capital punishment

[Ender]

I’m not engaging in arguments based on faulty reasoning. I believe it is the result of deficiency in formal scholarship. You continue to use post hoc fallacy and can’t seem to be taught otherwise. “The rooster crows before sunrise, therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise”. “Pope StJPII taught about the inviolability of human life, therefore all his predecessors were deficient in that area”.

I suppose if I had made that statement about JPII you might have a point, but since your “citation” of my comment bears no relation to what I actually said I can only wonder what your argument pertains to. The first clue that you were firing blanks should have been the fact that you had to rewrite my actual words in order to respond to them. It’s disappointing that you would put quotation marks around the sentence to imply that I wrote it; you really shouldn’t do that when the words are yours and not mine.

Ender

 

[Ender]

When the act is not intrinsically evil and the Intention is good, morality is ALL about the balance of consequences. There is nothing left but that.

Should Al Capone have been executed for tax evasion on the assumption that this would have afforded the maximum protection to society? There is no doubt that the consequences (for society at least, not so much for Al) would have been all on the side of his execution.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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

It is true almost everyone recognizes that capital punishment is not intrinsically, but the fact that everyone agrees on that while disagreeing on so much else shows just how little that comment actually explains. Here is a more comprehensive explanation given in a discussion of the sentencing of the Boston bomber.“We accept that the state has done its job, that this is the decision of the state which the state is morally free to make, according to the Church’s teaching,” Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P., dean at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., told CNA.

“There’s a very important nuance here that Catholics need to understand,” hesaid, “which is that the Church’s tradition and its magisterial teaching, which is unchanged by Pope Saint John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis, is that states and governments have the right to inflict the penalty of death when guilt is absolutely known and when the gravity of the crime rises to the death penalty.”

The judgment is ultimately a prudential one, he continued, and this is clear even when John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae that the need for capital punishment to protect society from offenders is “very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

“Protecting society is not the primary purpose of punishment,” he said. “The primary purpose of punishment is retribution, by which we don’t mean revenge but by the society expressing its moral outrage, its outrage at the heinous gravity of a particular crime.” It is here where “prudence” determines the proper response to an offence.
It’s nice to find such a clear explanation of what the church actually teaches on this subject.

Ender

 

[adrift]

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.

That is why there is no abortion and assisted suicide we see movements to eliminate them… wait the exact opposite is true. On these issues, society is slipping backwards and does not see the inviolability of human life.

 

[adrift]

Post 114 was an accurate review.

The review is actually 117 which is the real posting and not an inaccurate interpretation.

2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. .

At the end of the chapter the Catechism does a review of what has been stated. I found it odd that the above is the only thing that is reviewed on the death penalty. Nothing is stated that it should be rarely used but instead we have restated the right of the state to render the aggressor unable to inflict harm. I find this a strange recap.

 

[Rau]

That is why there is no abortion and assisted suicide we see movements to eliminate them… wait the exact opposite is true. On these issues, society is slipping backwards and does not see the inviolability of human life.

Society’s - or an individual’s - inclination to rise to the noble is often tempered by the personal cost.

 

[billcu1]

Society’s - or an individual’s - inclination to rise to the noble is often tempered by the personal cost.

People don’t know right from wrong. That’s why they need someone like Jesus or the Church to teach morals. IMO.

Bill

 

[Ignatius]

I agree billcu1. People don’t know right from wrong. That’s why they need someone like Jesus and His Church to teach morals.

 

[Rau]

It is true almost everyone recognizes that capital punishment is not intrinsically, but the fact that everyone agrees on that while disagreeing on so much else shows just how little that comment actually explains. Here is a more comprehensive explanation given in a discussion of the sentencing of the Boston bomber.“We accept that the state has done its job, that this is the decision of the state which the state is morally free to make, according to the Church’s teaching,” Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P., dean at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., told CNA.

“There’s a very important nuance here that Catholics need to understand,” hesaid, “which is that the Church’s tradition and its magisterial teaching, which is unchanged by Pope Saint John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis, is that states and governments have the right to inflict the penalty of death when guilt is absolutely known and when the gravity of the crime rises to the death penalty.”

The judgment is ultimately a prudential one, he continued, and this is clear even when John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae that the need for capital punishment to protect society from offenders is “very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

“Protecting society is not the primary purpose of punishment,” he said. “The primary purpose of punishment is retribution, by which we don’t mean revenge but by the society expressing its moral outrage, its outrage at the heinous gravity of a particular crime.” It is here where “prudence” determines the proper response to an offence.
It’s nice to find such a clear explanation of what the church actually teaches on this subject.

Ender

I am sure you’d much rather have read this in the Catechism than what you do in fact read. But the direction and emphasis is rather different!

 

[Tomdstone]

People don’t know right from wrong.

That idea seems to vary somewhat from the concept of natural law according to which a system of right and wrong is held to be common to all humans and derived from nature.

 

[Rau]

That idea seems to vary somewhat from the concept of natural law according to which a system of right and wrong is held to be common to all humans and derived from nature.

Not really. One can turn away from what right reason reveals - when it seems to come at personal cost.

Natural law derives from our “human nature” and our relationship with God. That is vastly different to saying from “nature” - which is about the creation around us.

 

[adrift]

Society’s - or an individual’s - inclination to rise to the noble is often tempered by the personal cost.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Meaning that we would like to do what is right but if the cost to us personally we fail?

 

[adrift]

I am sure you’d much rather have read this in the Catechism than what you do in fact read. But the direction and emphasis is rather different!

For the better, but that is just a personal opinion

 

[Rau]

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Meaning that we would like to do what is right but if the cost to us personally we fail?

Sort of. It’s easier to express concern for the life of someone when to do so brings no cost or personal consequence. How often do we want something done about the poor, but fail to give of our personal time or wealth? In many countries, government overseas aid has fallen in recent years, and this is decried by many. Strangely, I don’t think those same folks have reviewed their personal charitable efforts.

 

[adrift]

Sort of. It’s easier to express concern for the life of someone when to do so brings no cost or personal consequence. How often do we want something done about the poor, but fail to give of our personal time or wealth? In many countries, government overseas aid has fallen in recent years, and this is decried by many. Strangely, I don’t think those same folks have reviewed their personal charitable efforts.

These same folks(including me) say that they can’t afford it while purchasing coffee at Starbuck, getting a 32 inch t.v. going to a football game etc. I remember being told by a relative that they couldn’t afford another child but they flew to Texas for a football game. Yeah I know that is a whole lot cheaper than raising a child for twenty years but I still thought it was hypocritical.

 

[Ender]

I am sure you’d much rather have read this in the Catechism than what you do in fact read. But the direction and emphasis is rather different!

No, they are not. Fr. Petri was explaining what the catechism actually means, and except for being clearer and more expansive said nothing new. If you take exception to any of the comments I excerpted, identify which one(s), take a position and try to defend it.

Ender

 

[Rau]

No, they are not. Fr. Petri was explaining what the catechism actually means, and except for being clearer and more expansive said nothing new. If you take exception to any of the comments I excerpted, identify which one(s), take a position and try to defend it.

Ender

I didn’t see where Fr emphasised the restriction on using CP when not needed to protect the community from the offender. The Catechism points to that as a longstanding and current facet of the teaching, and gives it emphasis.

 

[Ender]

I didn’t see where Fr emphasised the restriction on using CP when not needed to protect the community from the offender. The Catechism points to that as a longstanding and current facet of the teaching, and gives it emphasis.

First, this “long standing” teaching is in fact barely 20 years old. What is in fact long standing - viz. 20 centuries - is the church’s teaching that the state has the moral right to employ capital punishment.

Second, Fr. Petri did address the point you raised:The judgment is ultimately a prudential one, he continued, and this is clear* even when John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae** that the need for capital punishment to protect society from offenders is “very rare, if not practically non-existent.”*
His explanation is no different than that in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.*#405 Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred…
*As they both say, the judgment is ultimately prudential…a preference.

Ender

 

[Rau]

First, this “long standing” teaching is in fact barely 20 years old.

Actually, the Catechism claims it to be quite a bit older Ender, for it says:
“… 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.”

Second, Fr. Petri did address the point you raised:The judgment is ultimately a prudential one, he continued, and this is clear* even when John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae*** that the need for capital punishment to protect society from offenders is “very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

I’ve agreed previously Ender that what you extract above is prudential. It is also evidently prudential to decide whether the case at hand** is or is not one where we need to kill to protect society.** But what is presented as rather more than prudential is the following 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.”

The Catechism is saying - make your judgement about whether or not we need it for protection, and if it is not so needed, then do not use it.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
(Catechism, 1997)

 

[adrift]

Actually, the Catechism claims it to be quite a bit older Ender, for it says:
"… 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."

The Catechism is not asserting that.

, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,

What it is stating as the traditional teaching is that the death penalty may be used and nothing more that is why there are commas.

I’ve agreed previously Ender that what you extract above is prudential. It is also evidently prudential to decide whether the case at hand** is or is not one where we need to kill to protect society.** But what is presented as rather more than prudential is the following 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."

The Catechism is saying - make your judgement about whether or not we need it for protection, and if it is not so needed, then do not use it.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
(Catechism, 1997)

I disagree that it is more than prudential but the substance of what you say of it isn’t needed don’t use it I do agree.