agenda posting.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Frankly, I consider this to be a farce at this point. Ambiguity? That is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

From one of your American dictionaries:

inadmissible​

[in-uh d-mis-uh-buh l]

See more synonyms for inadmissible on Thesaurus.com

adjective

1. not admissible; not allowable: Such evidence would be inadmissible in any court.

un·ac·cept·a·ble​

/ˌənəkˈseptəb(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: unacceptable

1. not satisfactory or allowable.

“unacceptable behavior”

---

A conversation really becomes fruitless if the party being spoken to is incapable of understanding what the words of the Holy Father and of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith say…to wit:

The Holy Father has engaged the Ordinary Magisterium of the papacy.

The Church’s teaching has been authoritatively refined concerning the death penalty.

Today. recourse to the death penalty would be immoral. It is unacceptable. And that is a binding teaching to which the faithful are obliged to submit to.

The Pope has determined that a development of doctrine has occurred. That is his prerogative because he – and he alone – individually possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church.

By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

 

[Emeraldlady]

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.

Again I will put to you the issue of slavery which has been legal and acceptable in biblical cultures and therefore not ‘intrinsically evil’, but is now ‘inadmissible’ and therefore abolished as criminal in today’s society.

Ender:

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?

I’ve cited the philosophical difference between intrinsic and extrinsic evils earlier in the thread. Capital punishment is extrinsically evil within the culture we now live.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Ender:

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.

Do you agree that there are circumstances that can warrant abolition of the death penalty? Or do you claim that there can never be extrinsic conditions which warrant the abolition of the death penalty? You have accused the Magisterium of being ‘ambiguous’ so please be direct yourself in responding to this question.

Do you believe that there can be extrinsic circumstances warranting the abolition of the death penalty, similar to the abolition of slavery today?

 

[Emeraldlady]

adgloriam:

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.

You seem insulted by having your own position misrepresented but equally entitled to misrepresent our position and the position of the Magisterium. Very telling.

No doctrine has been reversed. No doctrine has been reversed. Within the doctrine which capital punishment serves it has previously been permitted in the interests of promoting the sanctity of human life. It is now inadmissible to preserve the doctrine of the sanctity of human life. Were it really an unChristian or ungodly move to abolish the death penalty, the many Christian based countries that have abolished it over the last century would surely have been admonished by the Magisterium. But they haven’t been. They have been supported and blessed by the Magisterium.

 

[Emeraldlady]

adgloriam:

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?

Peters own lawyer colleagues take issue with his assertions and advise caution.

"My colleage, Dr. Ed Peters, provides some good insights, but I can see that he’s struggling with this issue. I would advise those who have difficulty with Pope Francis’s teaching on the death penalty to follow the guidance of the CDF given in Donum Veritatis, 27-31. Some of Dr. Peters’ comments about the ordinary papal magisterium need clarification because they could be interpreted as challenging the universal ordinary teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, which is affirmed by three ecumenical councils: Florence (D-H, 1307); Vatican I (D-H, 3064), and Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 22 and 25). It’s also not clear that Pope Francis’s position on the death penalty is devoid of episcopal support. The Synod of Bishops in 2015 endorsed proposition 64, which states that the Church “firmly rejects the death penalty.” In Amoris Laetitia, 83, Pope Francis simply confirms this position of the Synod bishops.

I give Dr. Peters credit for trying to show some of the canonical implications of the revision of CCC 2267 on the death penalty. From an ecclesiological perspective, however, I think some of his statements need clarification." - Robert Fastiggi

 

[adgloriam]

Peters own lawyer colleagues take issue with his assertions and advise caution.

Thank you @Emeraldlady that is good to know. I had realized as much about the author around 10 months back…

 

[Pug]

He prudentially judges most State Killings in the USA today are not CPs but are in fact FEs.

I tend to agree, but maybe he is mistaken in most developing countries.
I think them still CPs and, given most circumstances, therefore both licit and wise.

Interesting that you think there is now a FE, a new category. So, is it that the first world is killing the criminal for a different reason than the developing world? Or is it that killing the criminal requires years of focused, concentrated effort, and hence poisons those who must carry out the will of the state? Or is it the reason I oppose killing the criminal in my neck of the woods, that it has proven to be a travesty of justice, reason, and sense, among other things?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Pope Francis has clearly just defined a new sub type of State killings which are intinsically evil. I call them “Franciscan Executions” .

He prudentially judges most State Killings in the USA today are not CPs but are in fact FEs.

I disagree that there is a ‘new sub type of State killings’. Experience in the many countries that have abandoned the death penalty is that it no longer manifests justice, but the right to kill ie. murder.

I tend to agree, but maybe he is mistaken in most developing countries.
I think them still CPs and, given most circumstances, therefore both licit and wise.

However, if you compare the maps, that is, death penalty countries and developing countries, the correlation isn’t there. What they show is (apart from the US) Islamic and practicing anti Christian cultures protect the right to execute. Cultures recognisably harbouring systemic prejudices who dangerously misuse their ‘divine right’.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Peters own lawyer colleagues take issue with his assertions and advise caution.

"My colleage, Dr. Ed Peters, provides some good insights, but I can see that he’s struggling with this issue. I would advise those who have difficulty with Pope Francis’s teaching on the death penalty to follow the guidance of the CDF given in Donum Veritatis, 27-31. Some of Dr. Peters’ comments about the ordinary papal magisterium need clarification because they could be interpreted as challenging the universal ordinary teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, which is affirmed by three ecumenical councils: Florence (D-H, 1307); Vatican I (D-H, 3064), and Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 22 and 25). It’s also not clear that Pope Francis’s position on the death penalty is devoid of episcopal support. The Synod of Bishops in 2015 endorsed proposition 64, which states that the Church “firmly rejects the death penalty.” In Amoris Laetitia, 83, Pope Francis simply confirms this position of the Synod bishops.

I give Dr. Peters credit for trying to show some of the canonical implications of the revision of CCC 2267 on the death penalty. From an ecclesiological perspective, however, I think some of his statements need clarification." - Robert Fastiggi

Actually, Robert Fastiggi is an American who is a theologian. I come across his articles in theological journals from time to time. If he is a civil lawyer and/or a canon lawyer as well, I do not know. What matters here is his credential as a theologian because his remarks are ultimately ecclesiological.

In any event, Dr. Peters is the American canonist who made what can only be termed remarkable assertions concerning obligations under canon law that married permanent deacons had assumed. That episode was so far beyond the pale that it caused me not to bother reading anything he authored thereafter. It was absolutely credibility destroying.

When a canonist writes that he is correct and that the Holy Father, the dicasteries of the Holy See, and the Bishops exercising governance in their dioceses around the world on so fundamental an issue are in error…well that person should be regarded as being in serious need of help.

Actually, having followed the topic of capital punishment for years, I have often remarked how the thoughts of the Bishops, most especially in the United States, have become ever clearer as they have reflected on this matter with and under the head of the College of Bishops. In no small part, this was due to Pope Saint John Paul II who led the College on this issue.

Archbishop Chaput, for example, who has been cited in this thread, has become a very vocal voice in the United States for the complete abolition of the death penalty in recent years.

The Bishops of the United States are quite vocal in expressing the Church’s teaching that the death penalty is not to be employed. In my part of the world, the elimination of the death penalty is universally acknowledged as good.

It is astonishing that Dr. Peters would assert that the Bishops are not with the Pope on this issue. They most assuredly are, in fact.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Actually, Robert Fastiggi is an American who is a theologian. I come across his articles in theological journals from time to time. If he is a civil lawyer and/or a canon lawyer as well, I do not know. What matters here is his credential as a theologian because his remarks are ultimately ecclesiological.

I stand corrected. Fastiggi and Peters are colleagues on the faculty at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit. A theologian.

 

[exnihilo]

Do you agree that there are circumstances that can warrant abolition of the death penalty?

I wouldn’t. The death penalty is a just punishment. Why would we abolish a just punishment? In fact if it is a just punishment and we abolish it then it seems likely we would have unjust punishments.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Do you agree that there are circumstances that can warrant abolition of the death penalty?

I wouldn’t. The death penalty is a just punishment. Why would we abolish a just punishment? In fact if it is a just punishment and we abolish it then it seems likely we would have unjust punishments.

By that logic, the abolition of torture as a sentence means that unjust punishments are left. Do you have problems with the Church’s teaching regarding torture also?

 

[graciew]

Just a punishment…
When one spends just some time ministering or visiting and after a few hours one leaves,maybe goes to the Supermarket, takes a shower, dines with the family, there is this lingering sense that those whom you get to appreciate and whose company we get to enjoy after weeks or months of peaceful conversation and prayer , are missing all of those little things , even the changing of the seasons.
People change .And something also changes in us.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The death penalty is a just punishment. Why would we abolish a just punishment?

In fact, it is not a just punishment. It is an immoral one.

That is Church teaching.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Hence it is the details of each case of State Killing that determines both the true nature of the object font and the circumstances font. We assume the State’s subjective intent is good.

You may as well ask if the doctor’s intent in killing an unborn baby via an ectopic procedure is different from that of a doctor who performs a procured abortion. Of course it is.

To use the medical analogy Aquinas uses may be better.

“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good” . . . . ST IIa-IIae, q. 64, a. 2.

“It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community – just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body.” ST IIa-IIae, q. 64, a. 3.

The doctors moral obligation is ultimately towards the well being of the whole body just as the states moral obligation is ultimately towards the well being of the whole community. In the past, the only antidote to serve the well being of the whole body was to amputate the infected limb. Today with advances in medicine and surgery, it is possible to treat an infected limb while still preserving it to perhaps again serve the body as healed.

To amputate an infected limb today rather than take the time to treat it, is not considered medically ethical. It is in fact an unnecessary and cruel mutilation of the whole body.

 

[Pug]

Yes, I think I had already understood your argument about the ectopic situation, which is why I didn’t comment on it. The intent of the physician is quite different in that situation from the abortion situation. But you have answered what I asked. You assume the intent of the State is good, so the difference for you between CP and FE does not lie there.

I think you intend “directly intend to kill murderers” to mean execute convicted murders as a means to pursue justice or promote human dignity or serve the common good, or whatever good end the State thinks it has in mind. But, the circumstances are not right and those ends cannot be served in the USA by execution on account of the viewpoint of the populace. So the ends of the State cannot be served by those means. Or, even if they can be served by those means, it would not meet the test of fairness (edit: or maybe reasonableness), because lesser means will do (imprisonment).

Have I understood?

 

[exnihilo]

In fact, it is not a just punishment. It is an immoral one.

That is Church teaching

It seems to me based on the constant teaching of the Church the death penalty is a just punishment. So your statement would have to be qualified. Of course individual applications of the punishment could be unjust, as with any case of a punishment being administered.

 

[exnihilo]

By that logic, the abolition of torture as a sentence means that unjust punishments are left.

Did the Church teach that torture was a just punishment and then later teach that it was unjust?