capital punishment

[adrift]

You could not more understate the position the Church has put if you tried! I find such understatement to be a tad disingenuous.

This is an ad hominem attack.

If one’s wife dies in a car accident leaving young children, one might say it accurate to call that ‘an inconvenient event’. But I’d be astonished if anyone thought that was a reasonable characterisation of the event.

Yet you don’t provide any reasonable answer to what I wrote but only attack.

By the way, I believe Ender argues a reverse of that statement, viz: CP is generally the appropriate punishment (for murder) unless special circumstances weigh against it. I only mention this because I previously thought you and Ender were entirely on the same wavelength.

So?

I find your answers to be an overstatement of the position of the Church. I also have found that you cannot agree to anything as if you agree to one point you loose all. In fact the opposite is true.

1. The Church has always taught that government has the right to use the death penalty.
   THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X

3 Q: Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?

A: It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.

Note there is no conditions.
Those conditions are a development which themselves have conditions. If there is no doubt and If there is no other way.

You may feel that I “understated” it and You may feel that it is “disingenuous” but such feelings are not reason. It seems that what you really want is it to be called intrinsically wrong despite your protest to the opposite.

 

[adrift]

Your response was that the Church forbade clerics to shed blood. But this did not answer the question about burning someone at the stake. You claim:

The Church allowed burning at the stake in the past. Today it does not, isn’t that true?. That is one teaching that has changed.
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with changing the teaching on this. People do the best they can under the circumstances and conditions. Generally, Christians of good will work toward better solutions as time progresses.

I answered in post 252. It wasn’t a teaching read the post for the full explanation.

 

[Rau]

This is an ad hominem attack.

It’s not meant that way, as I thought my further elaboration in the following example indicated:
"If one’s wife dies in a car accident leaving young children, one might say it accurate to call that ‘an inconvenient event’. But I’d be astonished if anyone thought that was a reasonable characterisation of the event. "

I find your answers to be an overstatement of the position of the Church.

Which answers? I referred to Evangelium Vitae, and the Catechism, in particular the statement: “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” I suggested that such a direction ought reasonably be seen to be more than some observation about whether CP is “necessary”.

I also have found that you cannot agree to anything as if you agree to one point you loose all. In fact the opposite is true.

I’ve no idea to what this refers. I’ve agreed to various points, including the fact that CP is not intrinsically evil. I don’t agree with points that I think are flawed.

You may feel that I “understated” it and You may feel that it is “disingenuous” but such feelings are not reason.

I brought reason to bear by contrasting Evandelium + the Catechism to your view that “CP is not necessary”.

It seems that what you really want is it to be called intrinsically wrong despite your protest to the opposite.

Not a safe assumption, given I’ve stated the reverse. There is no contradiction if it is understood that a human act can be immoral and/or can do more harm that good, without being intrinsically evil.

Let me put my views adjacent to yours. The numbered items are yours, my response following in italics:

1. Traditionally the Church does not prohibit Capitol Punishment and still doesn’t
   Agreed.
2. The Church does not believe it is necessary.
   Clearly the case, but wholly understated when one examines what has actually been said. The Church goes way beyond unnecessary, to at least as far as “inappropriate in most cases” - and I’d suggest that even that is an understatement. It is not “lack of necessity” that motivates the Church to see a great reduction (if not a total end) to CP, but a belief that it is harmful.
3. The Church does not consider Capitol Punishment murder
   Agreed.
4. Capitol Punishment is not ipso fact contrary to justice.
   Did you mean “per se” rather than “ipso facto”? I haven’t thought about that, but I suspect I would agree. Punishments need to be just - a necessary but not sufficient attribute.

 

[adrift]

It’s not meant that way, as I thought my further elaboration in the following example indicated:
"If one’s wife dies in a car accident leaving young children, one might say it accurate to call that ‘an inconvenient event’. But I’d be astonished if anyone thought that was a reasonable characterisation of the event. "

I accept that you didn’t mean it that way. It would have been better to have left it out as it did not further the discussion. Your further elaboration did not temper the words which I felt were insulting. It impugned my motives. There was no need for it.

Which answers? I referred to Evangelium Vitae, and the Catechism, in particular the statement: “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” I suggested that such a direction ought reasonably be seen to be more than some observation about whether CP is “necessary”.

I believe you must take in to consideration the traditional teaching. I don’t believe that the Church now teaches that the death penalty may never be used which is what I see you saying.

I’ve no idea to what this refers. I’ve agreed to various points, including the fact that CP is not intrinsically evil. I don’t agree with points that I think are flawed.

Both you and Ender find fault with posters. The post that answered mine is a case in point. Instead of saying : "Yeah your right the Church doesn’t teach it is murder (which is what I was objecting to) but I think the Church is saying more than it is not necessary it is saying…(whatever you believe is the Church stance) you instead attacked my response without acknowledging my main point. You did a better job with this latter response. But it does seem that you look at my post and see what you can find things to disagree.

I brought reason to bear by contrasting Evandelium + the Catechism to your view that “CP is not necessary”.

This rubs me the wrong way. You brought reason? I realize that you feel my position is unreasonable and I find this another attack. It is your opinion which I don’t agree.

Not a safe assumption, given I’ve stated the reverse. There is no contradiction if it is understood that a human act can be immoral and/or can do more harm that good, without being intrinsically evil.

What you want though is CP to be seen only as immoral. It is clear otherwise you wouldn’t have attacked my statement which in my opinion is accurate.

Let me put my views adjacent to yours. The numbered items are yours, my response following in italics:

1. Traditionally the Church does not prohibit Capitol Punishment and still doesn’t
   Agreed.

1. The Church does not believe it is necessary.
   Clearly the case, but wholly understated when one examines what has actually been said. The Church goes way beyond unnecessary, to at least as far as “inappropriate in most cases” - and I’d suggest that even that is an understatement. It is not “lack of necessity” that motivates the Church to see a great reduction (if not a total end) to CP, but a belief that it is harmful.

I would not agree to the word inappropriate. Harmful? No. I do see where you can get that interpretation but I think my interpretation is more accurate it is not necessary.

the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent

Look at that it uses the word necessity but I don’t see the word harmful but as I said I do see that concept but it isn’t spelled out as much as you would like it to be.

1. The Church does not consider Capitol Punishment murder
   Agreed.

Which is what my post was concerned.

1. Capitol Punishment is not ipso fact contrary to justice.
   Did you mean “per se” rather than “ipso facto”? I haven’t thought about that, but I suspect I would agree. Punishments need to be just - a necessary but not sufficient attribute.

I like the sound of ipso fact and it does fit somewhat but you are right per se is better.

 

[Tomdstone]

It wasn’t a teaching .

I don’t believe you are correct. It seems to me like it was a teaching of Pope Leo X: In the Papal Bull, Exsurge Domine, this statement was condemned along with many other ones:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

“[condemned] 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

But why or in what aspects was that error condemned?

“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”

 

[Rau]

I don’t believe you are correct. It seems to me like it was a teaching of Pope Leo X: In the Papal Bull, Exsurge Domine, this statement was condemned along with many other ones:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

“[condemned] 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

But why or in what aspects was that error condemned?

“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”

CP has often been painful to some degree, particularly in historical times. I have no idea why burning was used. We would view it today as cruel. Was it “torture” or simply the “CP method du jour”? I’m not aware that the fire was lit as a means to extract information or such similar purpose. It was the means of CP.

 

[adrift]

I don’t believe you are correct. It seems to me like it was a teaching of Pope Leo X: In the Papal Bull, Exsurge Domine, this statement was condemned along with many other ones:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

“[condemned] 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

But why or in what aspects was that error condemned?

“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”

I find this post to be extremely funny.

I said it was not a teaching of the Church You state that I am wrong and then present a document that supports that the Church condemned the burning of a heretic. You are just to funny.

 

[Rau]

…I believe you must take in to consideration the traditional teaching. I don’t believe that the Church now teaches that the death penalty may never be used which is what I see you saying.

I’ve clearly not said that! I’ve said that the Church is:

1. Affirming it is not an impermissible punishment;
2. Stating that it is not to be used unless required for protection because in other circumstances, bloodless means are “more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”;

This 2nd point is about the Circumstances (incl consequences) of the act.

Both you and Ender find fault with posters. The post that answered mine is a case in point. Instead of saying : "Yeah your right the Church doesn’t teach it is murder (which is what I was objecting to) but I think the Church is saying more than it is not necessary it is saying…(whatever you believe is the Church stance) you instead attacked my response without acknowledging my main point.

I believe it self-evident that the Church does not teach CP is murder. I hardly thought that point needed affirmation.

…it does seem that you look at my post and see what you can find things to disagree.

We won’t progress to deeper understanding by merely confirming what another says with which we agree. Debate tends to focus on that which is not agreed, where there are differences, be they large or nuanced.

This rubs me the wrong way. You brought reason? I realize that you feel my position is unreasonable and I find this another attack.

You criticised my point as being merely “feeling”. I think your point is unreasonable because - if words mean what I think they mean - you’re acknowledging only 50% of what they say. That CP is “unnecessary” (most of the time) is the first 50% and is as obvious (to me) as that CP is not murder. But the words of EV and the Catechism convey a more pointed message than just “CP is unnecessary”. Unnecessary just means there are adequate alternatives - well I would have thought that was self-evident also. The Church says more than that - it also says that the alternative (bloodless) means are a better choice [in all but the rare exceptions] - and it gives reason for why they are the better choice - the more appropriate choice. The reasons it gives is that they “are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

What you want though is CP to be seen only as immoral.

Not in every case - no - certainly not. Morality of an act not intrinsically evil needs to be assessed having regard to Intentions and Circumstances (incl Consequences). The Catechism provides its position on the latter. I am somewhat ambivalent as to whether one views that position as prudential judgement, or rather more compelling. But it is clearly saying that the Consequences of CP are generally not as favourable as the alternatives, in which case, why would we want to choose it?

I would not agree to the word inappropriate. Harmful? No. I do see where you can get that interpretation but I think my interpretation is more accurate [viz.] it is not necessary.

Why choose another option merely because it exists? It follows plainly that the alternative is advocated because it is better / more appropriate / less harmful (take your pick) - a better balance of consequences. If that is so (as the Catechism says), we should choose that alternative.

 

[Ender]

I am not sure about this. It seems like it is a matter of opinion. Take for example, the case of burning St. Joan of Arc at the stake. Burning a person alive like that seems to be a serious offense to human dignity and as well seems to go against the present teaching regarding the immorality of torture.

The fact the state is morally justified in using capital punishment does not mean that every execution is therefore just. Making the case that the execution of Joan of Arc was immoral says nothing about whether other executions were or were not moral. I have been given free will, but this in no way means that my every exercise of that right is therefore justified. I have a right but I may still abuse that right. This is equally true of States.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’ve said that the Church is: …
2) Stating that it is not to be used unless required for protection because in other circumstances, bloodless means are “more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”

This is an expression of a preference; it is not a doctrine.

That CP is “unnecessary” (most of the time) is the first 50% and is as obvious (to me) as that CP is not murder. But the words of EV and the Catechism convey a more pointed message than just “CP is unnecessary”.

EV and the catechism address the issue from the perspective of the anticipated consequences. The question of the usefulness of CP is simply not discussed.

The Church says more than that - it also says that the alternative (bloodless) means are a better choice [in all but the rare exceptions] - and it gives reason for why they are the better choice - the more appropriate choice.

A better choice in the current circumstances is not a better choice the abstract.

But it is clearly saying that the Consequences of CP are generally not as favourable as the alternatives, in which case, why would we want to choose it?

Yes, this is clearly the opinion it expresses.

Ender

 

[billcu1]

The Church’s position is that execution by the state is not murder.

Here is the Catechism definition of Justice

You might also consider this as well

1. Traditionally the Church does not prohibit Capitol Punishment and still doesn’t
2. The Church does not believe it is necessary.
3. The Church does not consider Capitol Punishment murder
4. Capitol Punishment is not ipso fact contrary to justice.

Well Francis in his letter certainly said there was no reason for CP. Officially the church might not be against it but he personally is.

Bill

 

[Rau]

This is an expression of a preference; it is not a doctrine.

I’ve not entered the debate over doctrine. I’ve just taken the words at face value.

EV and the catechism address the issue from the perspective of the anticipated consequences. The question of the usefulness of CP is simply not discussed.

Usefulness was not in the discussion, so not sure why you introduce it here. Adrift viewed the EV and Catechism treatment as merely addressing “necessity”. I point out it goes beyond that.

A better choice in the current circumstances is not a better choice [in?] the abstract.

Circumstances, by their nature, vary with time (and other factors). The Catechism clearly addresses “current” circumstances and from the context, it is clear those circumstances are not fleeting.

Yes, this is clearly the opinion it expresses.

The Church reaches a conclusion, and on the basis of that conclusion, directs authority to avoid use of CP in all but limited situations.

 

[Ender]

Officially the church might not be against it but he personally is.

This is the point that is too often lost. The recent opposition to the use of capital punishment is personal, not doctrinal.405.Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are **preferred **as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835]
[835] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.
(Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)
Ender

 

[Rau]

This is the point that is too often lost. The recent opposition to the use of capital punishment is personal, not doctrinal.*405.Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are **preferred ***as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835]
[835] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.
(Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)
Ender

“Personal”, or a sound conclusion? It does not seem reasonable to conclude that something as unfirm as a personal opinion would be elevated to a key tenet of the teaching expressed in the catechism on this subject.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by billcu1
Officially the church might not be against it but he personally is.

Always trying to prove a point with your trusty cherry picker. The Church is against capital punishment. Read the whole of paragraph 405.

405. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society.

That clearly means the universal Church… not some ‘measly opinionated Pope’. The Church is speaking to her faithful.

Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”.[833] Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”.[834]

Simple stuff. The Church doesn’t exclude the death penalty if the defense of human life warrants such an extreme measure! ie. it isn’t intrinsically evil.

Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835]

More simple stuff. Promoting human dignity and the common good are better served by punishments that don’t involve death.

The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.

How much more plain and simple can a statement be? Our moral awareness is naturally producing an aversion to death as a punishment around the world. Bloodless means are preferred because it is deemed the more moral way by the Catholic Church.

 

[billcu1]

Always trying to prove a point with your trusty cherry picker. The Church is against capital punishment. Read the whole of paragraph 405.

405. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society.

That clearly means the universal Church… not some ‘measly opinionated Pope’. The Church is speaking to her faithful.

Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”.[833] Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”.[834]

Simple stuff. The Church doesn’t exclude the death penalty if the defense of human life warrants such an extreme measure! ie. it isn’t intrinsically evil.

Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835]

More simple stuff. Promoting human dignity and the common good are better served by punishments that don’t involve death.

The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.

How much more plain and simple can a statement be? Our moral awareness is naturally producing an aversion to death as a punishment around the world. Bloodless means are preferred because it is deemed the more moral way by the Catholic Church.

A “measly opinionated Pope” I thought they were the guides. The church you say. The church say to the faithful how. Through an ecumenical council? A synod?

Bill

 

[LongingSoul]

A “measly opinionated Pope” I thought they were the guides. The church you say. The church say to the faithful how. Through an ecumenical council? A synod?

Bill

Bill, I put the opinionated phrase in quotes to demonstrate Enders dismissal of the Popes as speaking for the Church. They speak for the Church … to the faithful … on matters of morality. It’s ridiculous to equate the Popes encyclicals and the catechism with mere fashion advice or recommended recipes, as Ender continues to promote.

 

[Ender]

“Personal”, or a sound conclusion? It does not seem reasonable to conclude that something as unfirm as a personal opinion would be elevated to a key tenet of the teaching expressed in the catechism on this subject.

It is a judgment. I have said this for years. There is no justification in trying to distort my comments by applying your definitions to my statements. Deal with the concept, don’t engage in verbal games.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Always trying to prove a point with your trusty cherry picker. The Church is against capital punishment. Read the whole of paragraph 405.

Oh good, Little Miss Sunshine is back with more vituperation. Perhaps you would be less antagonistic if you actually understood what was being discussed (hint: it has nothing to do with whether the church currently opposes the use of capital punishment.) The whole of paragraph 405 was not relevant to the question being discussed so it was unnecessary to cite all of it. Apparently addressing one point at a time is still one point too many.

That clearly means the universal Church… not some ‘measly opinionated Pope’.

Rau: See, this is the kind of thing I was objecting to about your comment, although this clearly goes well beyond what you did. I could not have invented such a marvelous example of blatant distortion.

None of the other comments, for all their bold colors, were pertinent. Impertinent perhaps, but not pertinent.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Bill, I put the opinionated phrase in quotes to demonstrate Enders dismissal of the Popes as speaking for the Church. They speak for the Church … to the faithful … on matters of morality. It’s ridiculous to equate the Popes encyclicals and the catechism with mere fashion advice or recommended recipes, as Ender continues to promote.

It is tempting to label your comments as deliberate fabrication since there is no truth to any of them, but, as incredible as it appears, it seems likely you actually believe that what you say is true. I cannot account for your unpleasant interpretations, but it seems you have let your personal dislike of me distort your understanding of what I say. Still, that does not excuse you; there is no justification for such outrageous assertions. Perhaps you should take a break from these discussions until you can maintain better control of your temper.

Ender