Well, here’s the doctrine (aka the rule):“The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty”
Since the doctrine has not changed, opposition to the use of capital punishment at this time represents the exception.
The doctrine is clearly articulated in the Catechisms in the context of the fifth Commandment. Even back in the day the Catechism of Trent treated it within the same context of the fifth Commandment “Thou shall not kill”.
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The*** just*** use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.
The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life.*
Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. - Catechism of Trent under the Fifth Commandment
The death penalty is moral if it is
justly used. The end of civil punishment is the ‘
preservation and security of human life’. This has always been part of the Church position. When the DPs use is discussed/debated prescribed/proscribed by society, it is always a matter of justice. It is never just a matter of personal preference. To say that the Church’s strongly articulated position for abolition is nothing more than meaningless personal opinions is the most ridiculous argument to use here. The Church instituted by Christ and the natural moral compass…is obliged to teach and inform society on morality and faith.
That a punishment has a medicinal character doesn’t limit its use. If it meant what you appear to believe, the rest of that sentence (not in bold) would be self contradictory. If Aquinas meant that punishments had to heal the criminal he could hardly have asserted they should be "inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others." You can’t have him saying both that it should and should not be used.
Do you think that by medicinal, we are only referring to the health of the criminal here? Of course not. Medicinal refers to the health of society. The general health. The common good. That is the goal of the state whether left or right leaning in its politics. The health of that entity.
‘Medicinal’ treatments are the exception, not the rule.
Where does he suggest that? Where does anyone other than you suggest that? I think you have misunderstood what is being said here.*The medicinality of penalty is not merely a function of “stopping” an offense, nor merely of deterring, but of manifesting the truth regarding the transcendent order of justice and the wickedness of the offense. Without this manifestation of truth in penalty, social healing is not promoted. The medicinal value is not merely one of stopping prospective injustice, but of teaching and manifesting the truth. *(Stephen A. Long, Univ. of St. Thomas)
I’m pretty sure
"teaching and manifesting the truth" are not exceptions to the rule.
I myself don’t put any stock in American academics desperately trying to keep the death penalty. I prefer the documents that come from the Magisterium and the teachings of Popes to learn about faith and morality issues. I 100% disagree with his claim that ‘medicinal’ relates to any special authority to mainifest 'the transcendent order of justice. The ‘state’ has no innate divine quality. It only ‘manifests’ truth if it has the common good at its heart. It is only an agent of God by virtue of its administration of the common welfare of the community it is responsible for. Both you and he seem to believe that the state like the Pope, is a divine institution. That was the error of Martin Luther that lead to the Divine right of kings theory.
Life is precious but it is not inviolate, otherwise there would be no instances where it could legitimately be taken.
That is your erroneous opinion. In the same way that a vaccination works, in defense of life sometimes it could be necessary use the horrible disease itself. But only if it were to promote health. To use such a horrible measure ‘on principle’ alone is sick and evil and goes against principle itself.
God proclaims that he is absolute Lord of the life of man, who is formed in his image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-28). Human life is thus given a sacred and inviolable character, which reflects the inviolability of the Creator himself. Precisely for this reason God will severely judge every violation of the commandment “You shall not kill”, the commandment which is at the basis of all life together in society. He is the “goel”, the defender of the innocent (cf. Gen 4:9-15; Is 41:14; Jer 50:34; Ps 19:14).
God thus shows that he does not delight in the death of the living (cf. Wis 1:13). Only Satan can delight therein: for through his envy death entered the world (cf. Wis 2:24). He who is “a murderer from the beginning”, is also “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44). By deceiving man he leads him to projects of sin and death, making them appear as goals and fruits of life. Evangelium Vitae
Ender is trying his hardest to make me the antagonist against Church teaching here. It’s like when Billy has Johnny pinned to the floor thumping him but its Billy yelling out for the help from Mum. 