So why don’t you accept what you are stating? Or have you changed your position now and acknowledging that if a punishment doesn’t serve the common good, it becomes unjust?
And that is part of the determination of the human authorities who reference natural law and reason in their conclusion. There is no universal default.
Exactly which means that there is no universal default. It is left to the human authorities to determine.
In this case the meaning of the word is in fact not clear. The church has a very specific term she uses to describe acts that are never allowed: intrinsic evil, but that was not the term Francis used. Since he is unquestionably familiar with the term it is reasonable to question why he didn’t use it, and I think the strongest explanation is that he couldn’t because…it isn’t. The word inadmissible implies intrinsic evil, but if that was what was meant it would have been explicitly stated, not merely suggested.
It says that? Where?
I have never said anything different.
You use the phrase “common good” as a way to hide those things which constitute it. A major part of that good is justice, which is why the church requires that the punishment fit the crime in terms of severity. That much is what justice requires. Those times when a lesser punishment is called for because of its impact on society are the exception, not the rule. Appealing to an ephemeral, undefined “common good” does not justify randomly ignoring what justice demands.
On the one hand this is correct: it is up to the state to determine how crimes should be punished, just as it is up to the state to determine whether to allow or disallow abortion, but right and wrong exist independently of a state’s choices so the question really is how has the church advised those human authorities to choose? For 2000 years the church has been fairly consistent with her answer.
CCC 2266 …Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.Ender:
It says that? Where?
But where are you getting the principle that the death penalty is ‘the rule’? As a citizen of a State which ceased using the death penalty in the 1920’s, I can tell you that the Church has never taken that position in all these 100 years. The Australian Church has defended abolition in all that time without ever suggesting that it is just in a state of suspended animation. The Vatican has never sent a missive teaching that either. We believe that abolition is a reaction to a greater moral awareness about the dignity of the human being. You can cite Gen 9:6 until the cows come home. You can cite previous Popes prudential judgements until the sheep follow. But none of them establish the death penalty as ‘the rule’ for evermore.
By what authority is the death penalty ‘the default’? Aquinas teaches that human law which itself defines human justice, is solely referenced to natural law, reason and the common good. Not to some ‘special knowledge’ that some men have or to an interpretation of Gen 9:6 as an immutable divine commandment.
Aquinas taught “All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others.”
Okay, now what is the purpose of the penalty inflicted commensurate with the gravity of the crime?
Aquinas also said that one of the joys of heaven is seeing people who “deserve” it roasting in hell.
The primary objective of all punishment is retribution: retributive justice, the restoration of the disorder caused by the crime. A serious crime merits a serious punishment just as a lesser crime deserves less punishment. As I’ve said before, this is a matter of justice.
edwardfeser.blogspot.com
It is what the church taught…in the past at least.
That you have to exaggerate my position in order to respond suggests the difficulty you have in dealing with my actual arguments. I’m not sure that you are unable to understand what I’m saying but you surely seem unwilling to do so.
It is a common opinion that the death penalty furthers a culture of death, and while it is true that the last few popes have recommended its abolition it is absolutely untrue that the Lord has commanded it.
Excellent article. One thing Feser doesn’t comment on is what Francis’ statements on capital punishment have done to virtually all of the arguments used by its opponents based on their interpretation of JPII’s statements. The essential argument made (pre-Francis) against the death penalty was that modern penal systems made it completely unnecessary, and since it was only justified when necessary for defense it could no longer be justified at all. Since Francis has deemed all executions “inadmissible”, virtually every argument given by death penalty opponents is demolished, and it is necessary to craft a whole new basis for opposition. Basically, all that is left is “Because Francis says so.”
This is merely your interpretation of Church teaching. Your opinion.Emeraldlady:
It is what the church taught…in the past at least.
This is false. From CCC 2266:
Yes, and the question you have yet to answer is this:
No, it is what the church taught.
The application of a punishment always involves prudential judgment, therefore no punishment could ever be intrinsically just, even assuming such a thing existed. That’s your term, not mine.
The wicked are to be spared only when it is necessary to do so to protect the good. There is judgment involved in deciding when such a condition exists; God has issued no general commandment to abandon capital punishment.
Yes, it is up to the State (as opposed to the church) to make that determination.
True, it was God himself who authored that penalty. That’s why the church has asserted it is based on scripture.
“Intrinsically just” is a phrase you invented and ascribed to others. It is not a concept anyone else has ever raised.
The primary objective is “redressing the disorder”. It has the additional value of defending public order, protecting people’s safety, and correcting the guilty. “Redressing the disorder” means retribution.
Really? I need to explain the purpose of a cardinal virtue?
Would I? No, but then I wouldn’t want to be a brain surgeon either. That’s not a relevant question.
Yes, what is the purpose of justice?
When you want the death penalty, you participate in the execution.
This again begs the question as to the purpose of justice, the purpose of “restoration of order”.
Justice is here taken in its ordinary and proper sense to signify the most important of the cardinal virtues. It is a moral quality or habit which perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them. … Together with charity it regulates man’s intercourse with his fellow men. But charity leads us to help our neighbour in his need out of our own stores, while justice teaches us to give to another what belongs to him.