L
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Rau
Guest
How is the “appropriate” response (punishment) of the State to a specific crime to be properly determined. I note your first statement about 1st degree murder. But can you say what premise and reasoning (or what “tests”) should be applied to a given crime to conclude that capital punishment should or should not be applied?I believe that capital punishment should be the rule for first degree murder but, as with most rules, there are exceptions. I believe there are many cases where it ought to be used because it constitutes the only just punishment for the crime that was committed and that not using it is a mistake. Whether not using it is immoral and therefore constitutes a sin, no, I am not comfortable claiming that it is a sin to make mistakes.
The state has a moral obligation to be just. Part of that obligation is to apply just punishments to crimes that are committed, that it is as unjust to be too lenient as it is to be too harsh, and that, for some crimes, life without parole is too lenient and therefore unjust.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t believe this is an accurate interpretation of my comment. I was speaking of justice in a fairly narrow sense, not about justification, which is really a very different concept.This comment interested me. It stands out as reflecting a flaw of Protestantism in the way of believing that works have no place in justification.
Aquinas says in his treatise on justice…
I suppose one could argue that every interaction between individuals or between individuals and the state is a concern of justice but that seems so broad that it is not helpful in dealing with our topic. Justice is actually a fairly simple concept: *“Rendering to each one his right” and that has a specific meaning in the context of punishment."Tully says that “the object of justice is to keep men together in society and mutual intercourse.” Now this implies relationship of one man to another. Therefore justice is concerned only about our dealings with others.
**Consequently the correction of a wrongdoer is twofold, one which applies a remedy to the sin considered as an evil of the sinner himself. This is fraternal correction properly so called, which is directed to the amendment of the sinner. … There is another correction which applies a remedy to the sin of the wrongdoer, considered as hurtful to others, and especially to the common good. This correction is an act of justice, whose concern it is to safeguard the rectitude of justice between one man and another. *(ST II-II 32,1)
It may well be that justice obliges us to attempt the “amendment of the sinner” but Aquinas applies the term only to the retributive aspect of the punishment and not its rehabilitative side.
It seems that this cannot be correct: the prevention of new disorders cannot remedy the damage caused by those in the past. It’s a bit like locking the door after the horse has left the barn - it may keep the rest of the horses contained but it won’t rectify the damage caused by losing the one that got out.In the way that protection of society is concerned with the equality between men, it effects the redressing of disorder in society.
I’m really unhappy that the catechism uses the phrase “redressing the disorder” inasmuch as it is just asking to be misinterpreted. The USCCB got at least this much right when they said: The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.
Just so, retribution is “the restoration of the order of justice.”
I have been a member on this forum for over nine years and have been very careful not to give out any personal information. This is not because I’m concerned about how it would be used but because it only serves to send debates off on irrelevant tangents. If you don’t know anything about me then all you have to go on are my arguments - which is as it should be - but if you know something about me personally then arguments take the form of “You believe that because you’re an English, transgendered, ex-IRA, florist.”You rightly say I don’t know you or anything about you, but could I ask this one question as it would give me your perspective… are you a convert from Protestantism originally?
Why I believe as I do is not important; all that matters are the arguments I present. That’s where I’m trying to give you my perspective - you cannot glean it from anything in my history.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Recognizing that this question could take us very far into the desert I’ll nonetheless address it.How is the “appropriate” response (punishment) of the State to a specific crime to be properly determined. I note your first statement about 1st degree murder. But can you say what premise and reasoning (or what “tests”) should be applied to a given crime to conclude that capital punishment should or should not be applied?
Capital punishment is appropriate for the crime of murder because, as Aquinas noted, it is “fixed by divine law.”
Beyond that the appropriate penalty for other crimes is debatable.
*Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of **some *sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good (ST II-I 64,2)
it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare (ST II-II 64,3)
Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity. (ST II-II 66,6)
If we can agree that capital punishment is appropriate for the crime of first degree murder then it would be reasonable to discuss to what other crimes it might justly apply but if we can’t agree about murder it is useless to go further.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I believe you are trying to isolate justice from the subject as though it can be applied apart from the relationship between people. You are using the references to Genesis 9:6 literally as a ‘rule of thumb’ which the strict Jewish people don’t even do. Whereas the Church uses Gen 9:6 to justify recourse to the death penalty (if there is no other way to safeguard the common good.) You seem to envisage the state with a divine right in the way of the ‘divine right of Kings’ theory where a spotlight of divine identification moves around the earth following the King (or the state), regardless of the worthiness or justness of that institution.I don’t believe this is an accurate interpretation of my comment. I was speaking of justice in a fairly narrow sense, not about justification, which is really a very different concept.
The divine ‘spotlight’ marks a place of purity and justness, but it is up to the people (and by extension, the state)to position themselves in that light. In my minds eye, I see that as having the same false premise as justification by faith alone. That being the impression that by faith, a divine spotlight follows one around for the rest of his life, rather than the Catholic concept of justification which behoves man to continue efforts to position himself within that just light during the journey to his salvation.
And what purpose was that? It could not have been the protection of society as protection is not part of justice in that it in no way “redresses the disorder caused by the offense.”
Aquinas says in his treatise on justice…
"Tully says that “the object of justice is to keep men together in society and mutual intercourse.” Now this implies relationship of one man to another. Therefore justice is concerned only about our dealings with others.
I suppose one could argue that every interaction between individuals or between individuals and the state is a concern of justice but that seems so broad that it is not helpful in dealing with our topic. Justice is actually a fairly simple concept: *“Rendering to each one his right” and that has a specific meaning in the context of punishment.
**Consequently the correction of a wrongdoer is twofold, one which applies a remedy to the sin considered as an evil of the sinner himself. This is fraternal correction properly so called, which is directed to the amendment of the sinner. … There is another correction which applies a remedy to the sin of the wrongdoer, considered as hurtful to others, and especially to the common good. This correction is an act of justice, whose concern it is to safeguard the rectitude of justice between one man and another. *(ST II-II 32,1)
It may well be that justice obliges us to attempt the “amendment of the sinner” but Aquinas applies the term only to the retributive aspect of the punishment and not its rehabilitative side.
And yet he affirms the place of protection of others from crime/sin (along with mercy and liberality) as part of justice replying to the objection ….
"Further, it belongs to justice not only to distribute things duly, but also to repress injurious actions, such as murder, adultery and so forth. But the rendering to each one of what is his seems to belong solely to the distribution of things. Therefore the act of justice is not sufficiently described by saying that it consists in rendering to each one his own. "
by saying there is scope within justice for protection, mercy and generosity…
- "As the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 4), in matters of justice, the name of “profit” is extended to whatever is excessive, and whatever is deficient is called “loss.” The reason for this is that justice is first of all and more commonly exercised in voluntary interchanges of things, such as buying and selling, wherein those expressions are properly employed; and yet they are transferred to all other matters of justice. The same applies to the rendering to each one of what is his own. "*
L
LongingSoul
Guest
It seems that this cannot be correct: the prevention of new disorders cannot remedy the damage caused by those in the past. It’s a bit like locking the door after the horse has left the barn - it may keep the rest of the horses contained but it won’t rectify the damage caused by losing the one that got out.In the way that protection of society is concerned with the equality between men, it effects the redressing of disorder in society.
I’m really unhappy that the catechism uses the phrase “redressing the disorder” inasmuch as it is just asking to be misinterpreted. The USCCB got at least this much right when they said: The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.
Just so, retribution is “the restoration of the order of justice.”
There are some crimes that can never be made right technically but even where they could be made right, there is a place for mercy in ‘redressing the disorder’ that sees prevention of further crime as a redress. You often hear merciful victims say that they hope the aftermath of the crime serves to prevent it happening again.
Or do you believe that every act of mercy equates to a failure of justice purely and simply? Without mercy and generosity (Christian virtues) there is only mindless vengeance and this we are forbidden from in rendering punishment. If God doesn’t see mercy as a failure of justice, why should we.
E
Ender
Guest
This is your interpretation of my comments; it is not a response to what I’ve actually said. We’ll get further if you ignore what you think I’m implying and deal only with what I say. If I believe something I’ll say it; I don’t imply things.I believe you are trying to isolate justice from the subject as though it can be applied apart from the relationship between people. You are using the references to Genesis 9:6 literally as a ‘rule of thumb’ which the strict Jewish people don’t even do.
This is absolutely not true. Nowhere - even in the current catechism and EV - does anyone associate Gn 9:6 with safeguarding the common good (by which I take it you mean the physical protection of society.)Whereas the Church uses Gen 9:6 to justify recourse to the death penalty (if there is no other way to safeguard the common good.)
I don’t “seem to” anything; I mean only what I say.You seem to envisage…
Perhaps you copied the wrong section as there was nothing about protection, mercy, or generosity in your citation.And yet he affirms the place of protection of others from crime/sin (along with mercy and liberality) as part of justice replying to the objection …. by saying there is scope within justice for protection, mercy and generosity…
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Is it your position that mercy should be extended to everyone and that, as an act of universal mercy, no one should be executed?There are some crimes that can never be made right technically but even where they could be made right, there is a place for mercy in ‘redressing the disorder’ that sees prevention of further crime as a redress.
I haven’t spent much time discussing my understanding of the church’s teaching on mercy so you really have little to go on in deciding what my position is. You have an obligation, however, to give me the benefit of the doubt and attribute only positive things to me. As such, you probably shouldn’t assume that my understanding is what you described.Or do you believe that every act of mercy equates to a failure of justice purely and simply?
Ender
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Can we really speak of justice on this issue when we currently have a situation where the death penalty is subject to geographic and racial bias. In 2010 Oklahoma had an execution rate of .256 per capita while Kansas and New hampshire had 0.Or do you believe that every act of mercy equates to a failure of justice purely and simply?
deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-execution-rates
deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976#defend
As long as there is any possibility that the defendent is innocent regardless of the verdict, can we really talk about justice?
There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent.
deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
E
Ender
Guest
There are two aspects of capital punishment that really need to be addressed completely separately: the moral side and the practical side. If it is determined that capital punishment is immoral then the practical considerations are irrelevant but even if one rules out capital punishment because of practical concerns that still doesn’t address the question of whether it is moral and whether it could or should be used in those cases where guilt is known beyond the shadow of a doubt.Can we really speak of justice on this issue when we currently have a situation where the death penalty is subject to geographic and racial bias. In 2010 Oklahoma had an execution rate of .256 per capita while Kansas and New hampshire had 0.
The church addresses the moral concerns which is really what this debate is about. Your objections even if valid are not relevant to that discussion.
Ender
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
This distinction between “moral side” and “practical side” seems artificial and unworkable since the “moral side” is contingent upon the “practical side” and cannot be seperated. The Church teaches that with a heightened moral awareness Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.There are two aspects of capital punishment that really need to be addressed completely separately: the moral side and the practical side. If it is determined that capital punishment is immoral then the practical considerations are irrelevant but even if one rules out capital punishment because of practical concerns that still doesn’t address the question of whether it is moral and whether it could or should be used in those cases where guilt is known beyond the shadow of a doubt.
The church addresses the moral concerns which is really what this debate is about. Your objections even if valid are not relevant to that discussion.
Ender
So there is a preference and it has become the “practical side” that renders the “moral side” of cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender very rare, if not practically non-existent.
#405
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Inflicting
E
Ender
Guest
It hardly seems an artificial distinction as the church herself makes it. In the first paragraph in 2267 we are told that a person may be executed if conditions A, B, and C are met. That is a statement about the morality of using capital punishment. Determining whether those conditions have been satisfied are prudential problems. You previously raised prudential objections by claiming “the death penalty is subject to geographic and racial bias” and asking how many innocent people have been executed in the past. The point I’m making is simply this: if it could be demonstrated that the a particular defendant is unquestionably guilty and if the conditions permitting his execution have been met is it moral to execute him? That is very different than asking if he received a fair trial.This distinction between “moral side” and “practical side” seems artificial and unworkable since the “moral side” is contingent upon the “practical side” and cannot be separated.
If you want to accept that 2267 oppose capital punishment for practical reasons I think I would agree with you.So there is a preference and it has become the “practical side” that renders the “moral side” of cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender very rare, if not practically non-existent.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That’s where Enders whole understanding is first compromised. He sees CP as something akin to a ‘sacrament’ instituted by God, rather than a practicle precept whose morality depends on how it serves the great goal of Gods law and human law… promoting the dignity of the human person. That was the whole point of Gen 9:6. Authority must conform to this goal above all things and recognise that the death penalty is cruel and unnecessary.This distinction between “moral side” and “practical side” seems artificial and unworkable since the “moral side” is contingent upon the “practical side” and cannot be seperated. The Church teaches that with a heightened moral awareness Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.
So there is a preference and it has become the “practical side” that renders the “moral side” of cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender very rare, if not practically non-existent.
E
Evan
Guest
The death penalty need not be done cruelly or unnecessarily. Death itself is not cruel, that is how God ends all our lives. Neither is it unnecessary, it is the only gateway to heaven. Try not to go beyond what the Church teaches and God allows.That’s where Enders whole understanding is first compromised. He sees CP as something akin to a ‘sacrament’ instituted by God, rather than a practicle precept whose morality depends on how it serves the great goal of Gods law and human law… promoting the dignity of the human person. That was the whole point of Gen 9:6. Authority must conform to this goal above all things and recognise that the death penalty is cruel and unnecessary.
Knowing you are to be executed in the morning greatly focuses a man’s thoughts on eternity.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
When I say ‘cruel and unnecessary’ I mean strictly in the sense the Church teaches. Pope John Paul said *“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” *(Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).The death penalty need not be done cruelly or unnecessarily. Death itself is not cruel, that is how God ends all our lives. Neither is it unnecessary, it is the only gateway to heaven. Try not to go beyond what the Church teaches and God allows.
Knowing you are to be executed in the morning greatly focuses a man’s thoughts on eternity.
The Church also teaches that it is not intrinsically evil in the way of abortion and euthanasia. All of these facts make clear the way in which we understand the death penalty. It is cruel and unnecessary because it compromises humankinds understanding of the intrinsic worth of every individual member. We can say ‘well if it does that now, why didn’t it do that in the past?’ to which we can answer 'Today, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” ’ That is only going to present a conundrum to those who’ve mistakenly beheld the death penalty as having some sort of ‘magic’ powers to appease some distant god, separate from serving human justice. God came and dwelt among us to say ‘by serving your neighbour in love and justly just as I did… you are serving your God.’
S
shocktrooper
Guest
Longing Soul,When I say ‘cruel and unnecessary’ I mean strictly in the sense the Church teaches. Pope John Paul said *“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” *(Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
The Church also teaches that it is not intrinsically evil in the way of abortion and euthanasia. All of these facts make clear the way in which we understand the death penalty. It is cruel and unnecessary because it compromises humankinds understanding of the intrinsic worth of every individual member. We can say ‘well if it does that now, why didn’t it do that in the past?’ to which we can answer 'Today, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” ’ That is only going to present a conundrum to those who’ve mistakenly beheld the death penalty as having some sort of ‘magic’ powers to appease some distant god, separate from serving human justice. God came and dwelt among us to say ‘by serving your neighbour in love and justly just as I did… you are serving your God.’
Ender’s only position, as I see it, and it seems you agree with him, is that CP is not morally wrong and will always be an option for governments, since God himself has given us this option that is never to be done away with completely.
I agree with you, and so does Ender, it seems, that the popes think CP should be shelved due to our culture of death, and that it would be best not to feed the monster by using CP at this moment in time.
Where I disagree with the popes (and you and many others) on this, and I can since they speak using prudential judgement, is that it will fail just like so many other judgements they have made since VII. CP is to protect the dignity of the human person by showing how great the loss of life was that was taken. We see the same mindset by those that oppose CP in the groups that oppose corporal punishment (CP). It boils down to an effeminate culture of men that refuse to act like men.
So instead of those in the Church acting as teachers and explain the Church’s position and understanding on justice to the modern world, those inside her decide, once again, to conform to modern thinking and put aside traditional teachings so the Church may look “up to speed” or appealing to the lukewarm. We see the success rate of this tactic over the past 50 years and I don’t think it is prudential to stay on course.
I have followed your conversations with Ender in multiple threads and it seems like the only “problem” between you two is that you want him to bow down to the Church’s current position as if it is binding, and he does not seem convinced by their reasoning and chooses not to agree, though he does seem to understand. This supposed problem is not really a problem since the position of those in the Church is merely Prudential Judgement and not binding on anyone. Until you can prove it is binding on the faithful, then I suggest you just agree to disagree.
pax
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
It has nothing to do with feminity unless one believes that a consistent respect for all human life is feminine.Code:It boils down to an effeminate culture of men that refuse to act like men.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I really believe you are out of step with the spirit of Catholicism with this attitude. When you say ‘those in the Church’, you aren’t referring to the spattering of liberal and secularised Priests and teachers, you are talking about the Popes and the College of Cardinals that support the seat of Peter. Even Cardinal Dulles who is often quoted in support of your position says…Where I disagree with the popes (and you and many others) on this, and I can since they speak using prudential judgement, is that it will fail just like so many other judgements they have made since VII. CP is to protect the dignity of the human person by showing how great the loss of life was that was taken. We see the same mindset by those that oppose CP in the groups that oppose corporal punishment (CP). It boils down to an effeminate culture of men that refuse to act like men.
So instead of those in the Church acting as teachers and explain the Church’s position and understanding on justice to the modern world, those inside her decide, once again, to conform to modern thinking and put aside traditional teachings so the Church may look “up to speed” or appealing to the lukewarm. We see the success rate of this tactic over the past 50 years and I don’t think it is prudential to stay on course.
*"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. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position…
Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition. "*
- If CP has the capacity to do ‘more harm than good’ which Thomas Aquinas first spoke of in his example of the scripture passage about the uprooting the cockle, we must respect it for what it is… a* tool *in the pursuit of justice. Not a moral principle in and of itself in the way of this claim *…“CP is to protect the dignity of the human person by showing how great the loss of life was that was taken.” *
- We are obliged to seek understanding about the Church’s teachings on faith and morals in order to conform ourselves to the Holy Office. We aren’t invited to stubbornly hold to a personal position against the teachings of the living Church we belong to. That’s not a Catholic option.
Agreeing to disagree doesn’t work for me as I’m not a theologian by trade and haven’t got that sort of definitive authority in speaking on these matters. I do believe though that people have a ‘common sense’ of the will of God through a living relationship with the Holy Spirit. Now I don’t know if ‘common sense’ is strictly a theological term but nurtured by Scripture and contemplation I know that many ordinary people can feel confident to contribute to these subjects with purpose. I just like the opportunity to bring the statements of the Popes especially JP the Great, to discussion for others to read and relish in forming their position on the topic. It’s not about win, lose or calling a draw.I have followed your conversations with Ender in multiple threads and it seems like the only “problem” between you two is that you want him to bow down to the Church’s current position as if it is binding, and he does not seem convinced by their reasoning and chooses not to agree, though he does seem to understand. This supposed problem is not really a problem since the position of those in the Church is merely Prudential Judgement and not binding on anyone. Until you can prove it is binding on the faithful, then I suggest you just agree to disagree.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
Sure it does, Michael. Women tend to be more comforting and caring, while man is seen as the protector, the one that provides justice. We see this in healthy families. We see this in God himself as He has all qualities within Him. Today, our world has taken the feminine too far, so far that justice is no longer rendered. Authentic feminism (not what we have today) allows for justice because it is needed for order. Can one honestly say that we have moral order today? Can one blame this lack of moral order on justice? No! The blame falls on “mercy”!It has nothing to do with feminity unless one believes that a consistent respect for all human life is feminine.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
Even Cardinal Dulles who is often quoted in support of your position says…
I would like to see proof for this position on it doing more harm than good. How can man’s respect for life be any worse than it is now? The small amount of times CP is carried out, it can’t hardly contribute to this decay."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. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position…
I have sought their guidance and I do understand it. I just disagree with their judgement.Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition. "
If CP was carried out without just reason, than justice would suffer and more harm than good would come about. There are always exceptions to the rule and I do not think it should be used in EVERY situation. However, if a life is purposefully taken and proven beyond all doubt, then the person playing God without his authority should go to meet Him for judgment. This is justice and mercy since the person loosing their life knows exactly when it is going to be taken and can prepare for it. No surprises for him if the Master comes at a time unknown. What a great gift it is to know exactly when you are going to die.
- If CP has the capacity to do ‘more harm than good’ which Thomas Aquinas first spoke of in his example of the scripture passage about the uprooting the cockle, we must respect it for what it is… a* tool *in the pursuit of justice. Not a moral principle in and of itself in the way of this claim *…“CP is to protect the dignity of the human person by showing how great the loss of life was that was taken.” *
I have not rejected any teaching on faith and morals taught by the Holy Office.
- We are obliged to seek understanding about the Church’s teachings on faith and morals in order to conform ourselves to the Holy Office.
So you agree a government can use CP and not be morally wrong, regardless of the times we live in and regardless of who says they would prefer them not to?We aren’t invited to stubbornly hold to a personal position against the teachings of the living Church we belong to. That’s not a Catholic option.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.