Capital Punishment

[Blue_Horizon]

This likely goes to the heart of the matter.
Ender approaches moral analysis so abstractly that the most that particular details can ever contribute to moral judgements, if anything, is the best way (or least morally evil)of going about whatever has already been morally predetermined. In other words differences in the actual particular details cannot change the already generically decided object but only the consequences or possibly degree of culpability or severity of the deed.

Clearly some CP is not just nor moral because particular details or circumstances may lead us to believe it is not CP but State murder or execution.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have tried to get you to expand on your distinction between direct and indirect killing by asking you to distinguish between an execution committed by mobsters and an execution committed by the State. What is it that makes the former direct and the latter indirect? I disagree with your categorization of a formal execution as indirect.

Ender

Where the material good gained is not greater than the material evil done there cannot be a valid indirect intention.

Where the killing becomes an enjoyed end in itself there cannot be a valid indirect intention.

When it comes to killing on a just proportionality basis the consequences of getting this wrong, or acting from base motives so great, an individual may do so only when under lethal attack.

Apply these commonly accepted principles and your answer seems clear without invoking any OT notion of the absolute right of Kings to act in God’s place and directly choose life or death.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is little doubt that the intent behind killing in war and capital punishment is more than simply killing. It is killing as a tool to achieve a greater goal. It doesn’t seem reasonable, however, to assert that those killings were indirectly intended. When you line a person up in a gun’s sights and pull the trigger the intent to kill is immediate and direct whether you are in a firing squad, are a sniper, or an assassin. The reasons for committing the act are different, but the intent of the act in each case is to kill. Despite the fact that the church has always allowed it, modern sensibilities are hard pressed to accept the idea that killing can be acceptable.
Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
*3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… *(Baltimore Catechism)
Ender

When might the Empire State building be moved?

1. When it meets an irresistable force.
2. …

Lord save us from meaningless tautologies.
The issue of course is whether actual modern examples are lawful or just.

Being prudential judgements each case must be decided on its own merits.
Unlike some deeds which are intrinsically evil always and everywhere we cannot say that State killings are apriori intrinsically just and moral. Though some may be.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment

JP II in addressing directly the question of the intrinsic evil of “direct killings” limited the scope to direct killings of the innocent. He would clearly have considered the simpler, all encompassing statement, but rejected it.

Your logic does seem to draw a long bow.
Remaining silent at least as likely, if not more so, indicates prevarication or unwillingness to explicitly decide a matter, a recognition even of other opinions it may not be timely to offend.

Using this logic the Assumption dogma could be used to opine that Mary did not die because it wasnt clearly stated in the definition. Yet we know the Papal tradition clearly holds to her death, it just isnt timely to force that teaching on the laity yet who generally hold the opposite.

 

[Ender]

If one cites, as an appeal to authority, the publications of an institution or the personal publications of an individual then is it not reasonable to accept as equally authoritative the entire opus, especially the conclusions drawn at least in those same publications? I think so.

Not exactly. It is one thing to cite an author as a source of facts, but that does not suggest there is any reason to accept the conclusions he draws from them. Nor does it suggest that agreement with him on one point mandates agreement with him on every point. Now citing someone’s conclusions because he is fact an authority does suggest that he is equally authoritative in all of his conclusions, so if he is accepted on one point means at the very least one has to present a strong argument to disagree with him on another.

But I don’t believe you accept those documents as authoritative in their entirety. Therefore, citing them as your authority in part seems incongruous to me.

Well, you don’t get to reject them simply because of what you imagine I believe about them. They don’t become authoritative (or not) because of the opinion I hold. Either they present valid arguments or they don’t; either they are genuinely authoritative or they aren’t.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When you line a person up in a gun’s sights and pull the trigger the intent to kill is immediate and direct whether you are in a firing squad, are a sniper, or an assassin. The reasons for committing the act are different, but the intent of the act in each case is to kill.

… or an assassin … .or sometimes even in self defence.

In which case the intent of the act in all these, for a christian, should not in fact be to kill but to achieve a greater good though intending to kill is a part of this mixed bag of intentions to lesser or greater degrees.

You shall not kill.
You shall not call your brother renegade in your heart.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well Blue, I sense your response to my post is itself somewhat “indirect”

Determined internally - that can so; an ulterior motive or a concealed malice might t was the necessary act of self-defence, or for another reason?

Yes, it is well known that in some cases of indirection it is impossible to make objective courtroom judgements. That does not seem a reason for denying the validity of the philosophic moral principles involved. We are ultimately talking the court of God not man and some things are best left to his judgement…as is often the case with Communion and private alleged sins of grave matter.

But in neither of these do we directly choose a moral evil.

We dont intend “moral evil” when analysing the components of a complete act. We intend a material object or matter which may be materially “disordered.”

The rape victim cannot choose the moral evil of contraception because she never chose to be inseminated (if I may put it that way).

The victim obviously materially contracepts her ovum.
The Church considers such a thing a grave physical disordering.
However the reason she does so is to achieve a greater material good - her lawful integrity as one not married to her attacker.
This material good she primarily intends.

As material contracepting is not so grave as to be unable to anchor an indirect intention the overall complete act may be good.

 

[o_mlly]

It is one thing to cite an author as a source of facts, … Either they present valid arguments or they don’t; either they are genuinely authoritative or they aren’t.

Ender

Arguments, I agree, stand on their own premises, internal consistencies and conclusions and are not improved by an appeal to authority. Not so with matters of fact.

The OP asked for facts, not arguments: What is the actual Catholic teaching on the death penalty? The answer must be based on an appeal to authority. The Magisterium is the sure source of authority on Catholic teaching. When the pope uses an encyclical as opposed to an exhortation, or letter to teach, he uses one of his surest formats demonstrating his infallible charism. Evangelium Vitae is such a document.

 

[Ender]

Activists on both sides may see my position as too nuanced. I insist on the moral and theological relevance of prudential considerations. Kevin Doyle fears that people who use their own prudence will be imprudent; but I would hold that they are **morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, **who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:25). Since prudence is a moral virtue, I cannot accept the dichotomy implied in George Blair’s statement, “Arguments against the death penalty are prudential, not moral.” The decision whether and when to apply the death penalty cannot be properly made on the basis of abstract dogmatic considerations alone. Christian moral reasoning calls for a high degree of prudence. Avery Dulles (Emphases mine)

Yes, this is a very serious argument, and one of the strongest I have seen presented.

Dulles: they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders,

I can accept this, but it cannot mean that we are thereby necessarily required to accept the prudential judgement of our hierarchical leaders. It means exactly what it says: we may not *disregard *their judgment. Dulles himself recognized that assent to prudential judgements is not an obligation.*Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *
Dulles: I cannot accept the dichotomy implied in George Blair’s statement, “Arguments against the death penalty are prudential, not moral.” The decision whether and when to apply the death penalty cannot be properly made on the basis of abstract dogmatic considerations alone.

As Dulles recognized about his own position: it was nuanced, so a nuanced response would seem to be acceptable. Within certain parameters, I would hold that there are no moral considerations involved in determining the right course of action in making any decision. This presumes that the individual making the decision is genuinely intent on finding the “best” solution. Beyond that, and as the choice begins to push the boundaries, moral concerns become more and more relevant, so while deciding whether to execute is not necessarily an exclusively prudential choice, I think there are many cases where that is exactly what it is. So with Dulles, I can agree that there may well be moral considerations involved, but once an individual is truly determined to do what he thinks is best - within the guidelines the church has outlined - it isn’t clear what those moral choices are.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

…Perhaps we can say it is not intrinsically evil to apply CP when it is “proportionate to the crime” …

No, we should always say CP is never intrinsically evil. CP is only evil in intention or circumstance.

 

[Ender]

Where the material good gained is not greater than the material evil done there cannot be a valid indirect intention.

The issue is not whether the intention is valid, but whether it is indirect.

Where the killing becomes an enjoyed end in itself there cannot be a valid indirect intention.

Again, validity is not the issue.

When it comes to killing on a just proportionality basis the consequences of getting this wrong, or acting from base motives so great, an individual may do so only when under lethal attack.

The question was about distinguishing direct from indirect intention. Nothing here addresses the question.

Apply these commonly accepted principles and your answer seems clear without invoking any OT notion of the absolute right of Kings to act in God’s place and directly choose life or death.

There is even less here. Let me point out that your inability to support a distinction you have created is a strong indication that the distinction is in error. You have not even addressed the issue, let alone defended your position.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Being prudential judgements each case must be decided on its own merits. Unlike some deeds which are intrinsically evil always and everywhere we cannot say that State killings are apriori intrinsically just and moral. Though some may be.

I have never argued that every murder requires execution as the proper response. Most of my comments have been in rebuttal to the arguments presented in opposition to the use of capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Rau]

…Remaining silent at least as likely, if not more so, indicates prevarication or unwillingness to explicitly decide a matter, a recognition even of other opinions it may not be timely to offend…

Mental gymnastics Blue. JP II nominated those killings which are intrinsically evil, and Dulles remarks on the wisdom of that statement. It is desperate hope to argue the word “innocent” is not necessary, but JP II “wasn’t sure” and Dulles was just wrong. At the very least it is clear that one view has direct magisterial support, and your view - a personal proposition - does not. Of course, this does not interfere with your assessment that your view might be “very advanced, or very wrong”.

 

[Rau]

The Church considers such a thing a grave physical disordering…

You appear to be running out of fuel blue.

I just add that the Church finds grave disorder in the act of rape, not the actions taken to terminate it. Those actions are no more a grave disordering than pumping water up hill.

 

[Ender]

Arguments, I agree, stand on their own premises, internal consistencies and conclusions and are not improved by an appeal to authority. Not so with matters of fact.

The OP asked for facts, not arguments: What is the actual Catholic teaching on the death penalty? The answer must be based on an appeal to authority. The Magisterium is the sure source of authority on Catholic teaching. When the pope uses an encyclical as opposed to an exhortation, or letter to teach, he uses one of his surest formats demonstrating his infallible charism. Evangelium Vitae is such a document.

No, he does not demonstrate his infallibility when he writes an encyclical. He demonstrates that when he explicitly claims it, or when he reiterates established doctrine in a way as to indicate it has been infallibly taught, as JPII did with his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Nevertheless, it is not enough to appeal to what you think the current Magisterium has said and simply disregard what the prior Magisterium taught for 2000 years. It is not enough to appeal to JPII if it means dismissing Pius XII et al.

So, as far as facts are concerned, that’s what I’ve been giving, and the facts are the church recognizes the right of States to employ capital punishment (where appropriate), and that retribution is the primary objective of punishment.

Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So, as far as facts are concerned, that’s what I’ve been giving, and the facts are the church recognizes the right of States to employ capital punishment (where appropriate), and that retribution is the primary objective of punishment.

Ender

No. The position you present in fact is not faithful to the Church.

The position you present in fact is not faithful to papal teaching relative to that corpus in 2017.

The position you present in fact is not faithful to the Bishops, from the perspective of the College.

Your beginning point needs be the declaration by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops

The Church’s Anti-Death Penalty Position

For this is where the Magisterium has arrived.

And we give thanks to God for His guidance of the Magisterium precisely to this position to which He has led it.

 

[Ender]

No. The position you present in fact is not faithful to the Church.

Just so I understand you here: are you saying it is now church teaching that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, because unless it is evil in every circumstance then my comment is valid: “the church recognizes the right of States to employ capital punishment (where appropriate).” At least that’s what it says in the catechism.The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, …(where appropriate).

The position you present in fact is not faithful to papal teaching relative to that corpus in 2017.

Does this mean you believe the pope has reversed 2016 years of church doctrine on this subject?

The position you present in fact is not faithful to the Bishops, from the perspective of the College.

I really don’t know what the (current) bishops’ position on this point is, but I’m quite sure my position is faithful to that of virtually all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Your beginning point needs be the declaration by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops - The Church’s Anti-Death Penalty Position

For this is where the Magisterium has arrived.

I did look at the document you referenced, which is basically the USCCB citing itself, which is not all that compelling given this:*“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” *Cardinal Ratzinger: The Ratzinger Report, p60
Beyond that, the document they cited far more frequently than any other was “A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death” in which they also said this:*The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation…
*It is difficult to believe they can be discussing anything other than their prudential judgments given that they “offer neither judgment nor condemnation.” I am hard pressed to believe they could be so cavalier about doctrines requiring our assent.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The issue is not whether the intention is valid, but whether it is indirect.
Again, validity is not the issue.
The question was about distinguishing direct from indirect intention. Nothing here addresses the question.
There is even less here. Let me point out that your inability to support a distinction you have created is a strong indication that the distinction is in error. You have not even addressed the issue, let alone defended your position.

Ender

You asked asked me to distinguish between an execution committed by mobsters and an execution committed by the State.

I did so. That by mobsters cannot anchor an indirect intention and would therefore appear to be a direct killing. The 5thC prohibits such.

A state execution may be capable of anchoring an indirect intention if proportionality criteria are met and the death is not sought as an end in itself.

You asked, I answered .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You appear to be running out of fuel blue.

I just add that the Church finds grave disorder in the act of rape, not the actions taken to terminate it. Those actions are no more a grave disordering than pumping water up hill.

I really don’t know what your grief is about.
Contracepting is similarly materially disordered as is killing or sex with the unconventional or unnatural use of the genitals.

 

[Rau]

I really don’t know what your grief is about.
Contracepting is similarly materially disordered as is killing or sex with the unconventional or unnatural use of the genitals.

I think my post was quite clear. There is no disorder, of any kind, in removing the sperm of a rapist or suspending ovulation to thwart the events the rapist set in train. Those are events which neither require nor deserve any respect whatsoever. You appear to disagree…