Capital punishment...again

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The Church is correcting the false assertions by US Catholics that capital punishment was a ‘divine command’ and a default sentence. That was never taught by the Church in its history.

Would you please document That US Catholic asserted that capital punishment was a divine command and a default sentence. Never have I seen such a claim. What has been asserted as stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia- The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the
Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians.

That statement in the Catholic Encyclopedia is then followed with “The advisability of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.”

The judgement to use the death penalty is in the hands of the State who are accountable to the common good.

Now I am currently awaiting a response from Ender who represents here, the type of Catholic who mistakenly believe that the death penalty was ordered, commanded or established by Genesis 9 apart from its relation to the good of mankind or the ‘common good’ and therefore as if having a intrinsic justness. They argue that even if the death penalty is deemed harmful to society by the Church, it’s esteemed justness can never warrant abolition.

The Church has never taught that.

 

[billsherman]

Might you consider that you are wrong.

I take my own advice. I consider that I might be wrong constantly. Sometimes I am wrong. There is a disease in our society where it has become considered “weak” or “unmanly” to admit error. Look at the US President for an example. The president of my own university claims he hasn’t made a mistake in over a decade. Obviously, they are both wrong just as frequently as everyone else. I believe that it is actually a sign of intellectual strength to admit an error. You can learn from it, and grow. I make mistakes professionally, and personally, every day.

Maybe I am wrong about the death penalty. But Mr. Ender, yourself, and others in this form, are decidedly wrong when you ignore, or claim that evidence presented by @Don_Ruggero consists of nothing more than “assertions,” “[his] understanding of the situation,” or nothing more than “I’m right, you’re wrong, discussion is not allowed.” You can disagree with him, the Pope, every bishop and cardinal on the planet, and a very large number of secular governments for all I care, but do NOT belittle this good man’s effort by being so cavalierly dismissive of his argument.

I recommend that you, Mr. Ender, and others who similarly dismiss the efforts of the Vatican on this point, log off the forum for a few weeks. In that time you can go to your local university library and read as many books and journal articles on as many topics that you know absolutely nothing about as you can. Humble your intellect. Once you get a firmer grasp of what you don’t know, come back. Read through the thread again, see if it made a difference. If you still think his points are mere “assertions,” go back to the library and repeat as needed.

Start over, and assume you are wrong. That’s how I begin writing every article or book. Sometimes I am wrong. You are too.

 

[hope]

But Mr. Ender, yourself, and others in this form, are decidedly wrong when you ignore, or claim that evidence presented by @Don_Ruggero consists of nothing more than “assertions,” “[his] understanding of the situation,” or nothing more than “I’m right, you’re wrong, discussion is not allowed.” You can disagree with him, the Pope, every bishop and cardinal on the planet, and a very large number of secular governments for all I care, but do NOT belittle this good man’s effort by being so cavalierly dismissive of his argument.

Wow! I am not going to engage with you further I don’t want to be suspended suffice it to say that you paint with a very broad brush. Non of which you have written applies to me and you have ignored what I have said.
I have not addressed anything that Don has said other that I hope he is wrong otherwise what the Church has taught for 2000 years was wrong. I suggest that you that you humble your intellect. Read Warren Carroll"s history. I had better stop I have had to delete things that I know would get me permanently suspended

 

[hope]

Punishment in general is not universally prohibited by Jesus … but killing is.

Number and verse please?

Are you equating all killing with murder?

This thread is not about “punishment”.

Did you notice the title of this thread?

 

[hope]

It is hard to reply to straw man assertions.

 

[Emeraldlady]

It is hard to reply to straw man assertions.

You have jumped into the discussion 400 plus posts in and it’s understandable you haven’t followed the positions.

Out of curiousity; do you believe that the Church’s endorsement of abolition of the death penalty is legitimate or heretical?

 

[hope]

I did indeed notice that but I thought it was silly. I also notice that you did not answer my questions

 

[Emeraldlady]

You make unwarranted assumptions. If as you state the Church was merely endorsing the abolition of the death penalty it would not be heretical but that is not what was done the teaching was changed., no not developed but changed. As I have stated such a position means that what the Church taught for 2000 years was wrong. What else will be changed?

Those of us that aren’t from the US but from countries where the death penalty has been abolished over the last century, can clearly recognise that the Church isn’t changing anything. It is responding with scriptural and doctrinal authority to the falsehood that abolition is ungodly. As I’ve said, you have jumped into the conversation not aware of the previous assertions that abolition of the death penalty is ungodly. Ender particularly leads that false position.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I have not addressed anything that Don has said other that I hope he is wrong otherwise what the Church has taught for 2000 years was wrong.

Well, if you are not going to address me by my title and my name, Don Ruggero, as the two go together, at least have the courtesy to use the title that you would use in the United States…Father. It is really not considered polite to simply use the title “Don” standing alone unless you are close terms with the priest…

I was already lecturing in the field of moral theology when Saint John Paul II – rightly – condemned the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae in 1995 – and told my students at that moment that the previous teaching was about to be surpassed in their lifetime. The Church’s living Magisterium overpasses all the Doctors of the Church and corrects them as need be.

I also remarked on this forum some two years ago that a theological commission was empaneled precisely on the point of an eventual revision of the catechism because of the development of doctrine on this very point. The work was finished last Spring.

It is one of the things that I am most grateful to see come to its fruition in my lifetime.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Those of us that aren’t from the US but from countries where the death penalty has been abolished over the last century, can clearly recognise that the Church isn’t changing anything.

Indeed.

It horrifies me, actually, that there are Catholics in America who would actually cling to this horrible reality that is capital punishment – let alone try to defend its use. It is, as the Successor of Saint Peter has said, inadmissible and unacceptable. It has no place in today’s world at all…and not only because it is immoral to employ it.

I would hope all Catholics in America would join with the Bishops of their country in working diligently for the complete abolition of the death penalty.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It is either that or it is a change in doctrine. No it is not a development but a change a change that has me questioning. The only way I can hold on is to believe it is not binding or true.

And by what possible qualification do you think that you are better able to assess what the reality is – a development of doctrine – than both the Head of the College of Bishops, the very Vicar of Christ himself, and the Cardinal Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

That is effrontery so ridiculous as to be absurd

 

[Canvas]

I would hope all Catholics in America would join with the Bishops of their country in working diligently for the complete abolition of the death penalty.

As a Catholic in America, I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I would also like to see more American Catholics speak up in defense of the migrants and refugees, and our Latino Catholic brothers and sisters (many of whom are American citizens or lawful residents) who are being scapegoated in the current political climate.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As a Catholic in America, I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I would also like to see more American Catholics speak up in defense of the migrants and refugees, and our Latino Catholic brothers and sisters (many of whom are American citizens or lawful residents) who are being scapegoated in the current political climate.

Indeed. How wonderful that the Vice President of your national conference of Catholic Bishops – and therefore its next President – is himself an immigrant, having been born, grew up, and attended university in Mexico. I have enjoyed whenever Archbishop Gomez and I have had occasion to speak together. I am confident that he will do even more on the issues of migrants and refugees when he is himself the President of the Bishops’ conference.

 

[exnihilo]

Once you get a firmer grasp of what you don’t know, come back. Read through the thread again, see if it made a difference. If you still think his points are mere “assertions,” go back to the library and repeat as needed.

That sounds great. Except no one has bothered to answer the core questions, which are simple ones. The problem isn’t lack of knowledge but the fact that defenders of the position can’t answer simple questions. After a while it becomes obvious why. I do agree that it is likely only by excessive education one could ‘understand’ this. Most of the worst, nonsensical ideas have come from academics.

 

[Ender]

The Church is correcting the false assertions by US Catholics that capital punishment was a ‘divine command’ and a default sentence. That was never taught by the Church in its history.

Don’t be too sure of that…

For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine)

(3 objection 3) … Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.
On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, 105, 2). (Aquinas ST II-II 108, 3)

 

[Ender]

So which is it? Is the punishment of execution for murder fixed outside the common good and can never change. Or are all punishments including execution, determined by the State as the caretaker of the common good?

I said there were two criteria that determined the justness of a punishment: (1) is the severity appropriate for the severity of the crime, and (2) does its use introduce harm to the community. A punishment is unjust if either criterion is not met. Why is this complicated? Clearly it is the State that determines the latter. How often must I say there can be valid prudential objections to the use of capital punishment?

Where did the Church ever teach the first of your ‘criterior’?

That capital punishment is a just punishment according to the first criterion is a given. If the church thought it was unjust she would never have recognized the validity of its use, let alone done so for two millennia. If the death penalty was unjust by the standard of commensurate severity the church would have opposed its use.

 

[Ender]

However you suffer from an error of logical reasoning…

As I said, I hear that a lot. What I’m looking for are actual arguments that address specific points I have made.

… to assume the Venn diagram circle “Punishment” is all there is to understanding the morality of the circle “Killings”.

Inventing a foolish position and ascribing it to me is not what I mean by an actual argument. I have made boatloads of specific claims. Pick one and refute it.

I suggest the morality of “State Killings” is better understood by a comprehensive understanding of the morality of “killings” in general…not by a comprehensive understanding of “punishments” in general.

Make your case. Assert something particular that we can discuss.

Punishment in general is not universally prohibited by Jesus … but killing is.

I disagree. Support your position.

This thread is not about “punishment”.

No, this thread is entirely about punishment, and if the discussion was somehow separated from the concept of punishment nothing would make sense. It is only the proper understanding of punishment that allows us to justly respond to a person’s actions.

 

[Ender]

But the Church prefers to translate the 5th as “Thou shall not kill” regardless of what Judaism or our Protestant brothers might think.

The church has never taken an absolutest position against all killing, otherwise she would not have (always) noted three exceptions:

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism)

 

[exnihilo]

I said there were two criteria that determined the justness of a punishment: (1) is the severity appropriate for the severity of the crime, and (2) does its use introduce harm to the community. A punishment is unjust if either criterion is not met. Why is this complicated? Clearly it is the State that determines the latter. How often must I say there can be valid prudential objections to the use of capital punishment?

I just thought of an interesting hypothetical. What if in the United States we had a criminal convicted of many murders. Let’s also say that this person is it foreign national coming from a land where the people are very fanatical about their religion. And let us say that they demand that this man be put to death. Finally let say that they insist that if he is not put to death they must, according to their true beliefs, kill one or more innocent Americans.

In that case society would be seriously harmed, people killed, by not putting him to death. So in that case would executing him be the proper thing to do to protect society? Or is it better that many innocent suffer lest one guilty man be put to death?

 

[Ender]

I just thought of an interesting hypothetical. What if in the United States we had a criminal convicted of many murders. Let’s also say that this person is it foreign national coming from a land where the people are very fanatical about their religion. And let us say that they demand that this man be put to death. Finally let say that they insist that if he is not put to death they must, according to their true beliefs, kill one or more innocent Americans.

In that case society would be seriously harmed, people killed, by not putting him to death. So in that case would executing him be the proper thing to do to protect society? Or is it better that many innocent suffer lest one guilty man be put to death?

Well, I have recognized (at least) two criteria for a punishment to be just, so if the man in question has not committed a sufficiently serious crime to merit the death penalty then it would be unjust to execute him regardless of the reaction that might ensue.

Now if his crime is serious enough to merit death then the government has to decide which action (death or not) is more beneficial, and frankly I suspect that there are any number of jurisdictions that would choose not to execute regardless of the reaction. I doubt you could invent a scenario that would convince them to execute someone, but I would guess they would also believe the first criterion could never be met.