How should I understand the CC's view on capital punishment?

[Ender]

What exactly has God granted? Is it just a right to intervene and punish?

God has granted the state the right and duty to exact vengeance for wrongs committed against members of society. That right is exclusively theirs; the individual is prohibited from exacting vengeance.

Take the example of a robbery that takes place. The person who was stolen from may rightly choose to not report it and push the matter forward. But by your logic, the State should jump in and still carry out justice. Why? Because IT IS ITS DUTY! That is absurd.

There are surely cases where an individual will refuse to press charges for a crime committed against him and the state will not intervene. There are also crimes, however, that the state must punish regardless of the wishes of the individual and this is because crimes impact not just the individuals involved but society as a whole. Aquinas does not seem to find that idea absurd.*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. … he who governs the community, cares, first of all, for the common good; wherefore it is his business to award retribution for such things as are done well or ill in the community. *(ST I-II 21,3-4)

To even try and say the State determines the correct course of action independent of society is absurd because the State consists of individuals.

I feel like we’re talking about different things. Of course individuals create the laws of a state. The point I have been making is that it is the state alone, through its justice system, that has both the right and the duty to punish crimes.

God does not say what is the best action to achieve common good.

That is certainly true to the degree that we may judge about whether a particular case is an exception to the rule, but God was pretty specific in what said the rule was to be.

The Retribution aspect merely establishes the upper limit of punishment.

Retribution is an obligation of justice. Justice is served if a punishment is neither too severe nor too lenient for the particular conditions. If it is true that retribution establishes an upper limit it is equally true that it sets a lower limit as well.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. (ST II-II 108 2 ad 3)

To state in your own language, retribution aspect in a case of murder simply makes it clear that the State may rightfully and justly decide to execute the offender.

BUT, there is no need to carry it out. In fact, nowhere does the Church “definitively teach” (aka doctrine) say that if one were to let a person who has killed another have an alternate punishment, it is unacceptable.

It is surely true that she has never taught that all murderers without exception are to be executed but it is equally true she has held that execution should be the rule and not the exception. The church no more teaches that all murderers are to be executed without exception than she teaches there are no exceptions to attending mass on Sunday. There may be exceptions in both cases but the rules are plainly given.

Ender

 

[Jaberwocky]

[/INDENT]It is surely true that she has never taught that all murderers without exception are to be executed but it is equally true she has held that execution should be the rule and not the exception. The church no more teaches that all murderers are to be executed without exception than she teaches there are no exceptions to attending mass on Sunday. There may be exceptions in both cases but the rules are plainly given.

Hmmmm.

Unlike going to Church on Sunday, Capital Punishment is not normative or mandatory to only be exempted rarely, right? There is a good case that can be made that Capital Punishment is merely a possible punishment for crimes involving loss of another person’s life.

Therefore it is possible that it can be ruled out almost in every case without a sin being committed by the State (in terms of Duty). In other words, have Capital Punishment as the exception today. There is no “Duty” for the State unless it’s citizens invoke its authority to act, right?

So is it not safe to say that today, there is no reason why a State can just decide it will not enforce Capital Punishment given that the citizens of the State agree that its not needed?

What I am saying here is not that Capital Punishment is a sin. I am saying that Capital Punishment will always remain a possible punishment on that list and a society may justly decide to exercise that punishment (as it has done in the past). But it is possible for a society to still be just and decide to not exercise it given that they understand what they are doing.

 

[Evan]

Hmmmm.

Unlike going to Church on Sunday, Capital Punishment is not normative or mandatory to only be exempted rarely, right? There is a good case that can be made that Capital Punishment is merely a possible punishment for crimes involving loss of another person’s life.

Therefore it is possible that it can be ruled out almost in every case without a sin being committed by the State (in terms of Duty). In other words, have Capital Punishment as the exception today. There is no “Duty” for the State unless it’s citizens invoke its authority to act, right?

So is it not safe to say that today, there is no reason why a State can just decide it will not enforce Capital Punishment given that the citizens of the State agree that its not needed?

What I am saying here is not that Capital Punishment is a sin. I am saying that Capital Punishment will always remain a possible punishment on that list and a society may justly decide to exercise that punishment (as it has done in the past). But it is possible for a society to still be just and decide to not exercise it given that they understand what they are doing.

By George, I think you’ve got it. That is very much my understanding. I support the idea that the State has the right to invoke Capital Punishment, but I don’t believe in our society that it should. BECAUSE when people call for it, it is usually out of outrage and anger rather than justice.

 

[Ender]

Unlike going to Church on Sunday, Capital Punishment is not normative or mandatory to only be exempted rarely, right?

It is surely not normative now but what is the argument that it should not be?

There is a good case that can be made that Capital Punishment is merely a possible punishment for crimes involving loss of another person’s life.

I clearly disagree with this and I will point out that you have phrased your statement in such a way as to mask the real discussion. We are not talking about the mere loss of life but about the intentional taking of an innocent life. The real question is: what is the proper punishment for first degree murder?

So is it not safe to say that today, there is no reason why a State can just decide it will not enforce Capital Punishment given that the citizens of the State agree that its not needed?

It depends on how we justify capital punishment. It may always be bypassed if we believe its use will be harmful to society but absent those conditions how should we determine whether or not to apply it? Wouldn’t we all agree that a punishment must be just and that a just punishment is one which is of a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime? This at least is what the church teaches, which must mean that the degree of punishment is set by the nature of the crime and not by the opinions of society. If it is true that the citizens of a state are justified in eschewing capital punishment it must be because some other just punishment is available, and not simply because they oppose the death penalty. Justice must be served regardless of the opinions of society.

But it is possible for a society to still be just and decide to not exercise it given that they understand what they are doing.

Just so we’re clear: what we are discussing is the proper punishment for the unrepentant, cold blooded killer whose guilt is known without any doubt. I want to discuss only the case where there are no practical concerns about his guilt or responsibility for his crime. Can a just society judge that such a person does not deserve the ultimate punishment?

Ender

 

[Jaberwocky]

It is surely not normative now but what is the argument that it should not be?
I clearly disagree with this and I will point out that you have phrased your statement in such a way as to mask the real discussion. We are not talking about the mere loss of life but about the intentional taking of an innocent life. The real question is: what is the proper punishment for first degree murder?
It depends on how we justify capital punishment. It may always be bypassed if we believe its use will be harmful to society but absent those conditions how should we determine whether or not to apply it? Wouldn’t we all agree that a punishment must be just and that a just punishment is one which is of a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime? This at least is what the church teaches, which must mean that the degree of punishment is set by the nature of the crime and not by the opinions of society. If it is true that the citizens of a state are justified in eschewing capital punishment it must be because some other just punishment is available, and not simply because they oppose the death penalty. Justice must be served regardless of the opinions of society.
Just so we’re clear: what we are discussing is the proper punishment for the unrepentant, cold blooded killer whose guilt is known without any doubt. I want to discuss only the case where there are no practical concerns about his guilt or responsibility for his crime. Can a just society judge that such a person does not deserve the ultimate punishment?

When you say that the proper punishment for murder is Capital Punishment, are you saying that for one to inflict anything less is a sin / unacceptable etc?

Or do you imply by “proper” that a person who does commit murder can be inflicted with a punishment that could even be to the degree of Capital Punishment.

Because if you mean the first, I think you are already putting yourself in conflict with the Church. The Church sees Capital Punishment as a legitimate punishment and not a necessary one.

This is also where your “Church on Sunday” analogy fails with comparison to Capital Punishment. The Church sees “Church on Sunday” as a necessary act while Capital Punishment is not. It is merely a legitimate punishment.

Now if you do want to quote something to prove contrary, I would like to ask you to quote something that is from an official teaching of the Church. Otherwise this argument will never end and we shouldn’t frankly care about what every unofficial teaching of the Church had to say.

 

[Ender]

When you say that the proper punishment for murder is Capital Punishment, are you saying that for one to inflict anything less is a sin / unacceptable etc?

No, I am not saying it is a sin but I do think it is a mistake and a misunderstanding of what the church teaches. Again, I qualify that statement to specifically exclude any and all practical objections (concerns about guilt, prejudice, mental competence, society’s perceptions, etc).

Or do you imply by “proper” that a person who does commit murder can be inflicted with a punishment that could even be to the degree of Capital Punishment.

I believe that there are people who deserve capital punishment and that we fail our obligation to justice to sentence them otherwise. I also do not believe there is any other punishment of comparable severity that will serve in its place.

This is also where your “Church on Sunday” analogy fails with comparison to Capital Punishment. The Church sees “Church on Sunday” as a necessary act while Capital Punishment is not. It is merely a legitimate punishment.

It was an analogy to make a different point. LongingSoul claimed that something subject to prudential judgment was not fundamental. I pointed out that attending mass is both subject to prudential judgment and fundamental.

The Church sees Capital Punishment as a legitimate punishment and not a necessary one. … Now if you do want to quote something to prove contrary, I would like to ask you to quote something that is from an official teaching of the Church. Otherwise this argument will never end and we shouldn’t frankly care about what every unofficial teaching of the Church had to say.

By saying we shouldn’t care about the unofficial teachings of the church you are dismissing everything written by the Doctors and Fathers of the church. Don’t you think that goes a bit too far, especially as it is the church herself who, by declaring someone a Doctor of the Church, does so specifically in recognition of their contributions to theology or doctrine?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This is also where your “Church on Sunday” analogy fails with comparison to Capital Punishment. The Church sees “Church on Sunday” as a necessary act while Capital Punishment is not. It is merely a legitimate punishment.

Your analogy fails there also because we are not dealing with a case specific situation. Missing Mass one Sunday because you are sick is not the same as saying Mass needs to be abolished because it is ‘cruel and unnecessary’. The nature of capital punishment is entirely different to the nature of the Mass.

By saying we shouldn’t care about the unofficial teachings of the church you are dismissing everything written by the Doctors and Fathers of the church. Don’t you think that goes a bit too far, especially as it is the church herself who, by declaring someone a Doctor of the Church, does so specifically in recognition of their contributions to theology or doctrine?

When Pope Benedict described the Church position on capital punishment as a ‘development of doctrine’, we don’t get to dismiss that either.

 

[Ender]

Your analogy fails there also because we are not dealing with a case specific situation. Missing Mass one Sunday because you are sick is not the same as saying Mass needs to be abolished because it is ‘cruel and unnecessary’. The nature of capital punishment is entirely different to the nature of the Mass.

The example is sufficient to refute the claim that if something involves a prudential judgment it cannot be fundamental.

When Pope Benedict described the Church position on capital punishment as a ‘development of doctrine’, we don’t get to dismiss that either.

What are you citing here? Do you have a reference to his comment? Without having seen exactly what he said I suspect you are claiming more than he did. I’m sure he knows what was said at the First Vatican Council.*“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” *
As well as this interpretation by Leo XIII in 1899:*The Vatican Council says concerning this point: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” *
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The example is sufficient to refute the claim that if something involves a prudential judgment it cannot be fundamental.

I believe the slightest glance over your analogy could not miss the failure of it.

What are you citing here? Do you have a reference to his comment? Without having seen exactly what he said I suspect you are claiming more than he did. I’m sure he knows what was said at the First Vatican Council.*“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard* the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.”
As well as this interpretation by Leo XIII in 1899:*The Vatican Council says concerning this point: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” *
Ender

*"Reason sees immediately certain things, which are per se nota, in which are contained implicitly certain other things which it is not possible to understand save through the work of reason, by explaining those things which are contained implicitly in the principles.” *Thomas Aquinas.

"I have spoken and have still to speak of the action of logic, implicit and explicit, as a safeguard, and thereby a note, of legitimate developments of doctrine: but I am regarding it here as that continuous tradition and habit in the Church of a scientific analysis of all revealed truth, which is an ecclesiastical principle rather than a note of any kind, as not merely bearing upon the process of development, but applying to all religious teaching equally, and which is almost unknown beyond the pale of Christendom. Reason, thus considered, is subservient to faith, as handling, examining, explaining, recording, cataloguing, defending, the truths which faith, not reason, has gained for us, as providing an intellectual expression of supernatural facts, eliciting what is implicit, comparing, measuring, connecting each with each, and forming one and all into a theological system. " Bl. John Henry Newman

“*You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as represented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear. Such a development, occurring within society and leading to the foregoing of this type of punishment, is something good and ought to be hoped for.” * - Card. Joseph Ratzinger (BXVI)(First Things, October 1995, pp. 83-84; emphasis added).

These holy fellows go on a lot about ‘reason’ and granted it is a good word, but to my mind it is all ‘common sense’. One just has to contemplate on nature with a hot brew to figure much of this out. I can think of a number of calamitous situations for mankind where the penal solution of a death sentence would prove the only way. I would also not hesitate to draw on the divine justification for its use in the face of radical pacificism that would inevitably have objections in the circumstances. But this is not what’s happening here. That is not the dichotomy. What we have here is the American ultra conservative fundamentalists, versus the Church in Rome and the rest of the Christian world.

 

[Ender]

What we have here is the American ultra conservative fundamentalists, versus the Church in Rome and the rest of the Christian world.

This is a dismissive mischaracterization of me, about whom you know nothing at all (including whether I am American, which you have assumed). It is also an evasion of the arguments I have made which include citations from the greatest teachers in the church over a period of nearly 2000 years. Personal insults are not arguments and you would not have to resort to them if you had something better at your disposal.

Regarding BXVI’s comment - "Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear." - let’s at least recognize that “may be permitted to disappear” means that it would not be immoral not to use capital punishment, not that its continued use is immoral. As I have said before, there may be prudential arguments against its use but there are no moral ones.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This is a dismissive mischaracterization of me, about whom you know nothing at all (including whether I am American, which you have assumed). It is also an evasion of the arguments I have made which include citations from the greatest teachers in the church over a period of nearly 2000 years. Personal insults are not arguments and you would not have to resort to them if you had something better at your disposal.

Regarding BXVI’s comment - "Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear." - let’s at least recognize that “may be permitted to disappear” means that it would not be immoral not to use capital punishment, not that its continued use is immoral. As I have said before, there may be prudential arguments against its use but there are no moral ones.

Ender

I am feeling particularly dismissive at the moment and I’m sorry. I know that there is nothing more that I can contribute. I’ve said everything I have left in me to say in what I consider a defense of the movement of the Holy Spirit in the Christian mind about the use of the death penalty in our society. The characterisation was not particularly of you, but the spectre that represents a position that is quite hostile to the Church position.

I know you are simply wrong in thinking that the death penalty is a penal ‘institution’. It is and always has been a penal ‘tool’. Every use of it is a prudential use and not an obligation. To behold it as an obligation, slights all the countries that have abolished it as no longer serving a legitimate purpose.

Anyway, I (again) am going to bow out of this thread since I think jaberwocky has made some of the best points yet in clarifying what I basically believe.

 

[LongingSoul]

I believe the slightest glance over your analogy could not miss the failure of it.

The Mass is fundamental to the Church’s earthly mission and is not subject to prudential judgements by the Church or society. To make your analogy more relevant… take the Latin Mass. Once the universal norm, it has become unnecessary in meeting the obligation to attend Sunday Mass and we are permitted to celebrate the Mass in the vernacular. The Latin Mass was subject to the prudential judgement of the Church… not Mass per se. (There are some ultra traditionalists who still mistakenly believe that the Latin Mass is a fundamental obligation.)

In this same way the punishment of crime is fundamental to civil society’s duty to justice in this earthly life. Capital punishment , once the vanguard of all punishments has become unnecessary in effecting justice and we are permitted to find bloodless forms of punishment in meeting the obligations of justice. Capital punishment served a purpose in justice like the Latin Mass served a purpose in communion, but time has revealed that they are not fundamental to justice and communion. They are judicial and ceremonial precepts that serve the doctrine… not moral precepts that can never change.

 

[Jaberwocky]

No, I am not saying it is a sin but I do think it is a mistake and a misunderstanding of what the church teaches. Again, I qualify that statement to specifically exclude any and all practical objections (concerns about guilt, prejudice, mental competence, society’s perceptions, etc).

But if there is an obligation, how do the things you listed mitigate it? What does social perception have to do with the obligation? (The rest you mentioned are obviously things already considered in any court of law)

I believe that there are people who deserve capital punishment and that we fail our obligation to justice to sentence them otherwise. I also do not believe there is any other punishment of comparable severity that will serve in its place.

Can you elaborate who “deserves” Capital Punishment in the “obligatory” sense from the State? How do you gain more insight to move from the simple “this is a possible punishment for this crime” to “we must do this!!!”?

It was an analogy to make a different point. LongingSoul claimed that something subject to prudential judgment was not fundamental. I pointed out that attending mass is both subject to prudential judgment and fundamental.

Attending mass is not the same as Capital Punishment. That is why the Pope or the Bishops cannot rally together asking for the removal of mass worldwide but they can certainly do so against Capital Punishment.

On another note, it is rather odd that you would compare the mass with Capital Punishment.

By saying we shouldn’t care about the unofficial teachings of the church you are dismissing everything written by the Doctors and Fathers of the church. Don’t you think that goes a bit too far, especially as it is the church herself who, by declaring someone a Doctor of the Church, does so specifically in recognition of their contributions to theology or doctrine?

No, it is not going too far. The Doctors are only accurate in so far as they reflect the teachings of the Church. Their theological and philosophical extrapolations can contain errors. Can you imagine what would happen if many Catholic opposed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception on the basis that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote to the contrary?

If there are no pronouncements of the ordinary magesterium or Pope on the matter that support your thesis, then it is more likely that you are in error to think the theological and philosophical extrapolations as true.

That being said, it appears to me that the problem here is that you seem to think of the world in terms of two camps: “Pro-Capital Punishment” and those who are not.

The truth lies somewhere else:- Capital Punishment is a valid form of punishment. But society can deem that they do not want to exercise that punishment through its State and pursue a more remedial punishment at a given time. That position is neither “Pro” or “Against” Capital Punishment and that is the position the Church has taken (which honestly makes sense to me).

Essentially you are saying the same thing by using the phrase “Prudential judgement” (while your analogy with mass is a stretch). Capital Punishment is PERMITTED. But not every permitted action should be carried out. Thus by weighing prudence, one can reasonably decide against carrying it out (even all the time).

So let me put it this way. Is it intrinsically wrong to go in the nude? No, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. But prudence (weighing the concern for not leading others to sin and not putting ourselves out there to be used as objects for pleasure) requires that we cover our selves up.

In the same way, today, our respect for life should make us want to pursue alternate punishments (given that we can safely and effectively pursue remedial punishments) instead of Capital Punishment out of prudence. That has nothing to do with social perception though but an objective underlying fact.

 

[Ender]

Capital punishment , once the vanguard of all punishments has become unnecessary in effecting justice and we are permitted to find bloodless forms of punishment in meeting the obligations of justice.

If we speak of justice in the context of the overall society then clearly, if capital punishment negatively affects that society, it should not be used. If we speak of it more narrowly in terms solely of the punishment appropriate to the crime then it is not at all clear that the obligation of justice can be satisfied with a lesser punishment.

Capital punishment served a purpose in justice…

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.”

… but time has revealed that they are not fundamental to justice and communion. They are judicial and ceremonial precepts that serve the doctrine… not moral precepts that can never change.

If capital punishment is not a changeless moral precept then why does 2260, after citing Gn 9:6 and explaining its meaning, say “This teaching is necessary for all time?” There is also this from Pius XII*‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained retributive as well as medicinal penalties’ … ‘this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time, and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them. The reason is that the words of the sources and of the living teaching power do not refer to the specific content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action (cf. particularly Romans 13:4), but rather to the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality. This, in turn, is as little determined by the conditions of time and culture as the nature of man and the human society decreed by nature itself’.*
Ender*
*

 

[Ender]

But if there is an obligation, how do the things you listed mitigate it? What does social perception have to do with the obligation?

• But if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed, the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice.* (Aquinas)

Can you elaborate who “deserves” Capital Punishment in the “obligatory” sense from the State? How do you gain more insight to move from the simple “this is a possible punishment for this crime” to “we must do this!!!”?

*Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. *(Gn 9:6)

*So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.1 And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. *1 Gn 9:5:6 (Catechism of Trent)

On another note, it is rather odd that you would compare the mass with Capital Punishment.

I didn’t compare them and I don’t understand why my point seems so incomprehensible. It was asserted that something that involved prudential judgment could not be fundamental to the faith and I used the mass as an example of something that was fundamental yet involved prudential judgment. I could as readily have used the command to “feed the hungry” or “heal the sick”. These too are fundamental precepts of our faith which are nonetheless totally prudential.

The Doctors are only accurate in so far as they reflect the teachings of the Church.

The teachings of the Doctors and Fathers on this subject are identical with the teaching of the church. They are one and the same. As I pointed out before:*Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment *(Cardinal Dulles)

If there are no pronouncements of the ordinary magesterium or Pope on the matter that support your thesis, then it is more likely that you are in error to think the theological and philosophical extrapolations as true.

• Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? *(Innocent I)
  This is the doctrine of the church expressed in one form or another but contained in every catechism (at least half a dozen) prior to the one released in 1997:The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.

That being said, it appears to me that the problem here is that you seem to think of the world in terms of two camps: “Pro-Capital Punishment” and those who are not.

Mostly what I do is respond to arguments presented as moral objections to capital punishment. I recognize prudential objections but not moral ones.

Capital Punishment is a valid form of punishment. But society can deem that they do not want to exercise that punishment through its State and pursue a more remedial punishment at a given time.

Society can deem that abortions are justifiable. That society deems something does not necessarily make it acceptable. If society believes executions are harmful then their objection may be justified but if they ban it because they believe it is unjust then I think they have erred and their objection is not justifiable.

In the same way, today, our respect for life should make us want to pursue alternate punishments (given that we can safely and effectively pursue remedial punishments) instead of Capital Punishment out of prudence.

Why? Did the church not adequately respect life for all those centuries when she aggressively defended the idea that states have the right to employ capital punishment? Does the church’s current opposition to the use of capital punishment mean that she has just now come to fully respect life?

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

two of these capital punishment threads going on at once hmmmmmm.

I hope you take the time to respond in the other thread ender even though I may start discussing here.

 

[Ender]

two of these capital punishment threads going on at once hmmmmmm.

I hope you take the time to respond in the other thread ender even though I may start discussing here.

Oh, right … I owe you a response over there.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

Regarding BXVI’s comment - "Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear." - let’s at least recognize that “may be permitted to disappear” means that it would not be immoral not to use capital punishment, not that its continued use is immoral. As I have said before, there may be prudential arguments against its use but there are no moral ones.

Ender

I was under the impression that you thought the state had a moral obligation to use the death penalty, but now you say it’s not immoral not to use capital punishment? Not trying to get myself tangled into a lengthy conversation, just trying to understand your thoughts.

 

[Ender]

I was under the impression that you thought the state had a moral obligation to use the death penalty, but now you say it’s not immoral not to use capital punishment? Not trying to get myself tangled into a lengthy conversation, just trying to understand your thoughts.

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

 

[CrossofChrist]

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

Thank you.