Death penalty

[BroomWagon]

I don’t think first offense DUI’s get 6 months, do they?

Maybe not but I did not state a first time violation of DUI, I just used it as an example. If one was so drunk they destroyed property such as driving into a store window, perhaps they could receive a serious sentence.

Perhaps one could be punished with 6 months for a DUI offense, even if it were a part of other charges such as destroying private property, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Please do you have a source for this?

I pulled that from the book Neither Cruel Nor Unusual by Franklin Carrington, unfortunately, I do not have my copy with me at the moment.

For similar information though, read James McComb’s dissenting opinion in People vs Love 56 Cal 2d 720

 

[pnewton]

This is the same opinion of justice expressed in different words. In fact justice - which you dismissively refer to as vengeance - is the only reason the death penalty is acceptable.

I was not dismissive. I simply do not agree with you or starship. The words we use indicate whether it is vengence or justice as it reflects our inside. FYI - Even for justice, the Catholic Church does not allow the death penalty.

I know you do not agree, but I still stick with the Catholic Church on this one. I know there is a contingent of death cheerleaders here that do nothing but debate this. Fortunately for Catholics, we can cut to the chase and seek divine guidance through the Church, at least for those with Catholic faith.

I would encourage the Catholics here to remember to stick with the Church on this. There will always be voices that cry out against the Her, and there always has been. Trust your Mother to lead you to the Father.

 

[dudleysharp]

I pulled that from the book Neither Cruel Nor Unusual by Franklin Carrington, unfortunately, I do not have my copy with me at the moment.

great book. I don’t remember that part, though.

 

[Ender]

Even for justice, the Catholic Church does not allow the death penalty. …I know you do not agree, but I still stick with the Catholic Church on this one.

You have yet to deal with what the church has said on this subject. It is justice alone that allows any punishment at all, including capital punishment. Only sin can merit punishment and the extent of that punishment is determined by the nature of the sin. We may not punish someone to protect ourselves (despite what 2267 might imply); we may only punish him to the extent his actions deserve.Punishment may be considered in two ways. First, under the aspect of punishment, and in this way punishment is not due save for sin, because by means of punishment the equality of justice is restored . (Aquinas)

*Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. *(Aquinas)
If capital punishment is unjust it cannot be applied for any reason whatever. If it is the just punishment, however, it should be applied unless there are prudential reasons not to. That is all 2267 is saying: there is a prudential reason not to employ capital punishment in modern societies. There can be no moral objection to capital punishment inasmuch as the church has recognized its moral validity for two millennia.

Ende4r

 

[dudleysharp]

For similar information though, read James McComb’s dissenting opinion in People vs Love 56 Cal 2d 720

This provides factual evidence for deterrence within this opinion.

scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-love-24307

starting right after that which is in bold, below, which is about 1/4 down from the top and goes to the end.

Be patient.

***===========

Gibson, C. J., Peters, J., White, J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

McCOMB, J.

I dissent.

==============***

 

[Shin]

*Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. *(Aquinas)
That is the true meaning of vengeance: punishment for crimes. The reason the church has always recognized the legitimacy of capital punishment is that she has always seen it as a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. The appropriateness of the punishment is that it is commensurate with the severity of the crime, which is required for a punishment to be just.*Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, …But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances. *(Aquinas)
It is precisely because capital punishment is “the due measure of vengeance” that the church teaches it is just.

Ender

Ender, Dudley, let me thank you and congratulate you both on presenting the forgotten virtues in your posts. Thanks be to God for all His gifts.

I am taking down some of your posts for my notes and for further study.

What will people be doing next? I almost expect someone to do some explaining posts on the virtue of severity.

When virtue is forgotten, vice necessarily takes its place.

 

[drfye]

I’m not inherently against the death penalty I’m just not sure I trust the justice system to be “bullet proof” and a few cases in the past seem to confirm my hesitancy, even in this age of DNA testing and forensics.

 

[pnewton]

You have yet to deal with what the church has said on this subject.

Of course I have. I have even addressed it here and explain why I see no conflict.

For the record, the Catechism is the doctrine of the Church. Aquinas is a doctor of the Church. Aquinas can not be used to contradict Church doctrine. He lacked infallibility. He was never pope. He lacked data collected over the last 800 years of the Church.

There was the day when Rome spoke people listen. Now, Rome speaks and Americans argue.

 

[Ender]

Of course I have. I have even addressed it here and explain why I see no conflict.

It is a bit extreme to claim there is no conflict between what 2267 says and what the church had said for the preceding 2000 years. You can see the difference just between the 1992 and 1997 versions of the catechism. In fact it is the 1997 version alone that is at odds with everything else the church has ever said on the subject.

For the record, the Catechism is the doctrine of the Church.

Is it only the latest catechism that is doctrine or were all of its predecessors doctrinal as well, because all of the previous catechisms disagree with the current one? The only way out of the apparent conflict between current and previous doctrines is the recognition that what is in 2267 is not doctrine but rather is a prudential judgment.

Aquinas is a doctor of the Church. Aquinas can not be used to contradict Church doctrine. He lacked infallibility.

Nothing Aquinas said on the subject is any different from what the church always taught. Beyond that, most of my citations of Aquinas had nothing to do with capital punishment but were rather directed to clarify the meanings of justice, punishment, and vengeance. It is a measure of how far off the rails 2267 has taken us that it has caused those concepts to be distorted in an attempt to explain what that passage means.

He was never pope.

What of the half dozen popes who spoke out in support of capital punishment and the two hundred plus who said nothing against it? Are we to dismiss them along with Aquinas (and most of the other Doctors and Fathers of the church) as well?

He lacked data collected over the last 800 years of the Church.

Data? This makes my point: morality is not subject to a statistical analysis of data.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

It is a bit extreme to claim there is no conflict between what 2267 says and what the church had said for the preceding 2000 years.

I do not consider the Catholic Church to be “extreme”, so no, I do not think it extreme.

This makes my point: morality is not subject to a statistical analysis of data.

I never said it was. Data is not just statistical analysis. Data is information. There have even been dogmas defined since Aquinas. Things change. This does not mean they contradict. No one can ever call the death penalty an objective evil. Its use in the past and its use by God are two bits of data that refute that view. However, the whole field of ethic is how morality is properly implemented. This can and indeed has changed. A basic understanding of biblical history shows this.

 

[dudleysharp]

I do not consider the Catholic Church to be “extreme”, so no, I do not think it extreme. .

You have 2267 with this:

1. 2267: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

No such teaching exists. Inventing traditonal teachings is pretty extreme. Within a CCC, I doubt it has ever, previoulsy, occurred. Nor do I believe a prudential judgement has been brought into a CCC, prior. I suspect this will be the last time such is allowed.

1. 2267: “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Consider this newest recommendation:

(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context:

(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)

and (a)'s obvious conflict with Genesis also has additional conflicts within its own document, just as one section above

(c) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. (2265) as well as within 2267, itself, as rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM”.

The Catechism is stating that “The common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265) except that we should rarely, if ever, render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. There is a contradiction.

This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.

Does the absence of death penalty better correspond with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person”?

In the first part of this Catechism, the document makes the opposite argument.

Commensurate punishments, by definition, better correspond to the common good and human dignity and the absence of a commensurate punishment injure both the common good as well as human dignity.

This CCC turns those will known teachings upside down.

 

[pnewton]

This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.

No, the Bible does not teach this. That may be your interpretation of the Ten Commandments or some other passage, but Catholics do not believe in either sola scriptua or personal interpretation of Scripture overriding the Holy Spirit.

Does the absence of death penalty better correspond with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person”?

Yes, if society can function better without it. Begs the question, but so does your question.

 

[dudleysharp]

Newton:

I Data is not just statistical analysis. Data is information. There have even been dogmas defined since Aquinas. Things change. This does not mean they contradict. No one can ever call the death penalty an objective evil. Its use in the past and its use by God are two bits of data that refute that view. However, the whole field of ethic is how morality is properly implemented. This can and indeed has changed. A basic understanding of biblical history shows this.

There is zero biblical support for the death penalty changes within the CCC.

Both the statistical data and the informational data conflict with both EV and CCC. In fact, as evidence finds that the death penalty is a greater protector of society, I suspect there was no evaluation for either the statistical record nor of the available information, meaning the judgement was not even prudential.

There can be no theological foundation for the Church to usurp a primary and eternal function - justice - and replace it with a civil, human based evaluation of prison security, as a means to change traditonal Church teachings.

It really does seem quite extreme. But that is what we have.

 

[dudleysharp]

No, the Bible does not teach this. That may be your interpretation of the Ten Commandments or some other passage, but Catholics do not believe in either sola scriptua or personal interpretation of Scripture overriding the Holy Spirit. .

Newton:

I can only hope that you are not doing this on purpose.

Of course the bible does not teach this, nor does tradition, etc. It was introduced by EV and the latest CCC, as was very clear and was the exact point.

I cannot see it possible you so misnterpreted whst was so clear. Please re read and begin, again.

Yes, if society can function better without it. Begs the question, but so does your question.

As the facts find contrary to both EV and CCC, it is clear that the death penalty offers a better “protection of society” than do lesser sanctions. In additon, I think it clear eternal teachings offer much more weight than prudential judgements based upon varying securities with man’s prion systems.

And as you well know, my question did not beg, but gace a specific answer write after that question.

You are either very sloppy or you are not discussing in good faith. Please, do better.

Thank you.

 

[pnewton]

Newton:

There is zero biblical support for the death penalty changes within the CCC.

So?

Please re read and begin, again.

No. I have read the same arguments from you over and over and can not agree. We have “an error in the beginning” as it were, beginning with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s role and the authority of the keys of the kingdom.

 

[Ender]

We have “an error in the beginning” as it were, beginning with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s role and the authority of the keys of the kingdom.

I think we should all be very uncomfortable with the belief that morality is whatever the church wants it to be. She has been given the keys of the kingdom not so she can invent morality but so she can proclaim it correctly. She has no authority herself to decide what should or should not be moral; her task is to determine what is moral and she cannot capriciously change her mind on this. People are way too comfortable accepting that the church has been wrong for 2000 years and is just now getting it right.

There is no doubt that 2267 is something new, something that has no support in all of church history and simply appeared in 1995. There are no references either in the catechism or Evangelium Vitae to any previous church document to support the claims they make. Each document instead points to the other. The claim made by 2267 about the traditional teaching of the church is contradicted not just by all of church history but more directly by the 1992 version of the same document. How can we explain two contradictory versions appearing in consecutive editions of the same document only five years apart?

The arguments being made to support 2267 are simply compounding the problem.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I think we should all be very uncomfortable with the belief that morality is whatever the church wants it to be.

Your use of “wants” is loaded and inaccurate. Personal desire of what truth should be is irrelevant, a strawman, anticatholic rhetoric. I am totally comfortable with morality being what the Church has discerned it to be.

As I told the death penalty advocate here, we can not agree. An error in the beginning is an error indeed. My faith in the Catholic Church and what she teaches extends back to the basics of theology, the promise of Jesus and His divine authority. I do not listen to the Church to refute Her, as does the death penalty advocate, but to be discipled by Her. Even when I do not understand or agree, I never see my disagreement as evidence the Church is wrong. I would view that as the height of hubris.

 

[Ender]

Your use of “wants” is loaded and inaccurate.

Your implication that the church is free to change her mind on morality is inaccurate as well. 2267 does not accord with anything the church had previously taught regarding capital punishment. You cannot accept that it is new doctrine without accepting that it is a refutation of the old doctrine.

I never see my disagreement as evidence the Church is wrong. I would view that as the height of hubris.

If the church isn’t wrong today then she must have been wrong until 1995 because what is taught today is different than what was taught before. As I said earlier, the only way I see out of this box is to recognize that 2267 is not doctrine but the application of doctrine - which is prudential.

I think you were closest to the mark earlier when you said *“the whole field of ethic is how morality is properly implemented.” *While holding that capital punishment is proper for murderers, the church at the same time always recognized that there could be practical reasons for not applying that punishment, so in that regard, if 2267 is simply arguing that such reasons generally exist in modern societies, the current opposition to capital punishment is in accord with the traditional teaching of the church. Of course, this doesn’t exempt the position from the challenges Dudley has presented but at least there is no doctrinal conflict.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

If the church isn’t wrong today then she must have been wrong until 1995 because what is taught today is different than what was taught before.

Not a logical necessity, as you probably know and can make out if you want.