Death penalty question

[adrift]

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?

The CCC makes some interesting statements

1. That government has the right to recourse to the death penalty and that this is a traditional teaching of the Church. I suspect that previous Popes did indeed take this stance otherwise it wouldn’t be traditional.
   IF instead, bloodless means are sufficient, which begs the question are they sufficient?

Today, in fact,given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it

If it is a fact than there should be evidence of it.

1. I believe that not only today but in the past government had the means to render a person harmless to society. So the today is a throw away line which I will address in moment

are very rare, if not practically non-existent

A statement that is not backup.
Now why did the Pope state it this way? Because He knew he could not change the Church’s teaching on the right of the government to execute. He tried to eliminate it without doing this. I heard a pod cast where it was stated he was trying to counter the society of death. If that is the case, I think his intentions were noble but they put at risk the charge that the Church changed a teaching. I don’t see it as a change I see it that the government has the right to execute but should not do so. There are many secular reasons not to execute but basing it on a moral ground is not a legitimate reason. I suggest that you listen to that pod cast. It was posted by Robert Bay Along with other informative links
Recommended Reading:

Could you please tell me where Scripture backs up the Catholic teaching on the death penalty?
Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty
Is the death penalty permissible for criminals who are violent in prison?
Death Penalty Answer Incomplete
Death Penalty / Capital Punishment - US Catholic Bishops
What I see is Ender defending the tradition teachings while others are trying to dispose of it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Ender please stick to the point.
My challenge was:

Ender:
It is easy to satisfy these criteria for killing in self defense.
Capital punishment does not satisfy these criteria
BH:
You didn’t actually demonstrate or explain either of the last two assertions.

In fact both Aquinas and JPII demonstrated that legitimate State Executions can be done without directly intending with one’s heart the death of the criminal. And the only way this can be done is by using exactly the same argument behind both private self-defence and
therapeutic surgery (which would otherwise be the evil of mutilation). Namely, defence of life.

CCC 2263 "The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

Clearly the CCC states such indirect killing is possible in a deliberate State Execution as well as a private self -defence.

Scholastic moral philosophy sees a clear distinction between the “chosen foreseen likely lethal consequence” of the primary intention of defending another… and “directly intending” the aggressor’s death."

Do you accept the possibility of this distinction also for the State or not?
If not why not?
Please don’t try and deconstruct CCC 2263 because it won’t be credible.
Make a theological argument…or at least accept what I am saying could be right instead of ruling it out as intrinsically impossible simply because it is uncomfortable for your own position.

I agree with you totally that it is impossible for the State to Execute without directly intending the death of a criminal IF the primary motive is retrib justice.

That is exactly why the CCC (and the Pope and Aquinas) states that the secondary objective of the Common Good (ie defence of the State) MUST be present.
This alone can make State Executions indirect killings.

CCC2267 "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, **if this is the only possible way of effectively defending **human lives against the unjust aggressor. "

This is looks stated as a principle to me.
Why would you think it is a prudential judgement (apart from the fact that Dulles told you…or because you see this as the only way to resolve what you fear is a “inconsistency” with tradition)?

The only prudential part is determining if there actually is no other way of defending the State from future aggression caused by the continued existence of the criminal.

The Pope personally judges that there are indeed other ways in modern society to so defend. Yeah, that’s debatable.

But lets be clear. This prudential judgement is only made by him because he accepts there is a principle apart from retrib punishment that he must defer to.
I believe the inability of Dulles et alia to face this much more likely possibility (ie the CCC is definitely asserting a principle as is E.Vitae ) is intellectually timid and dishonest.
It is a track that needs to be explored.

If there was only a principle of retrib punishment to prudentially reflect upon and apply - whence the need to consider future aggression .
There isn’t any need.
The only prudential need would to be reasonably sure you had caught the right person.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote: BH

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.

Well then that’s the end of the matter isn’t it….

Ender, I am offering you new intellectual possibilities for you to explore to resolve your “inconsistencies” … if you are a seeker of truth - rather than an obsessed teenage debator who simply wants to “be right” or to “win” by impeccable “logic” and the accepted rules of adversarial “debate”.

But you have to first recognise you are neither God or the world’s foremost theological authority on what constitutes Catholic “tradition” to do that.

Cherry picking theologians who only agree with your fears and proclivities will never do that.

So if a Stanford authority on Aquinas writes respected papers demonstrating Aquinas is not actually consistent on lots of these points throught his life/corpus … well I, as an intelligent open and enquiring seeker of Catholic truth, would want to follow that debate up and see if it has merit. Maybe I have been brain-washed by conservative theologians.

But because this view is counter to your own very conservative disposition you won’t even look at it because I “haven’t drawn all the organs” for you as my wife would say.

Its hard to respect you as an honest seeker of truth my friend.

Because of this very closed approach to honest debate it is probably a waste of my time providing you an in depth paper on Aquinas’s inconsistencies wrt Captial Punishment.

But hey, I am a generous guy so here goes nothing.
See attached.

Inspired by the Stanford article I found this paper within 10 mins of searching on the Net.
The author does indeed make a good case that Aquinas’s full range of views simply are not totally harmonious.
You and I may well have been brain-washed into thinking the Capital Defence debate is totally closed done and dusted on all points.

He concludes,
“I believe that there s more than an even chance that if Aquinas were alive today, he
might well turn out to be an abolitionist.”

Do note he wrote this in a respected Journal in 1992, well before the CCC and this more recent debate on Capital Punishment and well before your pal Dulles.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

I think I was only saying that Aquinas was inconsistent on whether or not just Capital Punishment “directly intended” the death of the criminal (unlike private self-defence).

This means that JPII and the CCC is not inconsistent with Tradition when in CCC2263 it (new to Ender) more likely states that both private self-defence and CP, if done for defence of life, are in fact NOT directly intending the death of the perpetrator.

Yes, I personally am suggesting that CP cannot be justified by retrib justice objectives alone because that DOES directly intend the death of the criminal. That is why the CCC and EV, as a matter of principle, state that the Common Good objective must also be linked to CP for it to have any hope of being just.

Ender denies this.
He believes that CP can be justified by the primary retrib justice objective alone and therefore death is directly intended in CP and this can be just.

I disdagree with the moral conclusion, but at least he is acceptably consistent - such a justification would have to involve directly intending the killing - unlike self-defence.

He would argue this direct killing is just because the criminal is not innocent.

I believe the CCC and the Popes are now leading us to see that this approach is flawed.
Even direct killing of the guilty (ie capital agressors) is unjust because all directly intended killing is intrinsically evil.

Just as the 5th Commandment states, “though shall not kill.”
Many interpret this as though shall not kill (the innocent)".
I believe we are being led to accept a higher principle,
“though shall not (directly) kill anybody.”

Dulles and his supporters will not accept this - they fudge it by saying its not a principle but a prudential judgement.

While the CCC and even EV may not explicitly state what I observe…nevertheless I believe the tide is well against an interpretation of CCC2267 that linkage of CP to the Comm Good (ie state self-defence) as mere prudential judgement and not a straight out principle.

It is not a new linkage - Aquinas in places, as quoted a number of time below (but not by Ender as he left that bit out when quoting Aquinas) also invoked the need for the Comm Good principle to make retrib just objective work with CP.

Ender of course, now forced to accept that the principle of Comm Good is a necessary condition for CP even in Tradition, is scrambling to empty “Comm Good” of having a Self-Defence reference…or to make it a “circumstance” to be prudentially determined, rather than a principle.

I have no idea what that means, I don’t think Ender does either really.
Its an argument from Card Dulles and as he never really explained what he meant (and is deceased some years ago) Ender is prob at a bit of a loss to justify this mere assertion as well.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

First sentence doctrinal, second prudential

My face reading also.

 

[Rau]

The CCC makes some interesting statements

1. That government has the right to recourse to the death penalty and that this is a traditional teaching of the Church. I suspect that previous Popes did indeed take this stance otherwise it wouldn’t be traditional.

Of course - this is not in dispute I think. The last 3 Popes would not disagree either.

Now why did the Pope state it this way? Because He knew he could not change the Church’s teaching on the right of the government to execute. He tried to eliminate it without doing this. I heard a pod cast where it was stated he was trying to counter the society of death. If that is the case, I think his intentions were noble but they put at risk the charge that the Church changed a teaching. I don’t see it as a change I see it that the government has the right to execute but should not do so. There are many secular reasons not to execute but basing it on a moral ground is not a legitimate reason.

I am in the camp of not seeing present teaching as being in opposition to "traditional" teaching.  There is no moral teaching that is not subject to the overarching principles of the Morality of Human Acts to which I have referred in recent posts:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

The Pope has no desire or need to change a teaching. IMHO, you are right that the Pope is saying States “should not do so” (in most cases), but I suggest (as I have explained in previous posts) there is a moral dimension to the “should not”. [Actually: he says “authority **will limit itself to such means…” - the strength of conviction here is interesting.] [vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm]](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm])

What I see is Ender defending the tradition teachings while others are trying to dispose of it.

Do they need defending? Why? They were always subject to the fonts of morality, whether or not this was expressed.

 

[Rau]

Came across this exposition of Church Teaching on the Death Penalty:

*Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 10-24-2002:

The Church’s teaching on this matter is governed primarily by the natural law, and secondly by the principle of double effect. The Church’s teaching on this matter remains fundamentally the same. The Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor, by virtue of the principle of double effect, can resort to the death penalty. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” The important point here is that the Pope has not, as he cannot, change the constant and fundamental teaching of the Church on this matter, based as it is on the natural law, namely that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend citizens against the aggressor. What the Pope IS saying is that, in modern society, the modern penal system, along with an intense anti-life culture, makes resorting to the death penalty disproportionate to the threatening aggression. (According to the 4th criterion of the principle of double effect, the unintended evil effect of the act of self defense has to be proportionate to the intended good effect of that act.) Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. It would, by the standards of the natural law and the principle of double effect, be morally irresponsible to rule out all such possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. For these reasons, the Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching.*

Criterion 4 of the Principle of Double Effect is often expressed as:

The proportionality condition. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.

The issue then is that equivalent good effects (societal protection) are deliverable in other ways with a lesser bad effect (lesser than taking a life).

 

[Rau]

The PDE (Principle od Double Effect) is not the basis upon which the permissibility of capital punishment rests. Capital Punishment does not satisfy the requirements of PDE, for its intended good effects rest solely on its bad effects, which must therefore be intended.

Capital Punishment is explicitly “authorised” by God. But under the general principles of moral theology, it is not right to pursue it when other options with a lesser bad effect can achieve the equivalent good effect. The Church argues that only where protection of society necessitates capital punishment is it the moral choice.

 

[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.

Actually I cite Dulles because he has written the clearest, best researched article on capital punishment I have come across…and the fact that he agrees with JPII about the use of the death penalty doesn’t change that.

You yourself observe difficulties in the strong statements of recent Popes - two of whom are prob the greatest theologians in the last few centuries.

As I pointed out that there are no difficulties or inconsistencies in their statements if they are understood as prudential and not doctrinal.

But if I understand your approach correctly you thionk its ALL done and dusted and do not allow that any debate is allowed or kosher or Catholic.

Debate is valid so long as it does not contradict existing doctrine. Expanding on a point is one thing, but repudiating it is quite another. You take my responses as being rigid and inflexible, but what I am doing is citing what the church has already said on the issue being discussed. These points have been thoroughly examined by the great theologians of the past; why is it an error on my part to cite them and how is it justified on your part to dismiss them?

Ender

 

[Rau]

Cardinal Dulles essay on Capital Punishment:
firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment

Extract:

*In light of all this it seems safe to conclude that the death penalty is not in itself a violation of the right to life. The real issue for Catholics is to determine the circumstances under which that penalty ought to be applied. It is appropriate, I contend, when it is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment and when it does not have disproportionate evil effects. I say “necessary” because I am of the opinion that killing should be avoided if the purposes of punishment can be obtained by bloodless means.*If such penalty is required to defend society, then it is reasonable to say that it does not have disproportionate evil effects.

 

[Ender]

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.

Are insults to be considered the new debate form? You condemn me for cherry picking Dulles’ view even as you berate me for parroting what he says. Which is it? If I’m repeating what he said how is that cherry picking? I assume you understand that that phrase means taking something out of context, so since you have made that allegation why don’t you show all of us that Dulles actually meant something other than the short phrase I excerpted? I’ll help you out by providing the surrounding verbiage so you won’t even have to look it up, and I’ll highlight the part I have focused on so others can determine for themselves if your charge against me has any validity.The United States bishops, for their part, had already declared in their majority statement of 1980 that “in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.” Since that time they have repeatedly intervened to ask for clemency in particular cases. Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today.

*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. 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. I personally support this position. *

In this I find your approach intellectually shallow and even dishonest.

If I found myself refuted at every turn I would be frustrated too, but I hope I wouldn’t stoop to insults simply because my own arguments were inadequate.

I find your response confusing, you say “NO”, but then your statement appears to support what I believe I was saying…

You made an assertion about what 2267 said about the theory of retributive justice which I rejected by countering that 2267 ignores the question of justice entirely.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

In reference to Pope Francis’ statement that life in prison without possibility of parole is a hidden death penalty, I can only think that means that having the relationship with the community severed by incarceration without the chance of restoring that relationship at some time… has the permanence of death about it. He is referring to the wholeness of man coming only through his relationship with others in the community in freedom and equality.

That wholeness that being part of the community affords in a way resembles heaven. Our earthly life is a sort of prison and prior to Christs sacrifice, we had a life sentence without possibility of parole because of Original Sin. Then Christ redeemed us. He gave us the keys to the kingdom of heaven and now we serve our sentence with the promise that our relationship with the Father will be fully restored one day. Our debt is paid and we can now be fully clean again and made worthy of heaven. We have a new hope and optimism because we have the key now. That ‘key’ for prisoners formally deemed irredeemable, is the chance of rejoining the community one day,

 

[Ender]

Cont…
BlueHorizon:

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.

I am confused by this statement. Are you saying that executions have been conducted for purposes other than punishment? Further, are you suggesting that the church did not believe that punishment was the justifying principle that permitted executions?

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).

Well, if I’ve never addressed this question it is because it never occurred to me that someone could believe that people were being executed not as punishment but for some other reason. What reason could that be?

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.

Let’s examine this. Do you agree that the church has taught that punishment has four objectives: retribution, protection, deterrence, and rehabilitation? Of these four, which ones must always be satisfied in the application of a punishment? Protection? Not hardly. If we convict a serious criminal of a minor offense we may not impose a serious punishment, even though that would be the punishment necessary to provide protection. He gets his wrist slapped and we let him go. Deterrence? Clearly we know that deterrence isn’t always achieved, and again, we may not impose a draconian penalty for a minor infraction even if the more severe punishment provided greater deterrence. Rehabilitation? Again, this is not a requirement of a penalty, and we know punishments usually fail in this regard.

That leaves, wait for it…retribution. The one thing that is required of every punishment is that it be just; that the punishment be appropriate for the crime. None of the other objectives are required, and none of them may in fact be achieved, but if the punishment is just it is acceptable.

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.

Every action is judged according to defined moral principles, which includes the intention of doing what is best. The popes have made know what they think is best, but that is a matter of judgment, not doctrine. No doctrine can tell us what will or will not work best in a given situation.

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.”

One thing I have consistently rejected is the belief that the welfare of the community can be reduced solely to physical protection. Surely you must agree that justice is also of great benefit to every society.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Are insults to be considered the new debate form? You condemn me for cherry picking Dulles’ view even as you berate me for parroting what he says. Which is it? If I’m repeating what he said how is that cherry picking? I assume you understand that that phrase means taking something out of context, so since you have made that allegation why don’t you show all of us that Dulles actually meant something other than the short phrase I excerpted? I’ll help you out by providing the surrounding verbiage so you won’t even have to look it up, and I’ll highlight the part I have focused on so others can determine for themselves if your charge against me has any validity.The United States bishops, for their part, had already declared in their majority statement of 1980 that “in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.” Since that time they have repeatedly intervened to ask for clemency in particular cases. Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. 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. I personally support this position.

For a start, Dulles does not equate ‘prudential judgement’ anywhere with personal opinion. So much of your argument is based on your erroneous interpretation of prudential judgement. Prudence is the faculty which seeks to find the good and avoid the evil in making a decision. Choosing where to go on holidays requires little prudence unless there is a moral dilemma involved but deciding on the good or harmful effects of the death penalty is of the deepest moral significance there is. One of the first ports of prudence is to seek good counsel in coming to a decision and being men of not just formal and thorough learning, are discernibly holy men… especially St JPII who was elevated to saint almost immediately upon death. Their prudence in reformulating the teaching on capital punishment within the wider scope of the doctrine… is of far greater significance than a personal opinion that has no moral force to further edify us.

If I found myself refuted at every turn I would be frustrated too, but I hope I wouldn’t stoop to insults simply because my own arguments were inadequate.

This most glaringly demonstrates how skewed your observation of statements is. BH said “In this I find your approach intellectually shallow and even dishonest.” That clearly means that he found your approach intellectually shallow and even dishonest… not that he was frustrated. Sometimes you misread the meanings of words and it sends you off on tangents.

 

[LongingSoul]

One thing I have consistently rejected is the belief that the welfare of the community can be reduced solely to physical protection. Surely you must agree that justice is also of great benefit to every society.

Ender

That’s good because nobody I’ve ever read said that the welfare of the community is limited to physical protection. The common good relates to a whole gamut of aspects that directly influence the relationship between members of a community. The first obligation of human justice is to that relationship. The Church identifies the culture of death as a toxic influence on that relationship. The basic attitude that is cursing the relationship is that we have the power to take human life if we deem necessary. That basic belief has lead to the scourge of abortion, euthanasia, suicide, war etc. Prudence in addressing this evil attitude affecting the relationship between men has lead the Church to urgently insist that we abandon capital punishment and be unconditionally pro life. We have converged to a place where first we don’t need the death penalty to protect the community any more because of advances in the penal system. There is the then the natural growing repulsion that has seen the measure abolished in most Christian countries of the world. The Church has affirmed that this is a sign of moral progress. It relates to our growing awareness of mans innate dignity. And then of course it has necessarily come to light through all these elements that the death penalty was never a divine command to satisfy divine retribution… it was a recourse that served a communities need for order and security. Punishment for crime is a staple of natural law concerned with human justice which serves the relationship between men. The common good is determined through many and varied aspects which the state considers and justice is concerned with the order and balance of the relationship between people. The state does not have the view of things that God does and has no right or duty to invoke divine retribution in the work of justice.

 

[Ender]

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.

Let me rephrase this so you can know what I think you’re saying.

• Retribution is indeed the primary objective of all punishment, but for capital punishment it does not suffice. In order for capital punishment to be used it is necessary that it satisfy a legitimate need for the protection of society.*

Now, is the second sentence a new doctrine or is it a prudential judgment? It seems clear to me that it is prudential since the objective of including it is that it best contributes to the overall good of society…but every evaluation of what will turn out for the best is a judgment. I do not doubt that the popes believe not using capital punishment is better for a society than using it, but that is a belief, a judgment, an opinion.

I put this in the same category as discussions about the minimum wage. We have an obligation to help the poor, and many people will argue that in order to do that we have a moral obligation to raise the minimum wage. But this is not true. We have a moral obligation to help the poor but we have no obligation at all to believe raising the minimum wage will have that effect. My belief that increasing the minimum wage is counterproductive may be completely wrong, in which case that opinion would be wrong, but it would not be a sin. In the same way, not believing that capital punishment is harmful to society may be a mistake…but it cannot be a sin.

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.

That we are to work for the common good is a moral obligation, but the actions we take to achieve that end are based on prudential judgments. This is true of all general objectives - feed the hungry, heal the sick, aid the poor - the ends are moral obligations, but the means are left to us to figure out. The ends are doctrinally stated, the means are prudential choices.

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

If you will forgive me for citing Dulles again (but he really has the clearest explanations):*“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. *

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.

I don’t understand how this particular hair is being split. Of course the State intends justice, but it is achieving that justice by the execution of the guilty, and there is simply no way to contend that death is not the directly intended end of an act of execution.

Nor can justice be dismissed as an example of an “eye for an eye” retribution. That’s pretty much what retribution is, but it is better understood as justice than mindless revenge. Again, vengeance is forbidden the individual but is the obligation of the State.

Ender

 

[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.

I think a lot of our disagreement stems from the fact that I do not consider that making prudential choices involves making moral choices. Clearly I can commit immoral acts in trying to achieve a good end, but I’m not talking about that. If we both accept the same end - the common good, whatever - and wish to achieve that end, it must be acknowledged that differences of opinion about the best way to reach that goal are acceptable. This is why there could never be such a thing as a Catholic political party; the church has no position on how to accomplish practical objectives.

What this means with regard to capital punishment is that I do not accept that the choice involved in deciding whether it is better to use it or not is a moral choice. The only moral question is whether it is a just punishment for the crime. After that we each have to decide for ourselves whether its use in a particular instance will benefit or harm the society that uses it. That choice is based on practical considerations, not moral ones.

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.

The act itself cannot be immoral; we’ve already crossed that bride. My support for the act would be immoral if I believed it would have harmful consequences and supported it anyway, but that does not make the act immoral. It means my support of it was immoral.

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.

While it is true that we are not obligated to assent to the prudential opinions of the Magisterium it is also true that we may not ignore them with impunity. We may well be held to account for our disagreement.

Let me also point out that very few of my arguments dispute what the popes have said about capital punishment, but are overwhelmingly in response to what others have said about their comments. Generally, my objections are to what you, Longing Soul, Blue Horizon, etc have claimed about what the popes have said.

Ender

 

[Rau]

I think a lot of our disagreement stems from the fact that I do not consider that making prudential choices involves making moral choices. Clearly I can commit immoral acts in trying to achieve a good end, but I’m not talking about that. If we both accept the same end - the common good, whatever - and wish to achieve that end, it must be acknowledged that differences of opinion about the best way to reach that goal are acceptable. This is why there could never be such a thing as a Catholic political party; the church has no position on how to accomplish practical objectives.

One does not act sinfully by making poor choices in good faith, to the best of one’s ability. I have not suggested that, so we are not in disagreement on that point.

What this means with regard to capital punishment is that I do not accept that the choice involved in deciding whether it is better to use it or not is a moral choice.The only moral question is whether it is a just punishment for the crime.

If one is making the choice by honest application of the right principles (known to the person), and in good faith, then one does not sin. However, we are not in the clear, in any particular case, simply by virtue of the “Justness” in principle of capital punishment. CP is mostly not the only available choice before us. Instances of Capital Punishment are not an exception to requirements of the fonts of morality.

…we each have to decide for ourselves whether its use in a particular instance will benefit or harm the society that uses it. That choice is based on practical considerations, not moral ones.

Judgement is required for sure, hence good people might reach different conclusions without sin. But moral principles are used also - eg. recognising and distinguishing goods from evils.

The act itself cannot be immoral; we’ve already crossed that bride.

We all agree Capital Punishment is not intrinsically evil. The debate is entirely about the influence of circumstances on the choice to use CP or an alternative.

My support for the act would be immoral if I believed it would have harmful consequences and supported it anyway, but that does not make the act immoral. It means my support of it was immoral.

You split hairs a bit. Let’s assume I understand the notion of intrinsically evil acts . Were you to control and direct an instance of CP knowing in your heart it did more harm than good - then this “human act” (incorporates Intentions and Circumstances) would be immoral.

Let me also point out that very few of my arguments dispute what the popes have said about capital punishment, but are overwhelmingly in response to what others have said about their comments. Generally, my objections are to what you, Longing Soul, Blue Horizon, etc have claimed about what the popes have said.

What have I claimed about what they said that you reject? My focus has been on the proper moral analysis of instances of capital punishment, since that dimension, though paramount, had been largely absent from the discussion. The Popes’ statements are subject to and consistent with that framework.

 

[Ender]

I suspect bad vs. evil is a difference without distinction.

Playing golf in a thunderstorm is a bad thing to do. Torturing animals is a bad thing to do. The meaning of the word in those two instances is very different. A bad act can be either one that has a harmful outcome or one that is immoral, and the difference is quite significant.

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.

Executions may indeed have a harmful effect on a community, but where does the evil come from? What is the sin? Do you distinguish between errors and sins?

Unlikely, but perhaps the Popes see a need to emphasise the respect due to all human life…

I expect this is exactly why they oppose the use of capital punishment

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 do not believe the morality of capital punishment in general can be challenged. I accept that its use in particular circumstances may well 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.

As I said, I am open to the argument that capital punishment ought not be used because it causes more harm than good, but I am not open to the argument that its use is immoral. Unwise perhaps, immoral no.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Did you not actually read #349?

Yes, but I was responding to #346 and the comment in #349 did not resolve the point you raised earlier.#346 …*.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.
*
#349 Pope Francis would not be saying that punishment should be abandoned altogether…
You asserted that “if a person reforms and repents…he would be regarded as a new person. An innocent person in Gods eyes.” If that was true then how do you justify punishing an innocent person? Yet if the person still deserves punishment, how can he be considered innocent?

The citation (of JPII) I provided showed that in fact neither repentance nor forgiveness cancels out the debt of punishment and therefore the person cannot be considered either new or innocent.

So, the statement in #346 was wrong and the one in #349 was irrelevant.

Ender