Did the Death Penalty change in the Catechism disprove the Church?

[Emeraldlady]

Extrinsic evil: Something that is not inherently evil but can be made evil by misuse.

Aquinas disagrees with you.

“One can make bad use of a virtue objectively, for instance by having evil thoughts about a virtue, e.g. by hating it, or by being proud of it: but one cannot make bad use of virtue as principle of action, so that an act of virtue be evil.” - ST I II Q55art4

The death penalty doesn’t qualify as being virtuous by nature.

That is not Catholic teaching and the Church has the authority and the duty to speak out against immoral policies and unjust laws, based on her God given moral authority.

That’s just anti Church agenda speaking. When our Church speaks of a thing in terms of the “dignity of the human person”, the evil “culture of death”, a “penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society.”… it isn’t just spruiking an opinion. It’s giving moral guidance.

The Church rejects your position that the death penalty should never be abolished.

 

[Ender]

Isn’t murder distinguished from killing by circumstances and intentions?

Murder is the intentional killing of the innocent. Killing in self defense, by accident, in war, and by execution are all acts of killing but not acts of murder. In the case of murder, ones intention in committing it doesn’t matter: the act alone is immoral - intrinsically evil. In all the other cases the act is not automatically wrong, but is right or wrong dependent on the intent (and to a lesser degree the circumstances)

Yes, intent is part of what determines whether a particular act of killing was murder or not, but once a killing is determined to be murder the reason for committing the murder becomes irrelevant. The act is evil. Capital punishment and war involve intentional killing, but they are not murder, so the intention and circumstances determine whether each act was or was not moral.

The sense of this depends on what the previous teaching was. It may not be what you are saying it is. It may be. It just is not clear how to determine what is or was Church teaching, apart from explicit magisterial guidance.

3 Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore catechism, 1891)

Q. 484. Is it not lawful to kill in any cause?
A. Yes, in a just war, or when public justice requires it… (Douay catechism, 1649)

And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. (Catechism of St. Bellarmine, 1598)

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. (Catechism of Trent, 1566)

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas, c1260)

 

[Dovekin]

Murder is the intentional killing of the innocent.

You are not starting off well. The intentional killing of a mob boss is not murder? Obviously innocent should not be in this definition.

The leaves “Murder is intentional killing.” Capital punishment is intentional killing…

I suspect the proper modifier is whether the killer has the authority to judge the victim, but that does not help much either. I do not like the terminology, and prefer not to make judgments based on it.
…

Taught in Catechisms. I would say Francis rewriting the current Catechism is enough to overturn the statements in previous catechisms. What else could he mean by rewriting?

 

[Ender]

State your position clearly. Are there concrete circumstances which would warrant that abolition of the death penalty for justice to be served?

There are concrete circumstances which make the use of capital punishment unjust in particular instances. I cannot conceive of permanent circumstances which would invalidate its use. It is not simply a just punishment for murder, it is the just punishment for that crime. It ought to be the expected punishment except in extraordinary circumstances, not the other way around.

 

[Ender]

Aquinas disagrees with you.

“One can make bad use of a virtue objectively, for instance by having evil thoughts about a virtue, e.g. by hating it, or by being proud of it: but one cannot make bad use of virtue as principle of action, so that an act of virtue be evil. ” - ST I II Q55art4

First, if virtue is a principle of action then that defines the intent as good, which pretty much eliminates the possibility of doing an evil act as long as the object chosen is not itself evil. Second and more relevant: if I believe that there is no such thing as an intrinsically good act - even if I’m wrong - it must surely mean that I cannot consider capital punishment to be such an act so charging that I believe something I have expressly rejected is unreasonable.

The death penalty doesn’t qualify as being virtuous by nature.

If all you mean by this is that capital punishment is not moral in every instance it is used then I would agree with you. I would point out that this is also true of killing in war and in self defense so I’m not sure what this indicates.

When our Church speaks of a thing in terms of the “dignity of the human person”, the evil “culture of death”, a “penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society .”… it isn’t just speaking an opinion. It’s giving moral guidance.

This evades the question. Is the moral guidance in the form of doctrine or prudential judgment? You yourself have said that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. By the definition of that term it means that there are instances where its use is justifiable, therefore what is being argued is not moral principle but justification in specific circumstances.

The Church rejects your position that the death penalty should never be abolished.

This is your opinion of what has been said. Not surprisingly others disagree with you.

The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral (Archbishop Gomez, the day after Francis changed the catechism)

 

[Ender]

You are not starting off well. The intentional killing of a mob boss is not murder? Obviously innocent should not be in this definition.

It is indeed murder, but by a different definition:
‘A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’ (Aquinas citing Augustine)

I suspect the proper modifier is whether the killer has the authority to judge the victim, but that does not help much either. I do not like the terminology, and prefer not to make judgments based on it.

The question of authority is critical. The individual is forbidden to exact vengeance (properly understood as the “the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned” - Aquinas) while the state is obligated to.

Taught in Catechisms. I would say Francis rewriting the current Catechism is enough to overturn the statements in previous catechisms.

I find this argument actually quite disturbing. Is right and wrong determined by nothing more than the personal opinion of whoever is the current pope?

What else could he mean by rewriting?

One of the quickest ways to get in trouble on this forum is to question the motives of clergymen. Questioning the motives of a pope is just asking to be banned.

 

[graciew]

This is your opinion of what has been said. Not surprisingly others disagree with you.

The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral (Archbishop Gomez, the day after Francis changed the catechism)

And what do you you think CP looks like in the eyes of the beholders? Something good?
Because you are sort of immune to that vision of a person lying completely submitted after years and years of imprisonment waiting in death row.
It is indescribably inhumane , and cruel much more so when you have as many resources as you may want to.
It is primitive.
And so very in line with Christianity that we all feel so identified with it…as with slavery… why not have a couple of slaves?
For Heavens sake , Ender. Just that the US belongs in the list of the very particular countries that apply death penalty( stoning, beheading …) gives a chill.
Why would anyone be surprised about CP by beheading or stoning in their own places then?
Because it is a more ir less sofisticated form of killing?
It is really incredible… and who knows it will turn into a scandal in the future to call oneself Christian and support such a thing.

Yes.My opinion.

 

[Ender]

And what do you you think CP looks in the eyes of the beholders?
Because you are sort of immune to that vision of a person lying completely submitted after years and years of imprisonment waiting in death row.
It is indescribably inhumane , and cruel much more so when you have as many resources as you may want to.
It is primitive.
And so very in line with Christianity that we all feel so identified with it…as with slavery… why not have a couple of slaves?
For Heavens sake , Ender. Just that the US belongs in the list of the very particular countries that apply death penalty( stoning, beheading …) gives a chill.
Why would anyone be surprised about CP by beheading or stoning in their own places then?
Because it is a more ir less sofisticated form of killing?
It is really incredible… and who knows it will turn into a scandal in the future yo call oneself Christian and support such a thing.

Yes.My opinion

I am not offering simply my opinion on the matter. I have presented any number of specific arguments and supported them with relevant citations from the church’s past. I have not made any political statement or any argument unique to a particular country. I am arguing from 2000 years of church teaching on the subject. Nothing about who I am or what I personally feel is relevant. My arguments are either valid or invalid, but they cannot be refuted except by counter-argument, which have so far been unconvincing.

 

[graciew]

Ender…
It is enough to say that after years and years of deliberation and prayer by those who know way more than we do about what we are discussing almost by looking up googling and striving to learn( what they know and by heart ) have been guiding and preparing us and asking and guiding come to almost beg to fight relentlessly that it is abolished.
Just be realistic, Popes of the stature as ours… What do we gain by brushing it off, stressing almost that what the Cathecism says is arguable but trying to be more than those who guide us?
It really doesn t enter my head…
It has been explained throughout threads and threads…
Apostolic Authority isn t another kid in the block who speaks.
Please Ender… what do you want?
We do not go by Talión s law…and quite frankly the majority of us here have a lot to learn before arguing the Church and the Cathecism and the Popes and the Commndments, and the Beatitudes and Jesus Himself who didn t once go against persons but objects and whose Apostles didn’t kill a fly …
What do you want, Ender?

 

[Ender]

What do you want, Ender?

To start with, for people to recognize the implications of the arguments they make, such as this one…

Popes of the stature as ours… What do we gain by brushing it off, stressing almost that what the Catechism says is arguable but trying to be more than those who guide us?..Apostolic Authority isn’t another kid in the block who speaks.

What are we to do when one pope seemingly contradicts another? Which “Apostolic Authority” do we accept? Pope Francis has said that capital punishment is inadmissible which appears to directly contradict JPII who said it was acceptable when necessary to protect society.

We do not go by Talión s law…

Not literally, no, in that we don’t punish criminals in the exact manner in which they injured their victims, but we do punish them with a penalty of commensurate severity. That is in fact an obligation of justice.

“You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis…" (St. Bellarmine)

 

[Fauken]

Jesus Himself who didn t once go against persons but objects

John 2:15:

“2:15 And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen: and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.”

All would include the tax collectors, would it not?

whose Apostles didn’t kill a fly …

While he didn’t kill someone, didn’t St. Peter slice off the ear of one of the servants of the soldiers who came to arrest Christ? Didn’t St. John and others call for Jesus to send fire down upon a town that had kicked them out (and Jesus rightfully rebuked them, as that’s extreme)?

 

[graciew]

Fauken, it is the sound of the whip of cords that dispersed the animals
The sound.
And as for the next you cited, his ear was restored to its place. Jesus didn t approve of that. And btw Peter didn’t kill him. If he could aim to slice a ear ,you bet he could have done something else, more “ definitive “.

 

[Fauken]

Fauken, it is the sound of the whip of cords that dispersed the animals
The sound.

And the tax collectors? Were they dismissed by a mere sound coming from one man?

And as for the next you cited, his ear was restored to its place. Jesus didn t approve of that. And btw Peter didn’t kill him. If he could aim to slice a ear ,you bet he could have done something else, more “ definitive “.

I didn’t say He approved of it, He definitely didn’t. And I did say St. Peter hadn’t killed the servant. My point was that the Apostles were not merely men “who didn’t kill a fly”. I’d say cutting a man’s ear off whose only fault was that he was attending to his master is worse than killing a fly. Calling for fire to consume the inhabitants of a village is also rather violent.

 

[graciew]

And the tax collectors? Were they dismissed by a mere sound coming from one man?

No. He took his time with the animals…then opened the cages.
Then he overturned tables( objects) not persons. He stopped what they were doing by overturning those objects.
And as for they didn’t t kill a fly…ok . I should have said they were not to kill and didn’t . It is a saying, sorry.

 

[Fauken]

No. He took his time with the animals…then opened the cages.
Then he overturned tables( objects) not persons. He stopped what they were doing by overturning those objects.

At this point we’ll be left arguing over semantics. The animals were mentioned separately from “all”. And “all” would include the tax collectors. A group of men are not going to flee from one person just because he’s flipping over tables. They could have just ganged up on Jesus and beaten Him were that the case. Would you honestly just run away while some random guy was throwing your money and property around, especially if you were trying to sell that property?

And as for they didn’t t kill a fly…ok . I should have said they were not to kill and didn’t . It is a saying, sorry.

I know it is. But that saying implies that someone is not at all violent: The saying is actually, “He wouldn’t harm a fly.”

 

[graciew]

Sorry, that was my Spanglish with the “ fly” .
And as for why He could stop them by overturning tables…I do not know.
By that time He may not have been just one more, but known…
Why they didn’t gang, I do not know either, but it wouldn’t be the first time He had walked away untouched, somehow inexplicable to our human understanding.
Remember when He walked past the people who wanted to throw Him down the cliff… ?No one dared…
What I know is that He didn’t hurt persons not went physically against persons.

 

[godisgood77]

Jag, i’m not sure I follow you on this post. Can you clarify?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

State your position clearly. Are there concrete circumstances which would warrant that abolition of the death penalty for justice to be served?

There are concrete circumstances which make the use of capital punishment unjust in particular instances. I cannot conceive of permanent circumstances which would invalidate its use. It is not simply a just punishment for murder, it is the just punishment for that crime. It ought to be the expected punishment except in extraordinary circumstances, not the other way around.

Only someone in an hobbesian cocoon could make these statements. Every Christian based nation apart from the US, has abolished the death penalty in service to the common good. The Church has never taught that the death penalty is protected from legal justice by some supernatural default. In fact Aquinas cites Matthew 13 and God forbidding use of the death penalty as concrete circumstances dictate.

Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death. ST II II Q64

That God would forbid an action indicates mans ability to discern good from evil and judge accordingly under pain of sin.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Aquinas disagrees with you.

“One can make bad use of a virtue objectively, for instance by having evil thoughts about a virtue, e.g. by hating it, or by being proud of it: but one cannot make bad use of virtue as principle of action, so that an act of virtue be evil. ” - ST I II Q55art4

First, if virtue is a principle of action then that defines the intent as good, which pretty much eliminates the possibility of doing an evil act as long as the object chosen is not itself evil. Second and more relevant: if I believe that there is no such thing as an intrinsically good act - even if I’m wrong - it must surely mean that I cannot consider capital punishment to be such an act so charging that I believe something I have expressly rejected is unreasonable.

Because you have the habit of hiding behind duplicitous language by claiming that if a State decides to retain the death penalty no matter what, it can only qualify as ‘unwise’, never ‘unjust’.

 

[Emeraldlady]

When our Church speaks of a thing in terms of the “dignity of the human person”, the evil “culture of death”, a “penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society .”… it isn’t just speaking an opinion. It’s giving moral guidance.

The issue of slavery demonstrates. It isn’t intrinsically evil since it has been legitimately used in the past. It is evil today as we’ve developed into a society where all people are considered equal and society can thrive without slavery.

The Church rejects your position that the death penalty should never be abolished.

Governments are entitled to abolish any sentence not intrinsically evil but no longer conforming to human dignity or serving the common good. Floggings, exile, stocks. And the Archbishops comment is irrelevant to that.

Non sequitur.