Then why not just express the doctrine fully as always taught by the Church. That is, the State has the moral right to employ the death penalty for serious crimes… if the common good warrants it.Of course there are restrictions. They are governed by other doctrines, e.g. the prohibition against torture. We may also kill in a just war, but there are restrictions on that right as well. We are given free will, but again…with restrictions as to how it is to be used.
Ender
You say if the common good warrants it. Politics nowadays and other things. I hope I am allowed to mention politics in this group or thread. Sometimes thrives on telling the people certain things need to be done to inflame the people. For example, I just read about a case in Washington County Ohio that involved some type of sexual something with a minor. The judge gave a suspended sentence of so many years and 2 years probation. This to me sounds like extenuating circumstance possibly. Does the public understand that? No and certain people would get on the band wagon for such things and want the death penalty. And that would not be for the common good. But to further a political career and possibly other less honest reasons. Some want a “police state.”Then why not just express the doctrine fully as always taught by the Church. That is, the State has the moral right to employ the death penalty for serious crimes… if the common good warrants it.
Why is it necessary to write half the doctrine and call it the whole and then separate application as though there is no moral component… only personal preference?
And of course if an act is motivated by an ill Intention, it is always an immoral act.You say if the common good warrants it. Politics nowadays and other things. I hope I am allowed to mention politics in this group or thread. Sometimes thrives on telling the people certain things need to be done to inflame the people. For example, I just read about a case in Washington County Ohio that involved some type of sexual something with a minor. The judge gave a suspended sentence of so many years and 2 years probation. This to me sounds like extenuating circumstance possibly. Does the public understand that? No and certain people would get on the band wagon for such things and want the death penalty. And that would not be for the common good. But to further a political career and possibly other less honest reasons. Some want a “police state.”
Bill
I am confused. You say that the state has the moral right to use capital punishment. Specifically, would this mean that the state has the moral right to burn criminals at the stake?Where are you going with this? The right to execute is not a right to use any and all means to achieve that end. This is true of everything: the right to free speech does not confer on us the right to libel and slander someone else.
Ender
Why not list all the ways of applying capital punishment and ask yourself the question whether such an act, given the necessary circumstances (apart from the method) to justify CP, would be a moral act? A complication will be that the answer will vary through time. So perhaps select a particular point in history for this exercise.I am confused. You say that the state has the moral right to use capital punishment. Specifically, would this mean that the state has the moral right to burn criminals at the stake?
The point is that once you say (not you personally, but referring to another poster) that the state has the moral authority or moral right to apply capital punishment, you are opening up a whole bag of questions. For example, in some states, treason is a capital offense. Now take the Islamic State, IS, which is a caliphate and rules under sharia law. How many people have they or their courts deemed to be engaged in treasonous activity, which by western standards would not be considered such. Or take Communist China which has in the past applied the death penalty to people found guilty of treason. And a further question is the method of executing the decision to murder the criminal. Should the state authorities murder the criminal by the electric chair, by hanging or by burning at the stake? Does it matter which form of execution the state authorities choose to murder the convict?Why not list all the ways of applying capital punishment and ask yourself the question whether such an act, given the necessary circumstances (apart from the method) to justify CP, would be a moral act? A complication will be that the answer will vary through time. So perhaps select a particular point in history for this exercise.
Of course, if you don’t apply the same moral principles as others, you may well come to a different answer than others do Tom. And even if you do apply the same moral principles (or moral theology), judgements about what is moral do typically involve “prudential judgement”, so 2 well-intentioned persons, endeavouring to apply the same moral principles, can arrive at different answers.
Why? Is it necessary to spell out all the practical considerations that go into a decision? Is it really necessary to say we shouldn’t do things that are harmful? Does anyone believe we can do something we know will have bad consequences?Then why not just express the doctrine fully as always taught by the Church. That is, the State has the moral right to employ the death penalty for serious crimes… if the common good warrants it.
There are no moral choices involved in deciding which action will lead to the best result. Nor is it as mindless as mere personal preference, and I have never suggested as much, but to say A is a better option than B is undoubtedly an opinion.Why is it necessary to write half the doctrine and call it the whole and then separate application as though there is no moral component… only personal preference?
Not at all. Does anyone not believe that the State has the right to put people in prison? Having said that, is it rational to assume that the State therefore has the right to put a person in 4’x4’x4’ box? The right to imprison criminals is not without limits, just as the right to execute criminals is not without limits.I am confused. You say that the state has the moral right to use capital punishment. Specifically, would this mean that the state has the moral right to burn criminals at the stake?
I don’t understand the confusion here. Saying a State has a right to use capital punishment is no different than saying you have the right of free choice. The fact that you can choose to do whatever you want does not mean that whatever you choose is therefore right. The fact that States can use capital punishment does not mean that every example of its use is therefore justified. States can misuse their authority just as you can misuse your personal freedoms. That we may abuse our rights does nothing to change the fact that they are our rights nonetheless.The point is that once you say (not you personally, but referring to another poster) that the state has the moral authority or moral right to apply capital punishment, you are opening up a whole bag of questions. For example, in some states, treason is a capital offense. Now take the Islamic State, IS, which is a caliphate and rules under sharia law. How many people have they or their courts deemed to be engaged in treasonous activity, which by western standards would not be considered such. Or take Communist China which has in the past applied the death penalty to people found guilty of treason. And a further question is the method of executing the decision to murder the criminal. Should the state authorities murder the criminal by the electric chair, by hanging or by burning at the stake? Does it matter which form of execution the state authorities choose to murder the convict?
So the state does have the moral right to burn the criminal at the stake?Not at all. Does anyone not believe that the State has the right to put people in prison? Having said that, is it rational to assume that the State therefore has the right to put a person in 4’x4’x4’ box? The right to imprison criminals is not without limits, just as the right to execute criminals is not without limits.
Ender
Specifically, when is it justified? Is it morally justified for the state to execute someone guilty of treason?The fact that States can use capital punishment does not mean that every example of its use is therefore justified.
I think a few people have already pointed out that all of the questions you bring up are answered in The Catechism. It would be very beneficial for you to educate yourself on these clearly established moral principals. Your questions can all be traced to these foundational principals.Specifically, when is it justified?
It is necessary to spell out that the states authority is conditional. The state has no unconditional ‘right’ to use capital punishment. The state exists to protect and promote what we call ‘the common good’ of all. In the past if the common good warranted a death penalty, then the state was permitted to use it. Today, the common good is harmed by use of the death penalty and that obliges the state to abolish it. If the state is not serving the community but is instead invoking some divine authority to use the death penalty, its authority is no longer legitimate.Why? Is it necessary to spell out all the practical considerations that go into a decision? Is it really necessary to say we shouldn’t do things that are harmful? Does anyone believe we can do something we know will have bad consequences?
Sure, that’s the common atheistic argument based on morality being relative. However, theists know that man is a moral being with a moral compass to advise him. State sanctioned and funded abortion is a moral evil. If population control advises culling or eugenics demands cleansing humanity of deficient specimens, we can always be confident that the moral choice to protect all human life will serve the common good first and foremost. All matters concerning the fundamental right to life involve a moral approach, including the death penalty issue.There are no moral choices involved in deciding which action will lead to the best result. Nor is it as mindless as mere personal preference, and I have never suggested as much, but to say A is a better option than B is undoubtedly an opinion.
I think it is wise to point this one out due to the potential, in this case, to forget that earthly authority to punish is limited.Why? Is it necessary to spell out all the practical considerations that go into a decision? Is it really necessary to say we shouldn’t do things that are harmful? Does anyone believe we can do something we know will have bad consequences?
Specifically, where does the catechism mention:I think a few people have already pointed out that all of the questions you bring up are answered in The Catechism. It would be very beneficial for you to educate yourself on these clearly established moral principals. Your questions can all be traced to these foundational principals.
Have a look here: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
The Catechism says we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all.Specifically, where does the catechism mention:
- Treason - is it justifiable for the state to execute someone guilty of treason.
- Burning at the stake - is it morally justifiable to execute someone with this method.
So the moral law has changed with the changes in society?The Catechism says we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all.
Natural and divine law permit a death sentence as punishment if the common good warrants such an extreme measure. If the common good is harmed by resorting to a death sentence, it is forbidden by natural and divine law as unjust and immoral.So the moral law has changed with the changes in society?
Who decides whether or not the common good warrants capital punishment? ISIS for example has sharia law which helps them decide whether the common good requires that certain people be beheaded for treason.Natural and divine law permit a death sentence as punishment if the common good warrants such an extreme measure. If the common good is harmed by resorting to a death sentence, it is forbidden by natural and divine law as unjust and immoral.
For this reason, among many others, I expect reunion to be a generational matter. Generations have to get used to the idea of a reunited Church and unified doctrine. Right now there is too much bad juju between both sides.How do you anticipate differences in doctrine will be addressed in the course of unification? I don’t believe it will be in a manner which authorises a component of the “unified” Church to disregard Church teaching.