Ender, why do you repeat statements not in question? I have repeatedly stated that CP is not intrinsically evil.
Not sure, but there are a few verses in Holy Scripture which apparently rule out Capital Punishment:
Fortunately we both know we are discussing a question of moral theology and can be guided by the Church to understand the words in that context: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm
One cannot sin by acting in good faith, to the best of one’s abilities, even if a terrible mistake (eg. determined in hindsight) is made.
It is not intrinsically evil and noone is challenging that.
Questioned? That seems a weak observation. Its selection in particular circumstances can be immoral - just like any other “human act” can be immoral if there is not (on balance) good in all 3 fonts.
If [and instance of it] causes more harm than good (and the actor reasonably foresaw that) - then that instance of a “human act” is immoral.
Why do you keep implying that I’m advocating for ‘canceling out the debt of punishment’? I’m beginning to think you have a truly malicious agenda in the cap punishment debate with the constant misrepresentations. I clearly stated that I was speculating about how the Church would come to address the statement made by Pope Francis that life without parole was a hidden death penalty. In Catholic theology people repent and reform but can still warrant purgatory for a time which far from representing the punishment of the damned, is ‘purification of the elect’. It addresses the impurities that temporal punishment may have addressed but by the prayers and sacrifice of the community of faith.
Hmm… I’m not certain that they do…
But, criminals aren’t our ‘enemies’; this doesn’t apply to them.
Persecution is a reaction against us for something we do or advocate. A criminal who is being punished hasn’t persecuted us, per se, but has committed a crime against another.
Each of these speaks to ‘revenge’ – that is, to someone taking justice into his own hands and attempting to settle a score against someone who has wronged us. Again, that’s not what punishment – imposed by the civil authorities against a criminal – is.
One place it says love your enemies, another place it says love your neighbor. I think it is clear that we are supposed to love the criminal. It even says that we are to visit them in prison. I don;t see how executing someone either by beheading, hanging, gassing or some other way is a Christian way to express your love for someone.
Hmm… I’m not certain that they do…
But, criminals aren’t our ‘enemies’; this doesn’t apply to them.
Persecution is a reaction against us for something we do or advocate. A criminal who is being punished hasn’t persecuted us, per se, but has committed a crime against another.
Each of these speaks to ‘revenge’ – that is, to someone taking justice into his own hands and attempting to settle a score against someone who has wronged us. Again, that’s not what punishment – imposed by the civil authorities against a criminal – is.
So, I’m not at all certain that these quotes argue against capital punishment…
Proverbs 24:29 Do not say, “I’ll do to them as they have done to me…”.
I think it was a mistake in the past to mostly ignore this charge, but this contagion is spreading and needs to be addressed. It would be useless to respond that, like most people, I hold myself to a higher standard so I’ll simply observe that your arguments hardly require deceit in order to be refuted.
This pretty much demonstrates my point. You have raised this question before, and I have responded to it before, but here I’ve been discussing issue A, and you charge me with dishonesty for…not addressing issue B. That you find it difficult to focus on one point at a time is hardly evidence of dishonesty on my part.
I misunderstood which statements you were referring to.
No, the analogy fails, just as an execution cannot satisfy all four of the requirements of the principle of double effect. The second criterion is that “The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself.” It seems rather apparent that the good effect - the safety of society - is in no way the result of the act of execution but comes directly from the death of the prisoner.
That passage says nothing whatever about execution so this conclusion is unwarranted, and is explicitly rejected by none other than Pope Francis:*On some occasions it is necessary to repel an ongoing assault proportionately to avoid damage caused by the aggressor, and the need to neutralize him could lead to his elimination; this is a case of legitimate defense. (cf. Evangelium vitae, 55). Nevertheless, the presuppositions of legitimate personal defense do not apply at the social level, without the risk of misinterpretation. When the death penalty is applied, it is not for a current act of aggression, but rather for an act committed in the past. *
I have no problem with the distinction regarding personal self defense. I do not, however, accept that that distinction applies to an execution, where the lethal consequence is not likely but mandatory, and, more significantly, is not a reaction to a “current act of aggression, but rather for an act committed in the past.” There is nothing in church teaching that allows preventive killing. The real distinction, though, is this: the killing in self defense is inadvertent; the killing in an execution is deliberate.
You cannot argue both that for the same act the State does and does not directly intend the death of the criminal. Besides, if we may kill to obtain security, why may we not kill to obtain justice?
The individual does not possess the right - for any reason - to deliberately kill, and if the State’s rights are the same then neither does the State possess the right to execute.
As the church herself has explained, this is a preference, not a doctrine.*405. Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are **preferred **as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835] **[835] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.
Dulles is hardly alone in reaching that conclusion, but when the church herself explains 2267 as a preference the better question is how can you deny it is prudential?*While the Church has not denied its traditional position that the state has the right to employ capital punishment, many Catholic bishops, together with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, have spoken against the exercise of that right by the state. *(Indiana Catholic Conference, 1998)
No, I said before that if you wanted to continue to debate what Aquinas said you would need to send me the link to the Stanford article. You didn’t do it so I considered the issue closed.
If you wish to have an amicable discussion then I suggest you avoid challenging my integrity. This insult is unwarranted. I have never cited a source and deliberately taken something out of context.
Surely you can distinguish between asserting something and providing a logical argument that justifies the claim. I am willing to discuss it; I am not willing to simply accept it.
This says more about you than about me.
Do you really find these cheap shots appropriate? Do you think they are a positive contribution to the discussion? Since I have already stated I would review the Stanford article, there is - again - no justification for your attitude.
Whether all points have or have not been resolved doesn’t mean that the main points have not been settled. I can’t speak to everything but I can speak to the points that have been raised.
Look at the part of that sentence preceding the part you put in bold:*It is appropriate, I contend, when it is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment and *…
We are in complete agreement on this point.
And this one as well.
This too seems reasonable.
But not this one. It is a preferred choice, but other choices are equally moral because there is nothing that makes them immoral. You can argue that eschewing capital punishment is a more beneficial choice, but it would only be immoral of me to choose otherwise if I agreed with you and supported capital punishment anyway. Otherwise there is no moral choice involved; only a practical decision.
Good, then when we discuss the common good we can accept that it means justice as well as protection.
Yes, the first obligation of human justice is…justice.
Not exactly. It is the last three popes that have expressed their belief that its influence is harmful. Not exactly a teaching of the church.
As you noted above, protection is not the only concern, and advances in the penal system are irrelevant to those other concerns. It is assuredly irrelevant to the question of justice.
I’ve been trying to settle this one point. Any act is immoral if the intent behind it is immoral, but no act is immoral solely because it turns out badly so long as the intent was good, due care was taken, and there was a reasonable expectation that good would result. (Intrinsically evil acts are a different discussion.)
This is the point I have been trying to make about supporting capital punishment, and why there is no moral distinction between believing it is harmful and believing it is beneficial. You can only assert the choice is immoral if you also judge that the person making the choice has acted in bad faith.
This is the point I have been trying to make about supporting capital punishment, and why there is no moral distinction between believing it is harmful and believing it is beneficial. You can only assert the choice is immoral if you also judge that the person making the choice has acted in bad faith.
Have we debated this point??
it is evident that one cannot sin by mistake or oversight or misunderstanding. One can sin through ill intent. One can sin through deliberate choice of an act which one knows to have greater “evil” in the Consequences. How it “happens to turn out”, as opposed to what one anticipated, is irrelevant to one’s culpability as I’ve said before.
What I “keep” doing is referring to the specific point you made in post #346, which was this: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.
The part I was addressing was clearly noted by the fact that I quoted it, which is the comment I cited above. That’s why I cited it: so you would know what I was responding to.