Do you support the death penalty?

[LeafByNiggle]

The billionaire [in your example] is clearly rationalizing a selfish position just as the person who votes for Nancy Pelosi is just as clearly rationalizing away her obvious support of abortion. Voting for Senator Casey of PA might have been valid; voting for Obama was not (based on the assumption that the moral rule prohibits voting for pro-abortion candidates).

So when you say “The billionaire is clearly rationalizing a selfish position” are you classifying his action as a poor prudential judgment or a violation of a moral rule?

Same question for voting for Nancy Pelosi. Is voting for her a poor prudential judgment or a violation of a moral rule?

It is not necessary (nor is it even possible) to know the exact point where valid choices end and dishonest rationalization begins - that’s the prudential part of the judgment. It is possible, however, as you point out, to know that some positions are valid and others are invalid and not knowing where the former becomes the latter doesn’t change that.

I am not trying to distinguish between a good prudential judgment and a bad prudential judgment. I am trying to distinguish between prudential and moral. So the point where the decision switches from good to bad is not what I am after. I am only interested in the point where the decision switches from moral to prudential. I am trying to clarify your use of the term “prudential judgment”, so when you instead use terms like “valid” and “invalid” I don’t know if you are claiming these decisions to be prudential or not.

As I said, regarding capital punishment we are disagreeing over the rule, not its application, just as - regarding voting - the disagreement is over whether the rule prohibits supporting a pro-abortion candidate, not whether Candidate X falls into that category.

So if somebody said “I don’t think Nancy Pelosi falls in the category of pro-abortion, so I’m going to vote for her” would they be making a prudential judgment? (An incorrect prudential judgment, but prudential nonetheless?)

 

[Ender]

I am not trying to distinguish between a good prudential judgment and a bad prudential judgment. I am trying to distinguish between prudential and moral.

Cardinal Dulles re the application of prudential judgment:
*
*“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.

So if somebody said “I don’t think Nancy Pelosi falls in the category of pro-abortion, so I’m going to vote for her” would they be making a prudential judgment? (An incorrect prudential judgment, but prudential nonetheless?)

I cannot say. It is quite possible that someone actually doesn’t know where Pelosi stands on the subject. Judgments about why a person acts as he does are not ours to make. I can say that a person who believes Pelosi is not pro-abortion (or pro-choice if you insist) is factually incorrect but I cannot say the person is lying who claims not to know her position.

On the one hand the person is making a moral judgment and is (claims to be) trying to apply a moral rule (don’t support pro-abortion candidates) but appears to err in applying the rule. Applying a rule often requires prudential judgment but this situation is quite different than the one where a person rejects the rule and claims it is OK to support pro-abortion candidates.

If I accept the rule but misapply it I have erred. If I reject the rule I have sinned.

Ender

 

[Ender]

However, where most of us differ from you is that you constantly maintain that the death penalty is, by default, a required punishment, unless prudential judgment deems it more harmful to the common good.

What would it mean if 2267 is accepted as doctrine? First, we would be required to acknowledge that this new position is not a development of earlier doctrine but a repudiation of it. Historically, there is nothing to support it, nor is there any reference in either 2267 nor Evangelium Vitae #56 to suggest what it developed from. In the past, the doctrine was based on the Church’s understanding of retributive justice; this new position has a completely different basis so if we accept it we must at the same time accept that the Church’s teaching was in error for 2000 years.

Second, it is not just our understanding of the application of capital punishment that would have to change but our understanding of punishment in general and justice in particular would also have to change. Nor is that all as I believe it would also affect our understanding of the expiation of sin and would diminish our appreciation of the truly heinous nature of the crime of murder. All in all, it seems much more reasonable to me to agree with Cardinal Dulles that 2267 represents a prudential judgment on the part of the Pope and the Magisterium about the use of capital punishment in today’s societies.

Now, having reached that conclusion: how should capital punishment be applied? Based on what the Church has taught (prior to 1995) it appears to me that her position was based on accepting that Gen 9:6 meant exactly what it said: the punishment for murder is death. That understanding seems clearly to be the basis for the position expressed in the Catechism of Trent that "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." On what basis can we accept the statement that the use of capital punishment amounts to “paramount obedience” if we assume it should not be used or used only rarely? If death is the just sentence for the crime of murder then why should it be restricted only to the worst of the worst?

Ender

 

[Job42]

Saul/Paul was a murderer… I guess he should have been executed. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, right? :nope:

 

[Ender]

Saul/Paul was a murderer… I guess he should have been executed.

Perhaps you haven’t been following this discussion very closely, in which case you might have missed the comment I just made (#346):

• We may decide for practical reasons or peculiar circumstances to make an exception in certain cases*

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, right?

Not exactly, but the Church does in fact teach that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The only positive motive for punishment is reform.
If reform is not possible because the offendor has allowed Satan to destroy it soul, then punishment is irrelevant.
What you call punishment is actually vengeance.
If you call for vengeance, you are neither good Christian nor Jew, for vengeance belongs to G_D.

One who has allowed Satan to destroy its soul, is by definition, no longer human.
That does not mean it can be treated with cruelty.
It must be treated with humanity, lest we become is inhuman as it.

If such a one cannot be safely, and humanely kept, then a humane alternative is morally permitted, but this is not punishment any more than the shooting of a rabid beast is punishment.
It is humane removal of a dangerous beast which cannot be saved.

 

[Job42]

Perhaps you haven’t been following this discussion very closely, in which case you might have missed the comment I just made (#346):

• We may decide for practical reasons or peculiar circumstances to make an exception in certain cases*
  Not exactly, but the Church does in fact teach that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

I’m sorry but I don’t need to follow the discussion. There should be no debate. Do you know which murderers are going to repent and which are going to be obstinant until the very end? Like the poster before me said it is vengeance not punishment. “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is all that your argument boils down to. That said, I sympathize with the families of victims of violent crime and I honestly don’t know how I would react if I were in their shoes.

 

[Ender]

I’m sorry but I don’t need to follow the discussion. There should be no debate. Do you know which murderers are going to repent and which are going to be obstinant until the very end? Like the poster before me said it is vengeance not punishment. “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is all that your argument boils down to.

You really should follow the discussion. Your statement illustrates the validity of Cardinal Dulles’ observation that I posted earlier.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. ** The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.**

Ender

 

[surritter]

Based on what the Church has taught (prior to 1995) it appears to me that her position was based on accepting that Gen 9:6 meant exactly what it said: the punishment for murder is death. That understanding seems clearly to be the basis for the position expressed in the Catechism of Trent that "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." On what basis can we accept the statement that the use of capital punishment amounts to “paramount obedience” if we assume it should not be used or used only rarely? If death is the just sentence for the crime of murder then why should it be restricted only to the worst of the worst?

Ender

Frankly, it makes no sense to quote from the Catechism of Trent, since I could reject that statement just as outrightly as you do regarding the relevant statements in the Catechism promulgated by John Paul II.

Specifically, what is “the just use of this power”? That could be a prudential matter accorded to a particular time and place, yes?

 

[LittleSoldier]

The only positive motive for punishment is reform.
If reform is not possible because the offendor has allowed Satan to destroy it soul, then punishment is irrelevant.
What you call punishment is actually vengeance.
If you call for vengeance, you are neither good Christian nor Jew, for vengeance belongs to G_D.

One who has allowed Satan to destroy its soul, is by definition, no longer human.
That does not mean it can be treated with cruelty.
It must be treated with humanity, lest we become is inhuman as it.

If such a one cannot be safely, and humanely kept, then a humane alternative is morally permitted, but this is not punishment any more than the shooting of a rabid beast is punishment.
It is humane removal of a dangerous beast which cannot be saved.

Who decides which person cannot be saved?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes. And what I am saying about capital punishment is that what we are arguing about is the moral rule, not the application of the rule. That is, is it a moral rule that murderers should die for their crime? We may decide for practical reasons or peculiar circumstances to make an exception in certain cases, but the rule remains, just as the rule to help the poor remains unchanged even if one decides not to give money to a panhandler on the street.

So - who decides if these exceptions should be made? I brought up several suggestions many posts ago and was told that you weren’t interested in the “practicalities” or something like that. Who decides? You? A committee? A jury of one’s real peers? You use the word “we.” Who is “we?”

As I said, regarding capital punishment we are disagreeing over the rule, not its application, just as - regarding voting - the disagreement is over whether the rule prohibits supporting a pro-abortion candidate, not whether Candidate X falls into that category.

Ender

With all due respect, sir, that is a royal cop-out. At least in my humble opinion.

 

[Ender]

Frankly, it makes no sense to quote from the Catechism of Trent, since I could reject that statement just as outrightly as you do regarding the relevant statements in the Catechism promulgated by John Paul II.

No, you have to deal with the problem that the current catechism and the Catechism of Trent express very different positions on capital punishment. It is not sufficient to simply ignore either of them, you have to find some rational way to deal with what they both say. The one position that seems least likely is that they can both be doctrine. One doctrine cannot simply override another, not if we want to continue to believe the Church teaches moral truths and that morality doesn’t change with time or place. I have not simply decided to reject 2267. As I said, I understand it to be a prudential suggestion and not doctrine. It seems pretty clear that if they are both doctrine then one of them was (or is) wrong and it is no small matter to assert that about Church doctrine.

Specifically, what is “the just use of this power”? That could be a prudential matter accorded to a particular time and place, yes?

The justness of a punishment is determined primarily by the nature of the crime and that cannot change from one age to another. Murder is neither more nor less heinous now than it was 2000 years ago. If capital punishment was a just punishment in the past then it is equally just today and there is simply no doubt that the Church always considered its use justifiable at the very least for the crime of murder.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, here is Cardinal Dulles’ comment on this point.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. ** The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.**
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html[/FONT If executing a person really is an offense against his dignity then it should be opposed in all circumstances. It would be intrinsically evil. Since we know that it is not intrinsically evil (the Church allows it today, at least theoretically) it cannot be contrary to man’s dignity so it would be valid to use capital punishment. That it is perceived to be an affront to his dignity does not make it one.

Why not?

I understand your thinking here but this would amount to calling a punishment that is cruel or too harsh an affront to man’s dignity, and I don’t think that’s a valid assessment. Besides, we know the Church accepts the death penalty as a just punishment or she would never accept it under any circumstance and the justness of a punishment is determined by the nature of the crime, not the circumstances surrounding the application of the punishment. There may well be prudential reasons not to apply capital punishment but there is no fundamental moral objection to it. I think this is one of the weakest arguments against capital punishment because it doesn’t address the position taken by the Church for nearly 2000 years. 2267 is incorrect in claiming that the tradition of the Church allowed capital punishment if it was necessary for protection. The Church never even raised that as a concern (although she certainly recognize it as a benefit). All of her arguments supporting the use of the death penalty were based on her understanding of retributive justice.

[/QUOTE]

 

[LittleSoldier]

You really should follow the discussion. Your statement illustrates the validity of Cardinal Dulles’ observation that I posted earlier.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. ** The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.**

Ender

What evidence is there that this “has been true in the past?” And, just to make sure that you understand, I am NOT dismissing Cardinal Dulles.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m sorry but I don’t need to follow the discussion. There should be no debate. Do you know which murderers are going to repent and which are going to be obstinant until the very end? Like the poster before me said it is vengeance not punishment. “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is all that your argument boils down to. That said, I sympathize with the families of victims of violent crime and I honestly don’t know how I would react if I were in their shoes.

Thank you for your voice of reason. I’ve come to the same conclusion: there should be no debate. The only one who knows which murderers are going to repent and which are not is God.

 

[surritter]

No, you have to deal with the problem that the current catechism and the Catechism of Trent express very different positions on capital punishment. It is not sufficient to simply ignore either of them, you have to find some rational way to deal with what they both say. The one position that seems least likely is that they can both be doctrine. One doctrine cannot simply override another, not if we want to continue to believe the Church teaches moral truths and that morality doesn’t change with time or place. I have not simply decided to reject 2267. As I said, I understand it to be a prudential suggestion and not doctrine. It seems pretty clear that if they are both doctrine then one of them was (or is) wrong and it is no small matter to assert that about Church doctrine.

No, I didn’t imply that they are both doctrine. Rather, I am enlisting your tactic and saying that neither is doctrine; they are merely prudential judgments.

The justness of a punishment is determined primarily by the nature of the crime and that cannot change from one age to another. Murder is neither more nor less heinous now than it was 2000 years ago. If capital punishment was a just punishment in the past then it is equally just today and there is simply no doubt that the Church always considered its use justifiable at the very least for the crime of murder.

You are trying to connect some dots that aren’t really there: Why is the justness of the punishment determined by the crime? And why is that not subject to variation across time and/or location?

While the harm done to human dignity by the act of murder never changes, there are many factors at play in the justness of a particular punishment … and the Church deems that one of the factors is the capacity of the society to contain criminals in a penal system.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Who decides which person cannot be saved?

In the end, it is a human decission, based upon the expert analysis of the evidence.
There are alternatives though to what is called execution, which actually does not mean killing, it means carrying out the sentence, or procedure.
If there is doubt, then the offendor could be offered the chance to volunteer for dangerous duties, such as mine clearance, then the final outcome can be left to G_D.
Doing good works is good for the soul.
Lethal injection, or poisoning with cyanide gas, or even elctrocution is a waste of otherwise useful material.
Disassembly makes much more sense.

But the bottom line is: This must not be vengeance.
Repairation is just a new-talk word for vengeance.

Just like ‘interest’ is new-talk for usuary.

When people do not like a word, for it tells them they are sinners, they invent a new word, and pretend it means something else.

 

[Ender]

Why not?

If you called a tail a leg would a dog have five legs? Obviously not since what you call something doesn’t change what it is. For the same reason, believing that capital punishment is an affront to human dignity doesn’t make it so.

I do NOT know if the Church has accepted the death penalty as a just punishment with no further parameters for the past 2,000 years. The CCC section indicates she has not. The CCC has a *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *and that means that NOTHING in it is contrary to Church teaching. Yet you are saying that 2267 is contrary to Church teaching.

No, I am saying 2267 is mistaken.

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. (Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Professor, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome)

End of discussion, unless you have a greater authority than the Magisterium and the Pope.

No, all I have are facts. I can cite what the Church has said but I cannot cite what she has not said - I cannot prove a negative.

BTW, you don’t need to keep changing back to the Arial Font as it is the default. When I use the Century Gothic Font I disable it at the end of my statement and it switches back to Arial.

Except that I respond to your statements one at a time so at all of the intermediate steps I had to reset the font. Now I just reset the font before I begin.

Ender

 

[Ender]

No, I didn’t imply that they are both doctrine. Rather, I am enlisting your tactic and saying that neither is doctrine; they are merely prudential judgments.

Is Cardinal Dulles also employing tactics? He’s the one who said that 2267 is prudential and as for the Church having no doctrine on capital punishment that seems unlikely as well. You are not dismissing my opinion; you are dismissing his.

*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)

Why is the justness of the punishment determined by the crime?

Because that’s what the Church teaches.

Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity*, both in Divine and in human judgments.* (Aquinas)

And why is that not subject to variation across time and/or location?

Because the Church also teaches that morality does not change. Are you really suggesting that the severity of the crime of murder can be different depending on the century in which it is committed? Can the value of life change over time?

While the harm done to human dignity by the act of murder never changes, there are many factors at play in the justness of a particular punishment … and the Church deems that one of the factors is the capacity of the society to contain criminals in a penal system.

This isn’t quite accurate. The current catechism says nothing whatever about what constitutes a just punishment beyond observing that the State has a duty to impose a punishment “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” 2267 is completely silent on this point and bases the use of capital punishment solely on whether it is perceived to be necessary for protection. It ignores the obligation of justice.

Ender

 

[passer_by]

Is Cardinal Dulles also employing tactics? He’s the one who said that 2267 is prudential and as for the Church having no doctrine on capital punishment that seems unlikely as well. You are not dismissing my opinion; you are dismissing his.

*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Because that’s what the Church teaches.

Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity*, both in Divine and in human judgments.* (Aquinas)
Because the Church also teaches that morality does not change. Are you really suggesting that the severity of the crime of murder can be different depending on the century in which it is committed? Can the value of life change over time?
This isn’t quite accurate. The current catechism says nothing whatever about what constitutes a just punishment beyond observing that the State has a duty to impose a punishment “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” 2267 is completely silent on this point and bases the use of capital punishment solely on whether it is perceived to be necessary for protection. It ignores the obligation of justice.

Ender

If I may simplify this complicated issue, the argument against the death penalty is as follows

1. Human life is sacred and every human has a dignity
2. Therefore it is never right to cause the death of a person as an end in it-self
3. The Death Penalty is justified if it is given to safeguard the public
4. The Death Penalty is not justified if it is given to avenge death/deaths
5. In the current age, we can safeguard the public without causing the death of an offender
6. Therefore, there is no reason today to have the Death Penalty

Now as you can see, many opponents of the above argument tend to think that this implies morality change. On the contrary, morality has stayed the same. But many seem to have misunderstood exactly why the Death Penalty was considered OK by the church back then.

Some would now go in to quote fallible sources like Cardinals which really don’t say anything binding to begin with.

So if someone really wants to have the Death Penalty in today’s day and age, they need to prove why proposition (5) above is false. All these quotes of Cardinals etc would only miss the point otherwise.