I’m sorry but you stated the following and so I thought you would have some idea of what an adult is. If it isn’t relevant why did you bring it up?
An operational definition of “adult” is necessary so that we know that we are referring to the same thing. I don’t think the term “adult” as you are using it is sufficient because there are people eighteen years of age or older who may not be culpable for their crimes.
What circumstances? Would you please give some examples?
This really bothers me because it sounds like you are saying that Blessed John Paul II said that not executing people is cruel because it takes away their dignity, much as killing a baby before birth takes away her dignity. I don’t think that’s what he meant and I’m not saying that you are saying that’s what he meant but it does come across that way. Yes, people are responsible for their actions but only for the actions over which they have control and only fully responsible for actions over which they have full control. How is this determined in a court of law in a capital case? By psychiatrists and psychologists? As I’ve mentioned before the defendant’s mental health team will be sure to find that the defendant is not culpable but the prosecution’s mental health team will be sure to find that he is. By attorneys and an “impartial” judge? Attorneys do a fair amount of pro bono work and this speaks highly of them but I think that most of the time they are more concerned with “winning” than with aiding in a fair trial. And I doubt there is an impartial judge left anywhere.
Almost always? What if it isn’t? The point I keep trying to get across is that we, as human beings, are just not very good at determining guilt. And with the game playing that goes on during trials I doubt that guilt is almost always determined beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that guilt is hardly ever determined beyond a reasonable doubt. I doubt that any trial is truly fair with an impartial jury of one’s peers. And I don’t think that either of us can base our positions on this facet of this death penalty thread on anything other than our opinions.
I’m not trying to mischaracterize your position and I apologize for my comment, which came from frustration; I don’t understand your position and that is why I keep asking questions. I don’t understand why you are so gung-ho about execution, especially when there are people that may not be guilty of the crime for which they are being punished via execution. The responsibility of the State to fairly try alleged criminals is a responsibility the State does not take seriously (as is true with most other State responsibilities). Trials are games with winners and losers and the side that wins is not always the side that should win. There are too many problems. The State cannot fulfill its obligation and has no interest in mixing secular concerns with those of the Church. If we lived in a society in which the judicial system actually had a lively interest in assigning guilt fairly it wouldn’t be so bad. But the society in which we live is not conducive to a fair, impartial court trial with a jury of one’s peers. Most of the time they can’t even get the jury of one’s peers correct!
No, I am not interested in mixing prudential objections with moral ones. If you want to argue that there are practical reasons for not using capital punishment that is one debate, but that has nothing to do with moral objections. I have been making a moral argument for its use, not a prudential one.
There is no basis for charging me with being “gung-ho” about executions. I have been persistent; that’s all.
If the current teaching recognizes that an execution is an affront to human dignity doesn’t this mean that the Church misunderstood human dignity for nearly 2000 years? If capital punishment is contrary to human dignity now surely it was just as contrary to it in, say, 1950 when Vatican City still allowed capital punishment itself. Either it isn’t an affront to human dignity or the Church accepted this offense against man’s dignity for 2000 years. Which position are you taking?
That’s an interesting observation but there seems to be some difference of opinion about what position the Church Fathers actually took.
Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Pope St. Innocent I, 405)
“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.” (Pope St. Pius X, 1905)
So is it your position then that the Church has taught error for the last 1600 years?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
I must disagree with the dichotomy you have presented between moral and prudential. The meanings of these words are not mutually exclusive.
I understand the point you make but I don’t think it is relevant to the distinction I’m making. If we disagree over a prudential question we may legitimately hold different positions and while at least one of us will be mistaken, neither of us behaves immorally because there is no knowable right or wrong answer; we are both making educated guesses. There is no sin involved in being wrong. If we disagree over a moral question, however, there is a right or wrong answer and being wrong involves immoral behavior (although we may or may not be culpable). It is one thing to argue over how to apply a moral rule in the real world and quite another to argue over the meaning of the rule itself.
No, the “Church” has not said this, JPII(?) said it. Personal opinions even of popes do not become Church doctrine merely because they express them.
Pope Innocent I and Augustine were contemporaries; their lives overlapped for decades. Innocent was pope for seventeen years while Augustine was a bishop. Nor is the opposition of the Fathers as unequivocal as you claim:
You have no evidence to support this assertion. In fact, all of the arguments made in support of capital punishment by the Church (as opposed to the personal opinions of some of the Fathers) are based on scripture and had nothing whatever to do with the practicalities of the time, and it is no small thing to simply dismiss Augustine as if his opinion was irrelevant.
Let’s see how this distinction applies to another moral question. We should agree over the general moral rule that one should not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. But over the application of that rule to the real world, according to your distinction between moral and prudential, we may legitimately hold different positions over who to vote for in a specific example. And while at least one of will be mistaken, neither of us behaves immorally in our voting because there is no knowable right or wrong answer over who to vote for in any given real-world election. Do I have that right now?
That is a shame because everything that has anything to do with the death penalty is important.
Yes, you are persistently “gung-ho” about executions while I am persistently “gung-ho” about not executing unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
OK - I finally understand (I think) what you have been saying. You’re saying that for all of the Church’s 2,000 year history she has taught that executing a murderer is not an affront to his dignity. But now she is teaching that it is. Do I have that right? And if I have that right, what has changed? Truth cannot change. But something can; actually two things can change. One is our understanding of Truth and the other is the changes that occur over time (e.g. we are not living in France with people lined up every day to be guillotined). In a very important way (to me) I agree with you - if the Church has clearly taught for 2,000 years that not executing a murderer is an affront to his dignity under all conditions, even if he can be kept in a way to allow for the safety of innocent human beings.
Some questions: how does the removal of organs from a former HUMAN BEING who has no soul aid in his/her atonement and what good would it do anyway? After all, the soul is dead, isn’t it? What good is a dead soul? Would the soon-to-be executed person be able to sign forms giving his/her consent for organ donation? If that person is no longer considered a HUMAN BEING (and probably not even a person) why would his/her signature count for anything? A dog’s signature (or paw-print) wouldn’t count for anything and you said this ex-HUMAN BEING is a beast.
How does a human being know if he/she has destroyed “its” own soul?