Death penalty question

[Blue_Horizon]

Why does the citation need to be recent if the doctrines being discussed have been addressed by the church for at least 1900 years?

Because a reasonable, intelligent person would be shocked if an allegedly black and white important moral Teaching of 1900s suddenly got contradicted when broached by Papal/Catechetical authority.
An intelligent, self-critical person would re-assess whether their understanding of such a traditional teaching was accurate afterall.

Yet you do not - you blindly stick to your personal view and suggest it is the recent Popes and CCC that is “inconsistent” not your good self.

You are the one who said the CCC is inconsistent did you not?
Or are you renegging on that self-revelation now?

Opposition to capital punishment is itself recent…

You still don’t get it Ender - I and many others here do not deny that State Executions can be just . We oppose your anaemic understanding of the full range of principles behind it…which appears to lead you to oppose the CCC and recent Popes in applying those more balanced principles to modern times.

If they have changed then you need to defend the position that the repudiation of a doctrine represents a valid form of its development.

What a nonsense tautology … you still aren’t able to grasp the consistency of reasonable alternative explanations.

In short, no doctrine has been repudiated. If the CCC appears to you to do so (“inconsistent” you put it) then logic dictates the “doctrine” was never a doctrine (at least wrt the point of inconsistency) … or that it was comprehended/explained incompletely.

Why will you not even allow this as a theoretic possibility in your case?
You are the one who recognised an “inconsistency” in the CCC didn’t you?

If your interpretation is true and 2267 represents a new doctrine…

I never said that did I. At the most I said an evolution.
Was Relativity a repudiation of Newtons laws ?
No, it was a precisioning - Newton’s Laws are perfectly adequate to predict the motion of the planets and everyday objects.
I am certainly saying 2267 has further elucidated the fact that retr justice theory can no longer be claimed, by some, to be a “stand-alone” principle justifying State Executions.

Even Aquinas said this too didn’t he:
“The slaying of an evil-doer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community.”

Pretty clear here that retrib justice as a sole justification of CP is in fact limited by other principles as well is it not?

That is no small matter. On the other hand, if my understanding is correct (that 2267 is prudential) …

You have never actually demonstrated that - you just say that Card Dulles (and, unlikely, Card Ratzinger) does. So make your case…

I see nothing merely “prudential” in 2267 at all - principles are more clearly enunciated that limit the absolute applicability of retrib justice…which then allow Popes to come to different conclusions wrt State Executions in the light of changed modern conditions.

And please source quotes from others rather than writing them as if they were your own.

What I question is your understanding of what the catechism is saying.

I hadn’t noticed you present anything that sticks…have another go if I missed this.

On the contrary, most people here (and in other threads) question what you seem to see in the CCC. The trouble with auto-didactism is that one has nobody to keep one’s naturally self-serving and subjective interpretations honest. In a lecture theatre or a tutorial ego’s get popped quickly by one’s fellow students.

That is perhaps why you are having so much trouble trying to get traction in this thread.
Things are far from as objective as you believe they are. We are trying to keep you honest.

I have challenged you to provide a citation showing that this debate has existed within the church. I’m still waiting…

I have presented you with a scholarly work from Stanford … you go into his sources if this credible authority isn’t good enough for you.
I have pointed out numerous times how even Aquinas (and even in this response) is not as consistent as his conservative commentators would have us believe. Clearly the Popes aren’t coming out with their “inconsistent” statements from a big blue nowhere but from prior less well known traditions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1. The action to be performed must be morally good in itself or at least morally indifferent or neutral.
2. The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself.
3. The good must be willed, and the evil merely allowed or tolerated.
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the evil effect.

It is easy to satisfy these criteria for killing in self defense.
Capital punishment does not satisfy these criteria

You didn’t actually demonstrate or explain either of the last two assertions.
Have another go.

 

[Ender]

constitutional English law does not apply to the Church of course.

True, the question is whether the same concept applies. Does the church forbid all things she does not allow or does she allow all things she does not forbid? How do you answer this?

Its gotten to the point where its like you are not even **reading **the words of John Paul II anymore.

We all know what the words say; our disagreement is over what they mean.

He says, again he says, that the death penalty can only be applied in cases of self-defense because of the dignity of the criminal.

No, actually that is not what was said. Here is the full statement:*"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. *
Understand, the word “should” is not at all the same as “can only be”. “Should not” is not the same as “must not”. The Ten Commandments are presented as “You should not” do this or that. “Should” is not a command, it is a suggestion, a preference.

That is doctrinal.

Not if it is only a recommendation.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Because a reasonable, intelligent person would be shocked if an allegedly black and white important moral Teaching of 1900s suddenly got contradicted when broached by Papal/Catechetical authority.

True, this has been a concern I’ve raised several times. Let me point out that if there is no contradiction between the past and the present then there should be no difference whether my citations are from the past or the present, yet you have been insisting that I cite something “recent” that supports my position.

It seems you should admit either that the present appears to contradict the past or there is no need to limit my citations to the present.

You are the one who said the CCC is inconsistent did you not?

The current catechism contradicts the past ***only ***if it is viewed as doctrinal. If thinkandmull is right that 2267 is a new doctrine then it is surely inconsistent with established church doctrine. If I am right and 2267 is only prudential then there is no contradiction because the church has always recognized that circumstances might well disallow the use of capital punishment.

In short, no doctrine has been repudiated…Why will you not even allow this as a theoretic possibility in your case?

Clarify these points: is 2267 doctrinal or prudential? How does it differ from previous church teaching?

I am certainly saying 2267 has further elucidated the fact that retr justice theory can no longer be claimed, by some, to be a “stand-alone” principle justifying State Executions.

No, actually 2267 says nothing whatever about retribution (or rehabilitation or deterrence). It speaks only of the defense of society, which is a problem because this is only a secondary objective of punishment, or is it your understanding that this has been upgraded to the primary objective?

Even Aquinas said this too didn’t he:
“The slaying of an evil-doer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community.”

True, but what he did not say was that the “welfare of the community” could be limited to, or seen primarily as, the physical protection of its citizens. Does not justice also contribute to the welfare of the community?

Pretty clear here that retrib justice as a sole justification of CP is in fact limited by other principles as well is it not?

I have never insisted that the use of capital punishment was justified solely by retributive justice. I have always recognized that there could be other circumstances that made its use unwise in certain instances. While I have always accepted that there can be valid prudential objections I have always rejected that there are valid moral objections.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Cont…
Blue Horizon:

You have never actually demonstrated that - you just say that Card Dulles (and, unlikely, Card Ratzinger) does. So make your case…

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles)

*There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty. *(Cardinal Ratzinger)

I see nothing merely “prudential” in 2267 at all…

…given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it… (CCC 2267)
The evaluation of a State’s penal capabilities is a judgment. It is not possible to consider this a doctrinal statement.

… principles are more clearly enunciated that limit the absolute applicability of retrib justice…

What principles?

…which then allow Popes to come to different conclusions wrt State Executions in the light of changed modern conditions.

It is not possible for doctrines to be conditional according to time or place. Papal conclusions based on “modern conditions” are prudential judgments.

On the contrary, most people here (and in other threads) question what you seem to see in the CCC.

I’m impressed more by arguments than numbers, and I’m not impressed with the arguments.

I have presented you with a scholarly work from Stanford … you go into his sources if this credible authority isn’t good enough for you.

If you would like to use that source to support your position then do so, just provide a link so I can see it as well. I’m not really anxious to go that way - if we can’t even agree on what 2267 says there is little hope of us making any headway with Aquinas, but I’m game if you are.

I have pointed out numerous times how even Aquinas (and even in this response) is not as consistent as his conservative commentators would have us believe.

This was asserted by your Stanford resource, but an assertion is not an argument and I reject the assertion.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Ten Commandments are presented as “You should not” do this or that.

Rats…Obviously the Ten Commandments are ***not ***presented as “You should not”…

Ender

 

[Ender]

You didn’t actually demonstrate or explain either of the last two assertions.

1) The action to be performed must be morally good in itself or at least morally indifferent or neutral.

• 1. The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself.*
• 1. The good must be willed, and the evil merely allowed or tolerated.*
• 1. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the evil effect.*
     Everything in italics (above and below) was copied from Catholicism & Ethics, A Medical/Moral Handbook. * When we perform various actions they are followed by various effects, some of which we desire (wish, intend, want, will) and others of which we do not desire but merely allow (permit, tolerate).*
     What is the intent behind an act of execution if not the death of the condemned? It is not something that is merely tolerated; in fact the act is not considered complete until the victim is dead. The act fails its objective if the person lives, but if the death is intended - yet the act is still permitted - it cannot be considered an evil effect.Sin is an act of the will and, since this is so, we must distinguish between what is willed and what is tolerated or merely permitted before judging the morality of an action.
     Another distinction that must be kept in mind when considering the principle of the twofold or double effect is that there is a difference between performing a good act which has both good and evil effects, and performing an evil act in order that good may result.
     In the case of an execution, what is the good ***act ***that justifies the death of the prisoner? If protection is the good effect and death is the evil effect, what act justifies the death? You cannot condemn the direct, intended death of a human being as being improper and still do it, even to achieve a good result.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

No, actually that is not what was said. Here is the full statement:"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.
Understand, the word “should” is not at all the same as “can only be”. “Should not” is not the same as “must not”. The Ten Commandments are presented as “You should not” do this or that. “Should” is not a command, it is a suggestion, a preference.
Not if it is only a recommendation.

Ender

Why don’t you use an official version of the CCC rather than an error ridden, incomplete, intra text version that is obviously not official? Every English version of the CCC around the world says…

“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means,…”

The French version from the Vatican website translates to English as ‘will’ also…

“l’autorité s’en tiendra à ces moyens,…”

“But if bloodless means are sufficient to defend and protect the safety of people against the aggressor, authority will stick to such means,”…

The Latin version from the Vatican website actually translates as must…

*“auctoritas his solummodo utatur instrumentis,…”

“public authority must limit itself to such means,…”*

Every version everywhere uses ‘will’ or ‘must’. The only single version you find the word ‘should’ is that intratext version that isn’t even complete and riddled with errors. It does not even properly reference Evangelium Vitae.

I wonder why you insist on referencing that inaccurate draft proven over and over in many ways to be unofficial… not least by the publications of every country even France in which the original was written?

 

[LongingSoul]

What is the intent behind an act of execution if not the death of the condemned? It is not something that is merely tolerated; in fact the act is not considered complete until the victim is dead. The act fails its objective if the person lives, but if the death is intended - yet the act is still permitted - it cannot be considered an evil effect.

Aquinas made the principle eminently easy to follow by using the analogy of amputating a diseased limb. In the times where amputation was the only treatment for stopping the spread of disease to the whole body, an act of amputation was implicitly tolerated. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the medicine has for effectively preventing disease, by rendering a limb which is infected, incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from the wholeness of the body - the cases in which the amputation of the limb is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent”.

 

[thinkandmull]

Ender, John Paul II is not “inconsistent with established church doctrine” since you haven’t shown that the past taught we can kill apart from self-defense. We already explained the quotes you tried to use. Not only is LongingSoul right about the “must” vs “should” thing, a doctrinal reason is giving (dignity of the criminal), so even “should” must be interpreted as must. We “should be good”, right?

Blue Horizon, I don’t see that Aquinas was inconsistent on this issue

 

[Ender]

Why don’t you use an official version of the CCC rather than an error ridden, incomplete, intra text version that is obviously not official?

I have no idea why there are inconsistencies in different versions, but the one I use is the one the Vatican web site directly links to. I’m at a loss to understand how you can contend that the Vatican version is not an official one.

In any case it is not the verb used that I object to so much as the suggestion that capital punishment somehow fails to conform to man’s dignity.

Is it an offense against man’s dignity? Yes or no.
Is it a sin to act against man’s dignity? Yes or no.

Ender

 

[Rau]

I have no idea why there are inconsistencies in different versions, but the one I use is the one the Vatican web site directly links to. I’m at a loss to understand how you can contend that the Vatican version is not an official one.

In any case it is not the verb used that I object to so much as the suggestion that capital punishment somehow fails to conform to man’s dignity.

Is it an offense against man’s dignity? Yes or no.
Is it a sin to act against man’s dignity? Yes or no.

Ender

Plse supply link to catechism you are using. Why are you not using this:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[Ender]

Aquinas made the principle eminently easy to follow by using the analogy of amputating a diseased limb.

Yes he did.*it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. *
What he does not say, however, is that the protection of society is the only concern of those charged with a community’s welfare, which is the assumption you are making. What you imply, without having the temerity to voice it, is that justice is not a primary concern.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Plse supply link to catechism you are using. Why are you not using this:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Go to the Vatican home page
w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

Scroll to the bottom of the page. Slightly above the bottom, on the right is a link to the RESOURCE LIBRARY. You will be linked here.
vatican.va/archive/index.htm

This is the ARCHIVE page. The second link is to the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It links to this page.
vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

If you select ENGLISH under the Catechism of the Catholic Church bullet item you will be linked to the version of the catechism I use.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

A faster way to get to the same place is to type “catechism” in the search field on the Vatican web site and then go to the first entry found. If this is the version the Vatican site leads me to why should I search for a different one?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Plse supply link to catechism you are using. Why are you not using this:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Go to the Vatican home page
w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

Scroll to the bottom of the page. Slightly above the bottom, on the right is a link to the RESOURCE LIBRARY. You will be linked here.
vatican.va/archive/index.htm

This is the ARCHIVE page. The second link is to the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It links to this page.
vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

If you select ENGLISH under the Catechism of the Catholic Church bullet item you will be linked to the version of the catechism I use.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

A faster way to get to the same place is to type “catechism” in the search field on the Vatican web site and then go to the first entry found. If this is the version the Vatican leads me to, why should I search for a different one?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ender, John Paul II is not “inconsistent with established church doctrine” since you haven’t shown that the past taught we can kill apart from self-defense.

First, this is not what I said. Specifically, this is (Post #223):The current catechism contradicts the past ***only ***if it is viewed as doctrinal.
By extension this would apply to JPII’s comments in Evangelium Vitae.

Finally, I can cite nearly a half dozen catechisms that list the reasons a life can be legitimately taken, and they all list capital punishment as a separate reason apart from self defense. How can you contend that this doesn’t show “we can kill apart from self-defense”?*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I have no idea why there are inconsistencies in different versions, but the one I use is the one the Vatican web site directly links to. I’m at a loss to understand how you can contend that the Vatican version is not an official one.

Which more than anything else, demonstrates your fundamental difficulty in coming to the truth. The link you are using is at best a first draft compiled by ‘intratext editorial staff’. It is full of punctuation and line spacing errors. It does not include the Apostolic Letter and Apostolic Constitution which preface every other official version of the CCC around the world.

In the section headed ‘Legitimate Defense’ which gives context to the teaching on capital punishment, it curiously adds a new heading ‘Capital Punishment’ separating 2267 from the Legitimate Defense heading. That is not included in any official CCC anywhere in the world. It does not cite the quote from Evangelium Vitae in the official citations at the bottom of the page, only puts it in brackets beside it. That is not the case with any other official Catechism including the original French version. It is obvious that the Vatican site is a collection of contributions from different sources around the world and it is equally as obvious that this English version created by ‘intratext editorial staff’ is not an official or even complete version of the Catechism.

Intratext staff copy… vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Official and complete version … vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Both are at the Vatican site. One is official, the other is not. Common sense will tell them apart.

Added to that the original Latin document Evangelium Vitae, quotes the official Catechism verse thus…

“Si instrumenta incruenta sufficiunt ad vitas humanas defendendas ab aggressore et ad ordinem publicum tuendum simulque personarum securitatem, auctoritas his utatur instrumentis, utpote quae melius respondeant concretis boni communis condicionibus et sint dignitati personae humanae magis consentanea” (Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, 2267).

The official English translation at the Vatican site is…

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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”.

So, your poor draft that is obviously not an official version, is not one that the Popes or any other member of the Church heirarchy ever use when providing the Catechism reference. Unfortunately I realise that you will be unable to see the big picture which is generally the job of ones common sense but hopefully in time you will be able to address this myopic tunnel vision and be able to embrace the Church teachings to the happy fullest.

 

[Rau]

Which more than anything else, demonstrates your fundamental difficulty in coming to the truth. The link you are using is at best a first draft compiled by ‘intratext editorial staff’. It is full of punctuation and line spacing errors. It does not include the Apostolic Letter and Apostolic Constitution which preface every other official version of the CCC around the world.

In the section headed ‘Legitimate Defense’ which gives context to the teaching on capital punishment, it curiously adds a new heading ‘Capital Punishment’ separating 2267 from the Legitimate Defense heading. That is not included in any official CCC anywhere in the world. It does not cite the quote from Evangelium Vitae in the official citations at the bottom of the page, only puts it in brackets beside it. That is not the case with any other official Catechism including the original French version. It is obvious that the Vatican site is a collection of contributions from different sources around the world and it is equally as obvious that this English version created by ‘intratext editorial staff’ is not an official or even complete version of the Catechism.

Intratext staff copy… vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Official and complete version … vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Both are at the Vatican site. One is official, the other is not. Common sense will tell them apart.

Added to that the original Latin document Evangelium Vitae, quotes the official Catechism verse thus…

“Si instrumenta incruenta sufficiunt ad vitas humanas defendendas ab aggressore et ad ordinem publicum tuendum simulque personarum securitatem, auctoritas his utatur instrumentis, utpote quae melius respondeant concretis boni communis condicionibus et sint dignitati personae humanae magis consentanea” (Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, 2267).

The official English translation at the Vatican site is…

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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”.

So, your poor draft that is obviously not an official version, is not one that the Popes or any other member of the Church heirarchy ever use when providing the Catechism reference. Unfortunately I realise that you will be unable to see the big picture which is generally the job of ones common sense but hopefully in time you will be able to address this myopic tunnel vision and be able to embrace the Church teachings to the happy fullest.

Your case to put aside Ender’s catechism is good. But how weird that there should be more than one English CCC on the Vatican site. And even weirder that following links from a home page should lead to a flawed one. I performed a search for catechism using a search function on the web site and in amongst the multiple results were Ender’s version and the one we have used. Bizarre.

 

[LongingSoul]

Your case to put aside Ender’s catechism is good. But how weird that there should be more than one English CCC on the Vatican site. And even weirder that following links from a home page should lead to a flawed one. I performed a search for catechism using a search function on the web site and in amongst the multiple results were Ender’s version and the one we have used. Bizarre.

You can understand the nature of the Vatican website as having to rely on contributions from all over since it has to provide for so many different languages unlike most other websites. But looking at the text, it is obviously a mistaken link. However, since some of the errors seem almost deliberate agenda deceptions… such as the adding of the heading Capital Punishment to separate 2267 from the Legitimate Defense heading as well as the omission of an official citation link for the EV quote… I have niggling suspicion about the true contributor.

 

[thinkandmull]

First, this is not what I said. Specifically, this is (Post #223):The current catechism contradicts the past ***only ***if it is viewed as doctrinal.
By extension this would apply to JPII’s comments in Evangelium Vitae.

Finally, I can cite nearly a half dozen catechisms that list the reasons a life can be legitimately taken, and they all list capital punishment as a separate reason apart from self defense. How can you contend that this doesn’t show “we can kill apart from self-defense”?“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)
Ender

None of those catechisms are universal Catechisms. Besides a Pope can change a non-infallible teaching. You ask us if killing is against the dignity of the criminal, but why not admit that John Paul II said it was. Killing then can only be excused as self-defense, even though secondarily it is “a sentence of death in punishment of a crime” just as self-defense on the street is secondarily. So the criminal get justice by being killed and yet the moment of mercy that his humanity demands is not given because of the danger to society. You might not like it, but John Paul II taught it