capital punishment

[LongingSoul]

That is not what the Catechism says. It does not say “we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all” It says IF that is a strong word. And don’t cherry pick you left out
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Then we have that If again. The question than is who decides the “if”? So the Church’s position is not as you stated but that execution is the traditional teaching that the Church does not exclude.

ooops. You forgot the rest of 2267.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

The conditions you quoted for using capital punishment are “very rare, if not practically non-existent” today. That essentially means we should not be using the death penalty. That’s funny. You tried to demonstrate me cherrypicking by a great big cherry pick!!

 

[LongingSoul]

Where is this in the catechism?

Thomas Aquinas explains in this way from Summa Theologica…

Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked.

 

[LongingSoul]

When two different people go to the catechism, they come out with two different answers.
Is burning at the stake or beheading an allowed form of execution if the people in charge think it is necessary for the common good?

We have progressed in our understanding of the individuals worth and dignity to the point that killing even criminals is offensive to the common good. Pope StJPII emphasised a number of times in Evangelium Vitae that one of the biggest reasons for abolishing the death penalty is our greater sensitivity to human value.

 

[LongingSoul]

The narrowness of the opening is a vague and ill-defined concept. Is morality supposed to be vague and subjective or is it supposed to be clearcut at to what is right and what is wrong?

By the “law of gradualness” we come to experience our moral compass and conform ourselves to the will of God. Right and wrong become clearer as we develop our virtues individually and collectively. That’s how it has always been in civil society.

 

[Ender]

We have been over this before. CP is not the only just punishment…

Actually this point has not really been addressed; it has simply been assumed, and I find it doubtful. There are some who have suggested that life in prison is a harsher punishment, or at least as harsh, but it seems most of the individuals offered that choice opt for prison. Those for whom the choice is not merely theoretical seem rather one sided in their opinions.

Ender

 

[Ender]

An Islamic caliphate based on sharia law may hold that beheading is appropriate for treason and it is a good idea to behead those convicted of treason as they see it as benefiting the common good. OTOH, many people in the west would view such as evil. So which is it? Would it be intrinsically and morally acceptable for the Islamic caliphate to behead foreigners convicted of treason or not?

An act is moral or immoral independent of the opinions of others. The fact that ISIS thinks beheadings are good doesn’t make it so any more than the opposite opinion of the West makes it evil.

As to whether a person can be executed for treason, I think the answer is yes. Is a beheading a moral form of execution? This is a bit more complicated. I think there is nothing intrinsically evil about it, but it would surely be held as barbaric by most countries. Let me also point out that a person cannot commit treason against a country other than his own, so foreigners cannot justly be convicted of treason by ISIS.

Ender

 

[Rau]

Actually this point has not really been addressed; it has simply been assumed, and I find it doubtful. There are some who have suggested that life in prison is a harsher punishment, or at least as harsh, but it seems most of the individuals offered that choice opt for prison. Those for whom the choice is not merely theoretical seem rather one sided in their opinions.

Ender

You agreed with me previously on the view that death is not the only just punishment.

 

[Ender]

We have progressed in our understanding of the individuals worth and dignity to the point that killing even criminals is offensive to the common good. Pope StJPII emphasised a number of times in Evangelium Vitae that one of the biggest reasons for abolishing the death penalty is our greater sensitivity to human value.

Surely I am not alone in wondering what it was that allowed the church to finally develop this greater sensitivity to human value only at the end of the 20th century. It is disappointing to learn that all of the Doctors and Fathers of the church as well as all of her saints and popes for at least the first 1995 years had an insufficient understanding of man’s worth. Our progress in the last 20 years is all the more impressive as it developed simultaneously with modern society’s embrace of abortion, euthanasia, and genocide.

A different explanation seems more likely: that modern civilizations have lost all concept of the worth of the individual and utterly misunderstands the nature of capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You agreed with me previously on the view that death is not the only just punishment.

Where?

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

Let me also point out that a person cannot commit treason against a country other than his own, so foreigners cannot justly be convicted of treason by ISIS.

True. But a foreigner could be convicted of subversion.

 

[Tomdstone]

We have progressed in our understanding of the individuals worth and dignity to the point that killing even criminals is offensive to the common good.

So for 1950 years before Vatican II, Catholics did not have a good understanding of the individuals worth and dignity?

 

[LongingSoul]

Surely I am not alone in wondering what it was that allowed the church to finally develop this greater sensitivity to human value only at the end of the 20th century. It is disappointing to learn that all of the Doctors and Fathers of the church as well as all of her saints and popes for at least the first 1995 years had an insufficient understanding of man’s worth. Our progress in the last 20 years is all the more impressive as it developed simultaneously with modern society’s embrace of abortion, euthanasia, and genocide.

A different explanation seems more likely: that modern civilizations have lost all concept of the worth of the individual and utterly misunderstands the nature of capital punishment.

Ender

Most of us clearly comprehend the evolutionary nature of humanity. Individually we aspire to be happier through becoming better people and collectively we strive for a just and peaceful community for the good of every person. A common good.

If you think that we are less inclusive and civilised than in the days of slavery, class divisions, cruelty to children, torture of criminals, no welfare safety nets for the poor, legal rape and abuse within marriages, discrimination and the list goes on… that’s clearly an insular worldview that I really don’t need to rebut.

Abortion thrives in the shadows of the death penalty and as a civilised world, all forms of deliberate killing has become offensive and undesirable as a solution.

 

[LongingSoul]

So for 1950 years before Vatican II, Catholics did not have a good understanding of the individuals worth and dignity?

Humanity has continued to develop in its sensitivity to the inviolability of human life, yes. Especially those societies who are built on a foundation of Christianity and the Golden Rule. It will continue that way until the end of humanity.

 

[Tomdstone]

Most of us clearly comprehend the evolutionary nature of humanity. Individually we aspire to be happier through becoming better people and collectively we strive for a just and peaceful community for the good of every person. A common good.

If you think that we are less inclusive and civilised than in the days of slavery, class divisions, cruelty to children, torture of criminals, no welfare safety nets for the poor, legal rape and abuse within marriages, discrimination and the list goes on… that’s clearly an insular worldview that I really don’t need to rebut.

Abortion thrives in the shadows of the death penalty and as a civilised world, all forms of deliberate killing has become offensive and undesirable as a solution.

How is it progress when in the USA a man is sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza because he was starving to death? Further, it has been noted by many psychologists that solitary confinement is a form of torture and that in the US there are 70,000 people in prison in solitary confinement. So if you agree that solitary confinement is torture, then torture of criminals is continuing in the USA. And of course we have the example of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

 

[LongingSoul]

How is it progress when in the USA a man is sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza because he was starving to death? Further, it has been noted by many psychologists that solitary confinement is a form of torture and that in the US there are 70,000 people in prison in solitary confinement. So if you agree that solitary confinement is torture, then torture of criminals is continuing in the USA. And of course we have the example of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

I don’t know anything about those cases. I watch Judge Judy at time where a fellow will say he was jailed for a minor traffic offense… to which we all gasp. It of course turns out that it was the accumulation of 20 years unpaid child support or 25 other felony crimes he has been given another chance on… that accounts for the sentence. Is this also the case with the pizza guy?

Is solitary confinement a court ordered penalty or is it a practical measure to restrain a person who is dangerous to others?

The system is clearly not perfect and is a work in progress, but you must acknowledge that we have grown much more humane in our treatment of prisoners as time has gone on.

 

[adrift]

The Catechism says we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all.

*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.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”*

That is not what the Catechism says. It does not say “we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all” It says IF that is a strong word. And don’t cherry pick you left out
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Then we have that If again. The question than is who decides the “if”? So the Church’s position is not as you stated but that execution is the traditional teaching that the Church does not exclude.

ooops. You forgot the rest of 2267.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

The conditions you quoted for using capital punishment are “very rare, if not practically non-existent” today. That essentially means we should not be using the death penalty. That’s funny. You tried to demonstrate me cherrypicking by a great big cherry pick!!

The OOPS is on your part. I said you cherry pick and you did. You quoted part of 2267 and then I quoted the rest the part you left out. I said you left it out and you did then you cherry picked again this time my post because you did not acknowledge that I was completing what you cherry picked. So I didn’t forget the rest of 2267 as I had quoted your post which contained it. not only that but I acknowledged it. The cherry picking was all yours.

 

[Elizium23]

The Church and Capital Punishment

I pointed out to John that the Church, Pope St. John Paul II, and the American bishops, are not making dogmatic statements on the matter of the death penalty; rather, they are making prudential judgments. There is a significant difference between the two.

Catholics are free to debate the issue of when the death penalty should or, should not be employed.

 

[Rau]

The Church and Capital Punishment

That says, in essence, CP is not intrinsically evil. Everyone agrees on that point.

 

[Ender]

Humanity has continued to develop in its sensitivity to the inviolability of human life, yes.

The development in humanity is not so easy to see in a world that has witnessed the slaughter of people in previously unimaginable numbers, but it is not the moral development of humanity that is relevant. Your statement about moral development applies to the church as well, with the implication that the church has only within our own lifetimes come to appreciate the full extent of man’s dignity. I’m pretty sure JPII didn’t expect his statements to be understood as suggesting that he was the first pope to be sensitive to the inviolability of human life and that all his predecessors were deficient in that area.

Especially those societies who are built on a foundation of Christianity and the Golden Rule.

Especially in Europe you say? That area of the world where church attendance is plummeting like a rock down a well? Can anyone seriously look at that continent and suggest that Christian ideas are advancing even as Christian religions are in full retreat?

Your statements are platitudes and bear no resemblance to the actual world they are meant to describe.

Ender

 

[adrift]

That says, in essence, CP is not intrinsically evil. Everyone agrees on that point.

It says more than it is not intrinsically evil. It supports what Ender has been saying that it is a prudential matter and not dogmatic.
Interesting from the article was the following

The problems with presenting capital punishment as if it is a “non-negotiable” are manifold:

1. It sets up contradictions between Scripture and the teaching of the Church. This can never be.

1. It presents contradictions between Magisterial statements of the Church. This causes confusion among the faithful and can lead to skepticism toward other teachings of the Church.

1. It presents contradictions to those seeking full communion with the Catholic Church that may prevent them from further consideration of the legitimate claims of the Catholic Church.

I asked who decided the “if’s”? So far not answered.