Capital punishment...again

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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?

Yes, most notably ‘Ad extirpanda’, a papal bull promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

Then what seems to you would, in fact, be wrong.

Far from a just punishment, every instance of the death penalty going forward would be immoral.

One more time, yet again…

[2267] Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, 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”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Perhaps…perhaps…there is a lack of understanding for those who are not theologians in the formulation. I find that very hard to believe, personally…to the point of it being impossible. But let us say that it is so.

“The Church teaches” is not a random choice of words. It is formulated as such because it is authoritative. It is not the equivalent of “The Pope postulates…” Rather, “The Church teaches” commands submission and assent of will and of intellect to the Magisterium in the teaching of the Church that it has articulated.

Recourse to the past and past formulations is, at best, futile and is actually evasive of submission to the Magisterium and the authority it possesses. The Magisterium is quite well aware of previous formulations previously. That is precisely why it has seen fit to revise the formulation and impose that revision upon the faithful – who must assent.

There is no option for a personal decision in the matter. None.

The alternative in positively withholding the required obsequium is dissent – dissent from the teaching of the Church in a matter that unconditionally demands obsequium.

 

[Pug]

I agree we can’t use a good end to spruce up a bad means. We agree that a ruler could easily have limited culpability on account of a lack of knowledge. I’m not sold on calling the average modern USA State execution intrinsically evil. But I think the difference could be one of what type of things we both tend to label with that appellation rather than a difference in outcome of what we label as wrong to do. If one knows that the situation is making it so that the killing will be poison to society rather than a cure, and one is the one who is in authority and in charge of promoting the common good, then it seems irrational to do it, it is an act of destruction to the common good, the very opposite of your purpose in acting. It is wrong to destroy.

But I wonder, I am not confident in my reasoning. Justice has always troubled me. It is easier to comprehend its implications as a virtue than as an obligation.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes, most notably ‘Ad extirpanda’, a papal bull promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV.

My compliments. I find the selection of that document impressive – at a level I all too seldom encounter on this forum, @Emeraldlady.

 

[exnihilo]

Yes, most notably ‘Ad extirpanda’, a papal bull promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV.

So the church taught something evil was good and then changed its mind. That should be very worrying then.

Far from a just punishment, every instance of the death penalty going forward would be immoral.

Every instance from here on out regardless of circumstances?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Yes, most notably ‘Ad extirpanda’, a papal bull promulgated on Wednesday, May 15, 1252 by Pope Innocent IV.

So the church taught something evil was good and then changed its mind. That should be very worrying then.

Far from a just punishment, every instance of the death penalty going forward would be immoral.

Every instance from here on out regardless of circumstances?

Without you having a basic understanding of the nature of intrinsic and extrinsic values, discussing the issue with you can only be circular and impotent. A link that may help.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/#WhaExtVal

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Every instance from here on out regardless of circumstances?

Use of the death penalty is inadmissible. Use of the death penalty is unacceptable.

That is why the Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

 

[exnihilo]

Without you having a basic understanding of the nature of intrinsic and extrinsic values, discussing the issue with you can only be circular and impotent.

That is a convenient way to not answer simple questions. But I completely understand the concept and just rattling off links doesn’t demonstrate your knowledge of the topic.

Use of the death penalty is inadmissible. Use of the death penalty is unacceptable.

Right, I got that. The question was in every circumstance until the end of the world?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Right, I got that. The question was in every circumstance until the end of the world?

This concept is really that hard to comprehend?

 

[exnihilo]

It shouldn’t be. But getting simple answers to yes or no questions seems to be impossible. I don’t know why that is the case. Well, actually I do.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It shouldn’t be. But getting simple answers to yes or no questions seems to be impossible. I don’t know why that is the case. Well, actually I do.

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.

When persons state “The question was in every circumstance until the end of the world?” when the Holy Father declares that the Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide" regarding the death penalty…the abolition of something means its obliteration…it is gone…it is consigned to the past. That is very straight forward.

After your Civil War, the government of the United States abolished slavery. Once abolition occurred, do you see the institution of slavery re-emerge in the United States in the 19th or 20th century in the United States? Do you expect it to re-emerge in the 21st or 22nd centuries? How would that be consonant with it being abolished? It is gone.

When it comes to theology, what the Holy Father has articulated are extremely easy concepts.

 

[MarlboroMan]

It is so simple, I am surprised that anyone is still discussing it:

"…an attack on the inviolability and dignity of man…"

Is the death penalty itself an attack on the dignity of man? Of course not! God ordered the death penalty carried out, and Himself often slew sinners. God, Who Is the Author of all Dignity, could no more attack the dignity of man than He could attack Love. So what is being said here? The elegant and clear solution has already been put forward in this very thread, what is clearly being said is that the death penalty does not encourage society to respect the dignity of men anymore. It is saying that the social respect for life is harmed by the application of the death penalty.

But it is not clear that this is true. Those cultures that have abandoned the death penalty almost universally have legal abortion, legal euthanasia, legal contraception. There is no correlation between the abolition of Capital Punishment and an increased awareness of the dignity of man. In fact there seems to be an inverse causal relationship. Those societies that abandon the death penalty tend to respect the dignity of life less than they did when they had it!

"…more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens…"

This has also proven to be false. The murder rate in prisons is not zero or even negligible, and there are many prison gangs that order assassinations to be carried out by members who are not currently in prison. This is not even to speak of the sexual assault that occurs in prison and also of the recidivism rate of convicts.

"…definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption."

Is it true that ALL applications of the Death Penalty deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption? Of course not! The Good Thief is an example of one who repented during his execution. There are many examples of men and women who repented and then were executed.

However, any State-sponsored execution that DID deprive a man of his ability to repent, by not giving him time to reflect on his actions or depriving him access to a confessor would certainly be a grave evil. Charity and mercy demand that all those condemned to death be given sufficient time to reflect on their crimes and also be given access to a confessor if they desire one.

"Consequently…"

This is the key word. This tells us that the Church is not condemning all Capital Punishment, but only Capital Punishment carried out where specific conditions are met. Thus, we can be sure that if those conditions are not met, the universal teaching still applies and Capital Punishment is still admissible.

I don’t know about other countries, but the USA does not qualify under any of the conditions laid out in the Catechism and therefore capital punishment is still permissible in the USA.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I don’t know about other countries, but the USA does not qualify under any of the conditions laid out in the Catechism and therefore capital punishment is still permissible in the USA.

This is most assuredly NOT the case.

I vividly remember when Saint John Paul II clearly addressed the Americans on the issue of the death penalty in the United States and the scourge of racism in the United States. It was during his visit to Saint Louis in January of 1999:

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform (cf. Evangelium Vitae , 27). I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

As the new millennium approaches, there remains another great challenge facing this community of St. Louis, east and west of the Mississippi, and not St. Louis alone, but the whole country: to put an end to every form of racism, a plague which your Bishops have called one of the most persistent and destructive evils of the nation.

It is no longer a matter of seeking consensus, however. The State is informed that if they choose the path of capital punishment, it will be in each instance an immoral act they perpetrate which Catholics cannot cooperate with.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

"Consequently…"

This is the key word. This tells us that the Church is not condemning all Capital Punishment, but only Capital Punishment carried out where specific conditions are met. Thus, we can be sure that if those conditions are not met, the universal teaching still applies and Capital Punishment is still admissible.

The preceding teaching has been superseded because a development of doctrine has occurred.

You are right that “consequently” is a key word, however.

Catholic Answers Director of Apologetics, Tim Staples, explains its significance quite ably:

A key term in the Pope’s revision is the term, “consequently…” In the final paragraph of the revision, when Pope Francis concludes: “Consequently, the Church teaches, 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’ (Francis, Discourse , Oct. 11, 2017), and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide,” we have to ask the question: consequent to what ? Consequent to the three societal and doctrinal developments he stated previously. That means that “as a consequence of these , the Church now teaches this.”

 

[exnihilo]

After your Civil War, the government of the United States abolished slavery. Once abolition occurred, do you see the institution of slavery re-emerge in the United States in the 19th or 20th century in the United States? Do you expect it to re-emerge in the 21st or 22nd centuries? How would that be consonant with it being abolished? It is gone.

Actually this is a great example of the difficulty of this change. The British freed the slaves during the colonial rebellion. But since the British own authority was at issue the declaration had no potency.

Of course historically chattel slavery did disappear from the remnants of the Roman Empire. It emerged later with the discovery of New World.

So circumstances can change and institutions can come and go but most importantly reappear.

When persons state “The question was in every circumstance until the end of the world?” when the Holy Father declares that the Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide" regarding the death penalty…the abolition of something means its obliteration…it is gone…it is consigned to the past. That is very straight forward.

Well that is a very long answer but I guess your answer is yes? Meaning forever and under all circumstances capital punishment is now wrong.

You are right that “consequently” is a key word, however.

That is a logical argument and like all arguments it can be valid or invalid and true or false. Many people question one of the premises.

 

[Ender]

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

You could have cleared this up at any time by answering the question I repeatedly posed to you: does this mean capital punishment is intrinsically evil? It is a yes or no question. In any event, the ambiguity is not lost on others:

Given my conclusions about the certitude of Church teaching in this area (with which conclusions some scholars I esteem disagree) I naturally share the grave concerns enunciated here about Pope Francis’ alteration of Catechism 2267 to reflect his view that the death penalty itself is “inadmissible” (whatever that means, although everyone knows what it means). (Edward Peters, canon lawyer)

Second, the new teaching about “inadmissibility” is expressly predicated on a composite prudential antecedent judgment (indeed, “inadmissibility” is a legal and prudential term). (Stephen Long, Professor of Theology, Ave Maria)

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

Then again, maybe not.

The conclusion about the inadmissibility of capital punishment in today’s circumstances is an instance of the fourth (and weakest) form of church teaching, prudential admonitions that command the attention of the faithful, but for which believers who conscientiously disagree are never denied communion with the Church. (Stephen Long)

 

[Ender]

From reviewing your extensive 10 years of debate on CAF re the normative goodness of CP I well understand your view. You see the object font as neutral (if not intrinsically good!) … and you hold CP may sometimes be prudentially judged “unwise” (you seem to avoid the word immoral) only in certain circumstances (font).

Aside from believing there is no such thing as an intrinsically good act, yes, that is my position. In general if we make a prudential judgment in good faith, that is, if we honestly try to make the right decision, then even if the decision is disastrously wrong there is no sin. That is not a moral choice.

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

I don’t understand this. Why do you introduce the term “state killings” when what we are discussing are executions? How can there be “sub types” of executions, and what has Pope Francis defined it to be?

You do not seem to understand my point…

Very true, this one escapes me.

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

The key word here for me is “prudentially”, as prudential judgments do not require assent and it would not be a doctrinal change.

 

[Ender]

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

I believe there can be temporary, local conditions that make the use of capital punishment unwise and inappropriate. I do not believe there can be conditions (circumstances) that allow its permanent abolition.

 

[Ender]

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

I didn’t cite Peters as proof that my (his) position was right, but to make the point that there is serious debate among the seriously well educated about what the new 2267 means. There is nothing obvious about this.

 

[Ender]

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.

His opposition to the use of capital punishment did not prevent him from making this observation:

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.