Death penalty question

[thinkandmull]

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

You have not provided even a fallible teaching of the Church on this. You are like a traditionalist who hides behind a vague idea of tradition without an actual citation to support what he says.

I see now that John Paul II could have been clearer on this, because maybe the common good and human dignity he speaks of are relational situations that depend on the modern situation. So I guess we are free to hold either side on this issue. You however are claim the past supports your position with authority, and that has not be proven. Sorry

 

[Ender]

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.

As Gorgias said, revenge by the individual is not the same as punishment by the State. Retribution, as you pointed out, is forbidden to the individual, but the church teaches that it is the obligation of the State. (See Rm 13:1-4)* Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty *to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)

The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (CCC 1899)
Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

Where can I find this Stanford article that alleges a contradiction in Aquinas?

 

[Rau]

…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.

Ender

Why the “preference” for bloodless means? Is it arbitrary, as in these Popes prefer chocolate? No it is far stronger than that Ender. They have spoken about Circumstances and arrived at a faith -based conclusion. It may be entirely fair to call it a judgement about circumstances/consequences, but it is no arbitrary preference. It is held with such conviction
that they write in the CCC “…authority will limit itself…”…(CCC 1997).

 

[Ender]

Death is not essential for the punishment to be just. Death may be just, but why should it be mandatory?

I think an argument could be made that justice can be achieved without resorting to capital punishment. I doubt that I would agree with it but I think it is a valid point to debate.

And how do we deal with the mercy and forgiveness. Must they be opposed to justness?

No, they aren’t necessarily opposed to justice, but I think an argument from mercy won’t go where you expect it to. It won’t do the job you want it to do.

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

I believe Ender has been trying to say that BOTH these sentences are prudential judgments of the modern situation:

**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.**

A light went on yesterday, and I see his interpretation now. Others are free to disagree though

 

[Ender]

You have not provided even a fallible teaching of the Church on this. You are like a traditionalist who hides behind a vague idea of tradition without an actual citation to support what he says.

I see now that John Paul II could have been clearer on this, because maybe the common good and human dignity he speaks of are relational situations that depend on the modern situation. So I guess we are free to hold either side on this issue. You however are claim the past supports your position with authority, and that has not be proven. Sorry

By “this” I assume you mean a citation where someone has said that capital punishment was acceptable without regard for whether it was needed for protection. That’s true. All I provided was a dozen or so citations where capital punishment was acknowledged as acceptable and the question of defense was not even raised. Why would anyone assume that defense was a necessary objective if the church never even raised the issue? How can the absence of a statement about defense be understood to mean that because it wasn’t specifically excepted it is therefore required?

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

By “this” I assume you mean a citation where someone has said that capital punishment was acceptable without regard for whether it was needed for protection. That’s true. All I provided was a dozen or so citations where capital punishment was acknowledged as acceptable and the question of defense was not even raised. Why would anyone assume that defense was a necessary objective if the church never even raised the issue? How can the absence of a statement about defense be understood to mean that because it wasn’t specifically excepted it is therefore required?

Ender

“the question of defense was not even raised”. Exactly. It wasn’t clarified. There can’t be “ghost teachings” from the Church.

 

[Ender]

Why the “preference” for bloodless means? Is it arbitrary, as in these Popes prefer chocolate? No it is far stronger than that Ender. They have spoken about Circumstances and arrived at a faith -based conclusion. It may be entirely fair to call it a judgement about circumstances/consequences, but it is no arbitrary preference. It is held with such conviction
that they write in the CCC “…authority will limit itself…”…(CCC 1997).

I don’t denigrate their position as “mere opinion”. Clearly it is a considered judgment…but it is no less a judgment. As the Compendium explains, it is a preference. That is a statement of what; an explanation of *why *does not change that. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger could write “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”. This is because the preferences, even of popes, do not impose the obligation of obedience on the rest of us.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I believe Ender has been trying to say that BOTH these sentences are prudential judgments of the modern situation:

**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.**

A light went on yesterday, and I see his interpretation now. Others are free to disagree though

Yes, that is correct.

Ender

 

[Rau]

I think an argument could be made that justice can be achieved without resorting to capital punishment. I doubt that I would agree with it but I think it is a valid point to debate.
No, they aren’t necessarily opposed to justice, but I think an argument from mercy won’t go where you expect it to. It won’t do the job you want it to do.

Ender

Your first para is wise, even though you struggle with it. For if CP were mandatory in any sense, the moral theology of the Church would be struck down.

Your 2nd para presupposes a purpose where I have none. It was just a thought.

 

[Rau]

I don’t denigrate their position as “mere opinion”. Clearly it is a considered judgment…but it is no less a judgment. As the Compendium explains, it is a preference. That is a statement of what; an explanation of *why *does not change that. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger could write “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”. This is because the preferences, even of popes, do not impose the obligation of obedience on the rest of us.

Ender

When thirsty in the dessert, water is to be preferred to Gin. Some may disagree with this, and if their position is conscientiously held, who am I to condemn them? Such is legitimate diversity!

But when those holding the former (pro-water) position are uniquely qualified to make these kinds of judgements, to draw these kinds of conclusions, it demands grave consideration.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
I have to interject here that Ender cherry picks from the essay of Cardinal Dulles as well.

Identifying proof texting is a legitimate criticism of someones argument. However habitually criticising an argument by accusing the author of ‘misunderstanding’ or another accusation of ignorance or stupidity however veiled… is nothing but ad hominem. Some personal insight on your part may not go astray.

 

[LongingSoul]

Besides, if we may kill to obtain security, why may we not kill to obtain justice?

What does justice mean if not in relation to the the effect of acts done by one to another? How is justice something separate from the actual state of relations between members of a community?

This is why I really think you are falling back on the specifically protest fundamentals relied on by Martin Luther to justify the divine right of Kings.

 

[Rau]

…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.

The morality of acts should not be confused with the culpability of the actor. One can make an erroneous judgement. And depending on how that came about, one may, or may not, be culpable. Some errors of judgement can be imputed to the individual, some cannot.

*IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60 *
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

The above is applicable generally, and I’m not asserting anything about how it applies to the CP issue or the position any individual holds on it. But it makes it clear that one’s judgement has no bearing on the morality of an act. And it also makes clear that saying “I disagree” (and meaning it) MAY remove culpability, but is no guarantee of that.

 

[Rau]

…Besides, if we may kill to obtain security, why may we not kill to obtain justice?

Our right to kill for security is also not unlimited.

But to respond to your question above - because to do so may be immoral.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Yes this is exactly your unacknowledged Sacred Cow that may not be contradicted under pain of heresy. Yet this is simply your idealised, personal view of history and “Tradition” that you magnify into a dogma backed by glib assertions so huge they wouldn’t fit even inside the Tardis.

You have unintentionally (because its your blind-spot) just demonstrated perfectly the rigidity of thinking that some of us are observing back to you. A true Freudian slip on your part which will hopefully serve as objective evidence of your need for yet greater insight.

**“These points have been thoroughly examined by the great theologians of the past” **indeed! Giiiive us a break .

So of course JPII MUST be speaking prudentially rather than developing (but not contradicting) past (incomplete) principles… even though such a reading of his Encyclical (and the CCC) fairly rapes the face meaning of the text.

Such a stubborn, massive anti- Black Swan tautology for one who is otherwise very perceptive and intelligent in his contributions.

Last time I tried I couldn’t lift myself up by my own bootstraps - though the logic of it seems impeccable.

Pure apriori Platonism this rationalist approach to what “must be the case” methinks.
They say it is the youthful weakness of very intelligent thinkers. I really hope you get past the attraction of such sterile tautological logical thinking in time - all we can do here is to encourage you to think beyond these philosophic “chains” which limit a greater understanding that awaits. Dum spiro spero as my professor used to say.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually I cite Dulles because he has written the clearest, best researched article on capital punishment I have come across…
Ender

Have you ever stopped to consider the subjective reasons WHY a particular theologian’s views seem to jump out of the page at me (yet others do not see it) … while another reputable (and contrary) theologian’s do not?

To think it simply an objective matter of a theologian’s writing skills and intelligence would be a little jejeune in approach I suggest…

I personally find Dulles’s writings on this matter contrived and procrustean.
He stretches and cuts and forces his sources to fit the pre-measured theological bed whose measure he has already settled on before he even started looking.

Your own character and thus approach to “research” and “debate” and “tradition” does have remarkable similarities so the connaturality is not at all surprising.

Yet good objective debate and philosophy and authority citing cannot be based on indulging our own such proclivities (of which cherry picking is clear evidence) … which we will do massively if not self-aware.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

…what** I am doing is citing what the church has already said on the issue being discussed**.

Yes this is exactly your unacknowledged Sacred Cow that may not be contradicted under pain of heresy.

I wouldn’t have phrased it quite like that but…rejecting what the church teaches is pretty much what the word heresy means.

You have unintentionally (because its your blind-spot) just demonstrated perfectly the rigidity of thinking that some of us are observing back to you. A true Freudian slip on your part which will hopefully serve as objective evidence of your need for yet greater insight.

Oh, and all this time I thought learning what the church taught was a good thing.

**“These points have been thoroughly examined by the great theologians of the past” **indeed! Giiiive us a break.

Well, they did address it, and they were great, so…what’s the objection here?

Unfortunately I’ll be traveling for the next week so I won’t have the opportunity to respond to these…cogent observations.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Excellent insight Rau.

As you observe RJust requires proportionality…what principle determines what is proportional? Retrib just normally says the punishment must match the gravity of the crime. Yet Dulles seems to be using criteria from one of the other objects here!

The interesting point I think is that for all the allegedly “traditional” attempts to say with probity and a deep voice that there are three objects to CP…in fact there is overlap.

This approach, for those open to it, would allow us to agree with JPII and the CCC as a matter of principle that retrib just and Common Good principles (including self-defence of the state) can be found in each other … and so JPIIs new concepts are in fact quite compatible with Tradition.

He is simply explicitating what was always contained in seed in each such object.

As is always the case, if we hold that Tradition is seamless and internally consistent.
we do not have to timidly hide in mum’s prudential skirts when more mature and intellectually robust solutions based on principle have always been before us if we just had eyes to explore the box a little deeper.

Paralysing fear that we will endanger the infallibility of the Church kills mature thinking and emasculates the gift of reason/debate guided by the HS which is also part of what a living “Tradition” is about.

Surely Tradition isn’t just about a somewhat infantile need for fossilised and formaldehyded preservation of allegedly incorrupt ‘bodies’ of truth as many superstitious Catholics desire both for their Saints and their Faith.