Death penalty question

[Rau]

…The reality of the matter is that God Himself has given us the ten commandments which indicate that stealing, lying, killing and dishonoring your parents is wrong, However, it is obvious that circumstances can change that. To rename stealing, killing, lying, or dishonoring your parents because of changed circumstances is simply another way of admitting that circumstances do influence the morality of the event.

It is obvious that you place your “argument” above God’s commandments Tom, and certainly above the teachings of His Church!

 

[Rau]

What disturbs me here is the prospect of a Catholic sitting on a jury where it is to be determined whether or not to administer the death penalty. It seems to me that the Catholic, if he pays attention to what JPII and other Catholic bishops have been saying recently, would be inclined to vote against the death penalty for theological or religious reasons?

The Death Penalty is widely opposed beyond Catholics Tom. So yes, those adjudicating are going to be influenced by more than the law.

A person believing the death penalty can be an immoral act might choose to make their concerns known during jury selection.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is obvious that you place your “argument” above God’s commandments Tom, and certainly above the teachings of His Church!

This is a misinterpetation of my argument and is certainly false.

 

[adrift]

When Catholic literature refers to ‘redeeming’ oneself it doesn’t mean that the person himself does the redeeming. It means that he puts himself in a position to be redeemed. It is in the hands of Christ to redeem people and it is in the hands of the state to grant freedom of the innocent to the criminal who has reformed and repented. So while a person in prison can ‘redeem’ himself in Gods eyes while incarcerated, he is not made new before the community while still in prison.

 

[LongingSoul]

As I say, I’m just advancing some thoughts as to how in what way Pope Francis could be seeing a life sentence without possibility of parole as a hidden death penalty. If the possibility of restoring a relationship with the community is impossible regardless of all reform and repentance does that reflect the Catholic view of redemption? Original sin condemned us all to permanent exile from Gods presence however Jesus redeemed us by His death and resurrection. He gave us the keys to Heaven the the chance through grace to cooperate with God in our salvation. By redemption original sin can be completely wiped a way and we get that chance to a full relationship with God.

 

[adrift]

As I say, I’m just advancing some thoughts as to how in what way Pope Francis could be seeing a life sentence without possibility of parole as a hidden death penalty. If the possibility of restoring a relationship with the community is impossible regardless of all reform and repentance does that reflect the Catholic view of redemption? Original sin condemned us all to permanent exile from Gods presence however Jesus redeemed us by His death and resurrection. He gave us the keys to Heaven the the chance through grace to cooperate with God in our salvation. By redemption original sin can be completely wiped a way and we get that chance to a full relationship with God.

Recently I had a conversation with a member of my household over the definition of a word. They had a unique definition(not one found in a dictionary) that caused confusion in our conversation. Another time with another member of the family we were in a discussion for two hours, once we defined terms we found that we were saying the same thing. I think that is true here. What do you believe is the Catholic view of Redemption? I think once that is defined your question can be answered.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
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.

OK, this point is a little dated but then I am not so obsessing on this topic that I feel I need to defend a “side” at all costs several times a day.

Ender I see you are very much a Dulles fan because your deeper theological angsts seem very much the same and he offers you solutions that makes sense.

What I am trying to demonstrate here is that this Teaching of the Church is in fact incomplete and always has been. There has always been debate on some important finer points and there will be for some time.
I find it intellectually stunting that one would try to argue here that all answers have been given and the Teaching is closed and that any further debate is therefore misguided on the part of those here who disagree with your particular stance on numerous sub-points wrt the Church’s “position”. Debate here is legitimate, healthy and necessary and Catholics may take a variety of viewpoints.

You do not appear willing to allow any debate on any point.
This approach is simply is not Catholic.

Yet you cannot deny that there are cracks in this “way of holding” the Church’s Teaching as I am trying to demonstrate to you just here.

You yourself admit “inconsistancies” in the latest CCC.
You yourself observe difficulties in the strong statements of recent Popes - two of whom are prob the greatest theologians in the last few centuries.
You yourself must accept that Pope Benedict publically stated that while one may not hold a variety of contrary positions on the Church’s traditional position on Abortion and Euthenasia … he specifically stated such debate is allowed wrt the Death Penalty.
How can he not … he himself and JPII had been doing just that.

This is all many of us are trying to have you see here.
But if I understand your approach correctly you thionk its ALL done and dusted and do not allow that any debate is allowed or kosha or Catholic.

In this I believe you are quite mistaken.

And if debate is allowed that means that there are areas of flexibility/greyness in the Teaching that the Church in her wisdom is allowing so that a more complete Teaching may crystalise under the Holy Spirit… as has always been the case throughout history (eg the divinity of Christ, slavery, interest, the Assumption, sacramental marriage, Mary’s Death etc).

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.

Ender I see this is the difficulty for you wrt to this “debate”. It is of course a very real difficulty. But how to solve it? I believe you have, intellectually, moved too quickly, too anxiously to resolve this uncomfortable dissonance.

You are very susceptible to syllogistic “all or nothing” thinking to resolve contradictions.
Consequently you have not paid enough attention to other possible phiolosophic ways out of this issue.

Your “either or” quote above is typical - and as Aquinas states, “a small error in the beginning makes for huge mistakes at the end.”

You are basically caught in an intellectually limiting type of “have you stopped beating your wife” type scenario. Any answer is the wrong answer for a man who is not in fact beating his wife…a scenario outside your intellectual credibility limits and purview.

The current catechism contradicts the past ***only ***if it is viewed as doctrinal.

Again, a very all or nothing approach - it stops you from imaginatively exploring options because you are too quickly imposing credibility limits on yourself. Why be so scared to go down and explore other possible tracks even if they do not seem to start auspiciously. If they are indeed leading nowhere that will become more certain.

To say “we have a problem” and then refuse to fully explore a range of other possible solutions simply because we have quickly found a path that appeals to us personally is somewhat intellectually arrogant - esp if other intelligent and well educated Catholics are far from convinced in one’s own approach.

We are all subjective in our approaches which is why Catholic debate by such persons who actually have no particular axe to grind is important. I don’t see much of that going on here, and certainly not with your good self.

How can you learn in areas where its valid to debate when you keep operating from such a fixed position without imaginatively exploring other’s possibilities and together waying up the pro’s and cons. This is exactly what happens in theology (and indeed many disciplines) at tertiary level.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

CONTINUED …

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.

When you talk like this I feel there is hope for you to learn from others.
But then, as below, you quickly try to definitively close off any possibility of exploring by dogmatically answering your own questions - showing they were never really entertained but merely rhetorical. This really is the intellectual solipsism of an out and out auto-didact.
I feel you are capable of more openness than this. People won’t want to explore with you when your starting point appears so closed.

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

Yes, this is in my mind what needs to be teased out much more.
I have not read the huge number of posts since I last spoke with you but this seems to be happening. I will need time to see what people are saying here before responding.

What is clear to me from my own research in the current Catholic debate is that Dulles desperately leads the “it must be prudential” which you slavishly parrot and cherry pick and never acknowledge or discuss the views of those who oppose Dulles with your own personal observations.

In this I find your approach intellectually shallow and even dishonest. It suggests you , here on this Forum topic at least, are more interested in rhetoric, in “winning” than in seeking a truth, a harmonious teaching that eludes all of us and which can only be found together under the guidance of the Spirit in openness and thru holding positions loosely.
We all have set positions, but no one is so endowed with wisdom that they should not be held lightly.

Quote: BlueH
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?

I find your response confusing, you say “NO”, but then your statement appears to support what I believe I was saying…
I may be willing to concede that retrib justice is a primary objective of punishment theory in general (which does not imply that “punishment” is the primary purpose of just State Executions because to make that step one would have to demonstrate that Catholics have always held that was the main purpose of those Executions.) To simply assume that this is the case because we have attached the name “Capital Punishment” to State Executions
does not make a convincing case.
In any case, I do not believe you or other proponents have adequately responded to the opposing view on this matter even if punishment is the primary objective of State Executions (which you do not reveal because you do cherry pick).
There are a number of objections to the simplistic view that primary the most powerful seems to be thus:

• primary does not imply “only” or “standalone” justification. That is, primary objective certainly means a “necessary” condition of licitness, but that does not always mean its a “sufficient” condition of licitness.

And this is exactly what the CCC and the Popes appear to be saying as a matter of principle not of applied prudential judgement. The welfare of the community is a co- principle that must also be present. It need not be primary for it to be still required to make State Executions to be just even when retrib justice conditions are met.

Just as you agree below that Aquinas also acknowledges: “The slaying of an evil-doer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

CONTINUED2 …

Quote: BH

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?

Quote: BH
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.

Well, perhaps I am mistaken, but we may have a synthesis here that we both agree on that may assist us solving the CCC and Papal dilemma and still maintaining that 2267 has a doctrinal (ie principled) development.

Namely, retrib justice can be maintained as a primary objective of punishment, yet for Capital Punishment (the ultimate punishment) it is not sufficient to justify. A further objective (secondary if you wish) or principle must be invoked, the Common Good.

That is in fact a fairly vague “catch-all” concept even in Aquinas. But it certainly encompasses the principles of containment and protection of others that are invoked in personal self-defence.

I see no justification for viewing the Common Good as some sort of prudential judgement - it is fairly clearly a principle and “object” of State Executions to me. It is naturally so in the first paragraph of CCC 2267.
I accept the 2nd paragraph is more clearly prudential in nature.

If you disagree I would like you to define how you define “prudential” when applying moral principles.

I would further add that it also implies that even in justified State Executions of the guilty (if that is even possible today based on prudential judgements made in the light of this additional co-principle) directly intended death of the offender is not licit. The State must intend justice not eye for eye retaliation.

This latter point is of course highly debatable - but to me it is a clear direction that the CCC is giving a subtle nod to. Such a position is also supported by leading moral theologians such as Tollefsen

 

[Rau]

…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?
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?
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

I think your focus on the “justice” aspects of capital punishment may inhibit your assessment of the morality of specific instances (ie. case by case) of capital punishment. That capital punishment may be just, does not ensure its application will be a moral act - that can only be assessed by examining the fonts of morality, as we have discussed at length.

Our discussion about the direct relevance of the balance of consequences to the morality of an act is in stark contrast to your last sentence above. If we view the loss of life of the condemned at the level the Popes are exhorting us to do, we may well discover that choosing capital punishment over a bloodless option was an immoral choice. If we disagree with the Popes, we may find the choice moral.

 

[LongingSoul]

Ender I see you are very much a Dulles fan because your deeper theological angsts seem very much the same and he offers you solutions that makes sense.

I have to interject here that Ender cherry picks from the essay of Cardinal Dulles as well. He has never properly addressed the passages regarding retribution in that essay that limit it to the symbolic re-enactment of Gods justice that is honoured by conforming to the States authority and mandate to serve primarily the common good in administering justice.

Retribution. In principle, guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions. Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins. Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

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

 

[Ender]

I could only anticipate what the eminent Catholic theologians might explain, but if a person reforms and repents, in Catholic terms of redemption he would be regarded as a new person. An innocent person in Gods eyes. To continue to regard him as guilty despite reform and repentence doesn’t reflect a wholly Catholic attitude.

Here is how one eminent Catholic theologian addressed this question, and it doesn’t involve absolution from punishment.In the Second Book of Samuel, King David’s humble confession after his grave sin obtains God’s forgiveness (cf. 2 Sm 12: 13), but not the prevention of the foretold chastisement (cf. ibid., 12: 11; 16: 21). God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good (cf. Heb 12: 4-11). (JPII, General Audience, 1999)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Hmmm, so which do we interpret lightly, “preferred” or “human dignity”. I don’t see how human dignity can be taken lightly

The former is a statement of “what”, and the latter is an explanation of “why.” The “what” is that the objection to capital punishment is a preference, and the explanation of why it is opposed doesn’t change that.

Ender

 

[Ender]

John Paul II taught clearly that “It is clear that punishment ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.” That is from his encyclical on life. Perhaps the mercy to be shown a criminal can be disregarded when there is deterrence to consider.

Mercy is inappropriate in a number of situations, not least of which is when the prisoner is unrepentant.

One might ask if the Catechism has the authority to go further than the previous teaching on this however.

No, a teaching derives no additional authority from being included in the catechism.

But can we say its settled that John Paul II taught you can’t kill a criminal for the sole purpose of justice?

No.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I already gave several times a legitimate explanation for the verse of Genenis but you rather not recognize this or the fact that John Paul II contradicts what you’ve written

It is not my opinion you are rejecting. I am simply citing what the church herself has written over the past 1950 years. Nor can JPII or any pope simply disregard the traditional teachings of the church and invent his own doctrines. He does not possess that authority.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The taking of a life is not merely anticipated, it is certain. That this is intrinsically a bad outcome is accepted in our theology.

The use of “bad” here is ambiguous: do you mean bad as in evil or bad as in harmful? It cannot be bad (evil) or that would make capital punishment intrinsically evil, but if it only means harmful then once again we are dealing with a perception about which choice causes the most harm - using capital punishment or not using it.

The Popes are stressing that it is very bad…

Have popes just discerned in the last 20 years that people die from executions, because up until recently the church did not oppose them?

…there is not a likely saving of human life to offset it, and in their judgement other goods coming from the act are also achievable with a bloodless act.

Yes, in their judgment other choices will lead to better results. That is their judgment.*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. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[adrift]

Our discussion about the direct relevance of the balance of consequences to the morality of an act is in stark contrast to your last sentence above. If we view the loss of life of the condemned at the level the Popes are exhorting us to do, we may well discover that choosing capital punishment over a bloodless option was an immoral choice. If we disagree with the Popes, we may find the choice moral.

Then would the Popes previous to John Paul II, stance on the death penalty be an immoral choice?

 

[Rau]

The use of “bad” here is ambiguous: do you mean bad as in evil or bad as in harmful? It cannot be bad (evil) or that would make capital punishment intrinsically evil, but if it only means harmful then once again we are dealing with a perception about which choice causes the most harm - using capital punishment or not using it.

I suspect bad vs. evil is a difference without distinction. In any event, we speak of the 3rd font only. If regular State Executions were to breed a sense in the community that life is disposable, that would seem to be bad. And an evil.

Have popes just discerned in the last 20 years that people die from executions, because up until recently the church did not oppose them?

Unlikely, but perhaps the Popes see a need to emphasise the respect due to all human life, particularly in circumstances where there is no confidence that the execution will save any? You are more widely read on this subject than I Ender. What are you hearing?

Yes, in their judgment other choices will lead to better results. That is their judgment

It seems so. I only object to earlier arguments that appeared to focus on the statements: “The primary purpose of punishment is retributive justice. / Death is a Just Punishment.” as supplying the proof that the morality of capital punishment ought not to be questioned. I introduced the discussion on the 3 fonts of morality because that is ALL that matters in gauging morality, and on that principle, I think most posters are agreed. The weighing of the circumstances is a matter of judgement. The conclusions of 3 Popes is itself weighty evidence, and more good might be done in deliberating on that evidence than debating doctrine vs. judgement.

 

[LongingSoul]

Here is how one eminent Catholic theologian addressed this question, and it doesn’t involve absolution from punishment.In the Second Book of Samuel, King David’s humble confession after his grave sin obtains God’s forgiveness (cf. 2 Sm 12: 13), but not the prevention of the foretold chastisement (cf. ibid., 12: 11; 16: 21). God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good (cf. Heb 12: 4-11). (JPII, General Audience, 1999)
Ender

Did you not actually read #349?

“Pope Francis would not be saying that punishment should be abandoned altogether… just that allowing for the possibility of parole after a long period of incarceration expresses a greater truth about the human being than a judgement of permanent lifelong incarceration without hope of a second chance expresses.”

Try again.

 

[Rau]

Then would the Popes previous to John Paul II, stance on the death penalty be an immoral choice?

There is no “stance” on the death penalty taken by other Popes that I am aware of other than that it can be moral - it is not intrinsically evil, for it has good moral objects:

• the protection of people;
• retributive justice.

All Popes are agreed on this.

The morality or otherwise must thus be taken case by case. The CCC is telling us that it is most unlikely that the Death Penalty these days will be justifiable in light of other options. In which case, is it wise to have it on the books?