R
Rau
Guest
When sentence is passed, is the judge choosing to order the death of the criminal (as means) or something else?
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Clearly you’re not referring to the assertion that CP is not intrinsically evil since that is without doubt confirmed by the Church. Is your disagreement with the primary purpose of punishment that Ender identifies? If so - could you clarify this point.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It is my studied opinion, as a professor of theology, that such is not possible for you…for reason or reasons upon which I won’t waste speculation.
You continue to repeat the same phrases and concepts, which no more apply in this thread than they did in posts going back years and which are there in your personal history in the forum for readers to consult.
You have erred, moreover, in your fundamental premises…and Aquinas will correctly foretell where that will lead you.
That is fundamentally not the behaviour of one seeking to grow in understanding. It is, however, the sort of behaviour one does see in a lecture hall – albeit briefly. Such students are ejected, for cause, from a formation programme who exhibit that characteristic because they fundamentally lack the ability to sentire cum ecclesia.
The concepts are remarkably simple, actually…how remarkable then that they elude you in thread after thread after thread for year after year after year.
Thankfully, others grasp it quite well and I am glad to affirm them in their correct understanding of where this issue has arrived regarding the Head of the College as well as the College diffused throughout the world.
Yes, let us give yet again that quote from the Catechism – but above all the part you qualify as “where appropriate”
*2267 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, **when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor
.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent**.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]”*
The State has the right…but a right that it can not exercise morally, given the present paradigm, except in the most rare of circumstances that is, today, all but non-existent…a threshold now indeed so high that it is all but unattainable, if not actually unattainable.
The Saint of God wanted to make the statement even stronger than he did as he revised it but he left that to a subsequent successor of Peter, for the Holy Spirit continues to guide the College to where He is leading it…the College which is preparing to declare just how non-existent is “practically non-existent.”
You neither get to decide nor affirm – since that would be meaningless – what the Magisterium authoritatively declares…neither as it relates to an issue of faith or of morals…you get to submit to it and also to realize one’s nothingness in the presence of this divinely constituted College who are the Vicar of Christ on Earth and, about him, the Successors to the Apostles.
P
pnewton
Guest
If the original poster intended to know what we thought about the topic here, there have been numerous threads on the subject. However, if the intent is to know what the Church teaches, then that is where one should go. The Catechism explains the teaching, that is the theology behind the death penalty. Then the bishops of the United States (where I live) have explained the moral implications here. Likewise, bishops elsewhere have done the same. Finally the Holy Father, and both his predecessors have addressed this issue at often. To know what the Catholic Church teaches, go to the Catholic Church, not Catholics. I note that the priest here gave a pretty good synopsis of what you will find in the above post.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
By “not a proper response” you do not seem to mean immoral but licit?
I believe others by improper would mean not licit and therefore an immoral act.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Rau until you accept that it is the very definition of “immoral act” to directly and freely choose a material disorder then you will be unable to ably analyse these sorts of matters in the way Aquinas would. As you seem to assume the three font principle I would think you would want to take on board the rest of his articulations.
Material disorders (deeds if you will) are therefore “pre-moral” yet have huge bearing on whether a complete human act is moral or immoral.
Nor is it helpful to define material contraception other than an intervention that stops semen from fertilising an ovum. The source of that semen makes absolutely no difference to the definition regardless of whether it be from husband, rapist or a turkey baster.
Nor is it helpful to pretend that “rape” is some complex overarching thing that somehow subsumes and redefines any associated interventions before or after the rape. That sounds more like rationalism than objective moderate realism.
Rape of course has bearing on the moral analysis but not by denying that the Congo nuns did no contracepting and Catholic hospitals do not perform a cleansing that contracepts.
The indirectly intended contracepting (which certainly is a “disorder” [a material evil due to depriving an act fit for conception from fulfilling that intrinsic teleology] - just as is the case with a nocturnal emission which wastes seed) is outranked, according to the Church, by the greater material good intended (the defence of the bodily integrity of the unmarried or those who do not consent to sex).
I really see very little difference between this and self-defence. And the material disorder allowed (contracepting) is far less than that of killing.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Correct.
The only qualification is that the issue has to be examined by the treatment of the Pope and the Bishops of the present era…not searching the past. The role of continuity rests that of the Magisterium.
Whether it is military service, usury, or capital punishment…one will come to a wrong conclusion if one simply looks to the early Church for the former term, the medieval Church for the middle term, or prior to the World Wars of the 20th century for the latter term.
As Pope Saint John Paul II said regarding looking to texts and not to the Church’s living Magisterium, addressing the perniciousness…
*…in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. /…/
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.*
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
How do I know what individual judges intend when they make their judgements.
However I suggest that if the judge/State does so purely as retribution without any thought for protection or the State (a means) or reform of the criminal (a means) then it looks immoral to the current Magisterium as Fr Ruggero seems to observe (and you also I believe unless you hold to the divine right of kings who presumably can will death as an end in itself).
R
Rau
Guest
It is undoubtedly true that all Magisterial statements deserve serious consideration and great respect. And in respect of CP, the Magisterium may certainly declare that it is near impossible for CP to be a moral act today - and as it happens, I agree with that position.
But this position is a judgement about the real-world circumstances (in the present era) attached to CP and its alternatives, and I question whether the Magisterium claims for itself a capacity to speak definitively on such judgements and expect docile assent? In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger remarked that it would not necessarily be improper for members of the faithful to disagree with the Pope on such a judgement. He said:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
The US Bishops made this observation in Faithful Citizenship:
“Rather, we urge Catholics to listen carefully to the Church’s teachers when we apply Catholic social teaching to specific proposals and situations. The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops on specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral teachings. Nevertheless, the Church’s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel and with Catholic teaching.”
But even with this important distinction made between universal moral teachings and application of those teachings to the social issue of the day, we do well to recognise that prudential judgements benefit directly from the virtue of prudence which “enables us ‘to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it.’ ” (CCC 1806). And of course such judgements rest on moral principals that the Church does teach authoritatively. It would be absurd to think the Magisterium would routinely be mistaken in its prudential judgements, or receive no Divine assistance at all in making them.
R
Rau
Guest
Blue - please avoid introducing red herrings. It is obvious that we speak of CP justly implemented, which rules out vindictive conduct. You’ve not answered the question, and a number of others earlier.
R
Rau
Guest
I suspect your post is best left to rest in peace, other than to ponder a few gems you’ve contributed here, such as the exposition of the teleology of forced insemination via turkey baster
I would note of course that a turkey baster brought to an ovum in a petrie dish is also an act fit for conception, as science has repeatedly demonstrated. 
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Sorry about that, I have a colorful friend who has even more colourful friends and the TB just popped into my head to help 3D the point (self administered not forced)I suspect your post is best left to rest in peace, other than to ponder a few gems you’ve contributed here, such as the exposition of the teleology of forced insemination via turkey baster
And yep, the petri dish certainly qualifies for contracepting by a good samaritan in my book also.
R
Rau
Guest
O
o_mlly
Guest
Two points.
It is clear to me that St. JPII further developed the Church’s teaching on the moral use of capital punishment. The only question is whether his development of doctrine is consistent with Tradition. In my reading, this is true. Tradition demonstrates a continuum of delimiting the state’s moral use of this penalty.
Why did EV leave any window that allows the moral use of capital punishment? Because he teaches the universal Church, the pope recognizes that not all societies possess incarceration capability suitable to protect their citizenry and that those societies which do have such capability may lose it. In both cases, a bloodless means may not be available.
E
Ender
Guest
This argument simply rephrases your original assertion: if the killing is valid it is indirect, and if it is invalid it is direct. What it doesn’t do is explain how the intent of the mobster - which is to kill a particular person - differs from the intent of the executioner, which is also to kill a particular person.
The death of the prisoner is neither more nor less sought as an end in itself than the death of a mob informant. Neither is killed just for the sake of killing. In the former case it is an act of just retribution, in the latter it is an act of unjust retribution, but the reason - the intent - is identical, and it isn’t clear how one can be declared indirect and the other direct simply because one is just and the other is not.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I present arguments and citations to defend every assertion I make. You have simply stated that I am wrong without explanation. I have responded to every argument raised against me. There isn’t a lot I can do with unsupported assertions.
Perhaps, but that’s not obvious.*it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community *(Aquinas ST II-II 64,3)
*the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin. *(Ibid 64,6)
Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin. (Ibid 108 3 objection 3)****
On the contrary*******,** These punishments are fixed by divine law** as appears from what we have said above* (reply to objection 3).
If they are so simple then engage in the discussion. How do you justify these repeated personal attacks?
Let’s start with what you said: “The State has the right…” and compare it with what I said: “the church recognizes the right of States to employ capital punishment (where appropriate)”. It is clear that we disagree about when that right may be appropriately used, but your comment confirms my own: The State has the right. What eludes me is why you think my statement is wrong when it is virtually the same as yours.
I don’t dispute that, but I wouldn’t hold out much hope of the Magisterium authoritatively declaring capital punishment to be inherently evil based on its prudential judgments about modern penal capabilities.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
And I meant to point out that the issue is a great deal more complicated than it first appears, an opinion that is by no means my own.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L., 2003)
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I have never held that every murderer should be executed. The proper response to a particular crime is decided by the particular circumstances of the crime so that the punishment accords with conditions in every respect. There are certainly legitimate (proper) reasons why a murderer should, or should not be executed.
Ender
- Status