Is the death penalty really inadmissable?

[MarysLurker]

Unfortunately you aren’t understanding my meaning and I don’t know how to explain it better.

No, I understand. You insist on 100% certainty of guilt before a life can be taken. That is not what the Catechism says. It gives self defense and defense of others as examples of cases where killing the offender is, and I quote, a grave duty.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Let’s make it visceral. Say you’re in a mall parking lot walking your 4 year old daughter to the car. She runs off to the other row of cars to play. As you yell and catch up to her, you see a man running at her with a knife drawn. You have a gun. And you have about 3 seconds before he reaches her.

Do you contemplate the human dignity of that man as you wonder about whether he is 100% for sure a killer, or do you blow him away?

And with that thought, I depart to care for my kids…

 

[Motherwit]

That’s the principle of double effect to justify self defense which is a different issue.

In #163 you linked to 2 articles to show that murderers were released and reoffended. Taking the listverse article, only the last 2 cases killed after leaving prison. In the case of the Thai man, Thailand has the death penalty but it wasn’t applied to him. So even with the dp on the books, they weren’t able to predict that this person was going to kill upon release and sentence him to death.

The other case of the Peruvian man, his first conviction was for stealing cars, it was upon his release for that crime that he went on a killing spree. The dp wasn’t the reason that that travesty happened unless you apply the death penalty for stealing cars in the first place.

Countries that abolished the death penalty have not experienced a jump in recidivism that would support the death penalty being justified for that reason. What happens is that the system adapts to separate the worst of the worst and provide “support for prisoners” as the Gospels command.

 

[MarysLurker]

That’s the principle of double effect to justify self defense which is a different issue

What makes you think that capital punishment is not justifiable under the same principle? Do you really think that prosecutors bring capital murder charges because they just feel like killing someone today? St. John Paul II didn’t think so.

Former CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

 

[Ender]

Is it not true that what is helpful to the human person or harmful to the human person (or society) is a matter of moral versus immoral?

No. (Finally, something we disagree on.)

The state has a moral obligation to promote the common good, which concerns human excellence.

The state has a moral obligation to try to promote the common good, but it has no moral obligation to actually succeed. That may sound odd but I think you should appreciate being precise about this. Yes, we have an obligation to try to do the right thing, but wanting to do what is right doesn’t really give us an insight into what exactly we should do, and the morality of our choices is not dependent on how they turn out.

The Church also has such a moral obligation in this regard (common good), which, ultimately, is in human persons attaining eternal life.

The church’s obligation is to tell us what the goal is; it is not to tell us how exactly to achieve it. She sets the objectives and the guidelines, but the choices we make within those boundaries are prudential, practical. They are best guesses. Capital punishment falls into that category. Determining whether something contributes to the common good is a guess; it cannot be a doctrine and there is no moral distinction between believing that it helps, and that it does not.

So, yes, the pope is making a moral judgment here, and based on this judgment, he has concluded that the death penalty, in certain circumstances, is inadmissible.

I think what the pope said was that it is inadmissible. There was no qualification on that comment, so the circumstances would be irrelevant. If it is a moral judgment then it can only be because capital punishment is per se evil. If it based on his belief that it is what is best for the common good then it is prudential…and it is not a moral judgment.

Is it right (moral) to execute this particular person or not? All things considered; can it be justified? If yes, then an execution is moral. If not, then, an execution is immoral.

Unless you are calling an error in judgment an immoral act, then your comment cannot be true. Where is the allowance for making a mistake? What determines whether it is “right” (morally just) to commit an act? It is not the consequences even though all of our decisions as to what is best are based on what we think those consequences will be.

You have said an execution can be justified, but if you think in a particular case it is not and I think it is, is my belief immoral? Does anything change if it is the pope who thinks it is not - does that make the matter a moral question, or is it still the prudential choice it was between us? If a reasoned choice is prudential it is not moral. If we each do what we believe is best have we not fulfilled our moral obligation regardless of which of us is right?

 

[Ender]

And over 2000 years, that determination has changed to suit the particular conditions of the times. At different times it was used for different crimes and that was in relation to the needs of that particular society. That is the demand of justice. The common good.

The decision to apply capital punishment may have changed over the centuries, but the doctrine allowing it has not. Determining what is best for the common good, like applying the death penalty, is a State’s right and responsibility.

Unless you execute every murder conviction then this will continue to be the risk. Is that what you are advocating?

What I am advocating is a more honest discussion about the risks to innocent people. But yes, I would support a more widespread use of that penalty, and would apply it in every case where a prisoner commits murder or commits it a second time.

 

[StephenW]

Certain topics are really quite complicated, and I fully understand that it can be confusing and frustrating at times for everyone involved. This is particularly true, I think, in forums like this which are rather limiting. It’s not as if people are at a coffee shop with some good resources, trying to work through a question together. With that in mind, I think we have reached the limits of useful conversation in this forum.

I want to thank you for the exchange, and for the respectful way that you always respond. It seems difficult, at times, to have discussions, particularly online, without being personally attacked or subjected to sarcasm, name calling and the like. So, truly, I have appreciated your approach.

In this final reply, before I go, I would like to propose something to you. My sole purpose is only to be helpful. If what I have to say is not helpful, then, of course, disregard it.

Your last reply in particular, deals with some of the fundamentals of moral theology. What I believe would be helpful is some in-depth, systematic study or a course or two in this area. If we don’t get the fundamentals right, this affects our reasoning down the line.

I don’t know your background, so I am going to take a “shot in the dark”. There is an undergraduate text that I think is pretty good. It is by Peter Armenio, and is entitled, Our Moral Life in Christ. It may be a bit tedious to work through it on your own, but I believe this could be helpful to you. The other option that I would like to propose is to find a solid Catholic college or university and take one or two moral theology courses online. I understand that Franciscan University is solid and have an online program. There is Christendom College, and Thomas Aquinas College too. There is the St. Augustine Institute, which is in Denver, I believe. It is new, but their faculty looks excellent and they teach online. I know a professor out at Wyoming Catholic College. If that place was not faithful, he certainly would not teach there. Also, I attended the University of St. Thomas for both my BA and MA, and had a good experience there, but I don’t know if they have online courses these days. If they do, I would suggest them too. Where I got my MDiv has online courses that are not too expensive. I know the professor there quite well who teaches moral theology (He was my thesis director). Here is a link to his web site if you want to check his background. https://www.philosophicalcatholic.com/ Anyway, I would highly recommend taking a course online there. The seminary web site is www.bcs.edu. Information for their online study is here https://www.bcs.edu/byzantine-online/ I suppose you could just audit a course, which would cost less. I have never wanted to do that. When taking something for credit, it keeps me disciplined with the reading and the work.

I wish you well in your pursuit of the truth. Pray for me and I will pray for you.

 

[acanonlawyer]

As a canonist, you may be the best person here to explain the difference.

I don’t know if I can explain the difference any better than you did. I can identify other examples, I suppose. Baptism: we know baptism requires proper form, matter, and intention. That seems simple and clear enough.

Nevertheless, there are specifics that could be confusing/disputed. An “essential” change of the form results in an invalid baptism. What’s essential? That can be difficult to answer, such as whether “We baptize” is valid. Well, it’s not, even though I was taught that it is valid and found the reasoning behind what I was taught to be credible. Natural water is required but what does it have to do? It has to “flow.” How much? Just one drop? Where on the body? People say it has to be applied to a “principle part” of the body. What does that mean? Intention: Mormons (for example) use proper form and matter but we have been told that their intention is not sufficient and so their baptisms are not valid.

Dan

 

[Ender]

I want to thank you for the exchange, and for the respectful way that you always respond. It seems difficult, at times, to have discussions, particularly online, without being personally attacked or subjected to sarcasm, name calling and the like. So, truly, I have appreciated your approach.

I am disappointed you have decided to end this discussion; I have enjoyed it for the same reasons as you, and while you have rightly guessed that I have no theological background, I do have a background in logic, and the thing about Catholicism is that it’s all written down, and available to anyone who looks.

As I indicated, our discussion got interesting when we found something to disagree about, and this debate got particularly interesting when this topic came up, as I’ve tried to have it before, but without much success. So this is doubly disappointing. But I understand if you don’t want to continue. Perhaps another time.

 

[StephenW]

I am not against further discussions with you, but it seemed clear to me that where this particular discussion had landed, it would not be productive to do so. The main problem is the forum, which makes it quite cumbersome to deal with the fundamentals of moral theology with which you were dealing. This also increases the possibility of misunderstandings, which, then, requires repeated backtracking to address. This is why I think that continuing on with the discussion, as it was, was not going to be productive.

Now, I certainly appreciate logic. I don’t know, of course, of what your background in logic consists. My son is a mathematician and software engineer. There is certainly the study of logic in that field. I have philosophical background, which includes the study of symbolic logic. And my career, before I was ordained to the priesthood, was a software developer, and then eventually, an IT manager over capital projects, and the project portfolio, for one of the majors in oil and gas. I liked to tell people in the organization I managed that, “Logic is our friend”. I would say this when people were getting frustrated and starting to get emotional over the human element in projects (i.e. politics, self-interests, personal dislike for people, etc.).

So, while I think the main problem is the CA forum itself as a means of discussion, the “logical aspect” plays into this too. One’s internal logical may be just fine, but there is the matter of premises or assumptions, fundamental principles and so on. For example, one’s internal logic may be just fine in reasoning about physics, but if one does not have a solid grasp of the principles and laws of physics, its terminology, language, and so on, then having a CA-forum-style discussion with someone is certain to be problematic. If the forum was different, if one was talking one-on-one in person to someone who has this background (e.g. physicist) or taking a physics class, those forums allow for the opportunity to learn about the principles of physics. Attempting to do this online (CA-like forum), would be, well, unproductive, in my opinion. I think that this is analogous to attempting an online conversation (CA forum) that requires an understanding of the fundamentals of moral theology. The solution to this difficulty? My suggestion is to get an instructional book or take a couple of online courses where you can get live and recorded lectures, class discussion, systematic reading, do research and write a paper or two that a prof can critique.

Finally, my motivation for occasionally visiting the CA forums is twofold. First is to get an idea of what is on the minds of Catholics so that I can speak to these things in my preaching. Second, is to pursue the truth with fellow believers. There is nothing wrong, of course, with wanting to engage in debates, but that is far from my purpose or interests.

Take care, and God bless you.

 

[Ender]

I don’t know, of course, of what your background in logic consists.

I was for two decades a programmer and software developer and I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry. I am very much an If A Then B type of thinker.

If the forum was different, if one was talking one-on-one in person to someone who has this background (e.g. physicist) or taking a physics class, those forums allow for the opportunity to learn about the principles of physics. Attempting to do this online (CA-like forum), would be, well, unproductive, in my opinion. I think that this is analogous to attempting an online conversation (CA forum) that requires an understanding of the fundamentals of moral theology.

The way I look at is my arguments are either valid or not, and if I don’t get something right it ought be be simple to point that out. I have taken some controversial positions that only become more entrenched as I defend them against what - to me - has seemed ineffectual opposition, but if I’m wrong I’d like to know it, and I have no problem with someone pointing it out.

Now, I am familiar with those sections of the catechism, and at a basic level they’re really rather straightforward. There are three fonts that determine the morality of an action: the object, the intent, and the circumstances. The object, capital punishment, is not intrinsically evil, so that’s not disqualifying. My intent is to do what is just. That’s clearly not disqualifying, so that leaves only the circumstances.

The consequences (one aspect of the circumstances) do not change the nature of the act. The intent is based on what the consequences are reasonably expected to be, not what they turn out to be. So again: in choosing the action expected to yield the most positive result, where is the moral issue? Anyone?

 

[EugeneCharles]

Surely, I’ll never agree with death penalty. Everyone has a chance to change and we’re teaching that human lives were special and should be cared. I felt that I’m killing a person when I support death penalty. It would break our Doctrine against abortion if we enable this kind of thing.

 

[MarysLurker]

I felt that I’m killing a person when I support death penalty. It would break our Doctrine against abortion if we enable this kind of thing

It is the killing of an innocent human being that is intrinsically evil. Unborn children are innocent, so killing them is intrinsically evil. On the other hand, capital felons are not innocent. In the US, they are serial killers or else have committed a murder under aggravating circumstances–such as killing a young child, killing for hire, or committing mass murder terror.

Self defense and just war do not break the doctrine on abortion because neither involves the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Neither does capital punishment for the same reason.

Think about the difference between executing Osama bin Laden or an ISIS leader versus executing a serial killer who was part of the leadership of a criminal gang. There really isn’t much difference, it just boils down to what label you put on the criminal organization in question. Even Pope Francis approved of using appropriate force against ISIS.

 

[StephenW]

This will have to be my last reply on the subject as I will only start repeating myself. You may have the last reply, if you like.

I studied moral theology for my BA, for my MA and for my MDiv. The MDiv included 8 graduate hours on the subject. I could not transfer hours from my MA, and I probably could have tested out of some of the MDiv moral theology hours. Nevertheless, I still learned a great deal in those classes. What’s my point? There is far more to all this than the rather scant outline in the Catechism. If that was not true, then, why 8 hours of moral theology in an MDiv program and why the numerous and lengthy books on the same subject? There is a volume in my library entitled, *Christian Moral Principles" by Germain Grisez. It is 1000 pages long. I have others. I am not suggesting that you run out and buy this book. I am only suggesting that there is a lot to this. I am sorry to be a broken record, but the only thing I can suggest is to seriously and systematically study the subject. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

[Motherwit]

I’d also add for Enders study, a deep dive into the virtue of prudence to understand what ‘prudential judgment’ involves. Prudence is a moral virtue and essential for those bodies serving the common good.

 

[Pug]

So again: in choosing the action expected to yield the most positive result, where is the moral issue? Anyone?

The death penalty seems to involve the killing of someone. If one’s intended good can be reasonably achieved without killing, why not carry it out bloodlessly to manifest our belief that the person is valuable and may some day repent, especially since that way the chosen executioner will not need to bear the sorrow of killing someone? This becomes more cogent if society arrives at a point where it can no longer see in the DP a firm upholding of the value of life (of the person the convict murdered).

Note, I don’t think we are always obliged to act so as to intend to effect the “most positive” of all possible results. Not every situation is an opposition of things that can be readily compared. Then one might wish to act so as to do no damage any real good (such as the life of the prisoner) during the execution of your intended plan of action.

 

[EugeneCharles]

Yeah, self-defense and war are not a sin by itself. Somehow I agree that ISIS leaders would cause too much destruction to our world. And yes, the Pope totally disagree with terrorism. there are many innocent people who become victims because of war.

I’m pertaining to something not too grave like stealing. Jesus told us that we should forgive seventy times seven but to make it more precise, Jesus is even against the punishment by death. When an adulteress had been brought up to Him, Jesus didn’t hesitate to forgive. He told the Jews that whoever has no sin can stone that woman to death. Thank you for that info!

 

[Ender]

The death penalty seems to involve the killing of someone. If one’s intended good can be reasonably achieved without killing, why not carry it out bloodlessly to manifest our belief that the person is valuable and may some day repent, especially since that way the chosen executioner will not need to bear the sorrow of killing someone? This becomes more cogent if society arrives at a point where it can no longer see in the DP a firm upholding of the value of life (of the person the convict murdered).

This is a very prudential question, and you and I are free to come up with whatever solution seems best in the circumstances. Again, practical reservations can be quite valid; it is only the moral objections I reject. I don’t think there are any valid ones.

Jesus told us that we should forgive seventy times seven …

This is the obligation of the individual, but the state has a very different obligation: "Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties…" (CCC 2266)

Jesus is even against the punishment by death.

No, he really wasn’t.

No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty. (Cardinal Dulles)

 

[MarysLurker]

Cardinal Dulles

Catholicism & Capital Punishment by Avery Cardinal Dulles | Articles | First Things

 

[Ender]

Yes, that is the article of his I cite most frequently.

 

[EugeneCharles]

This is the obligation of the individual, but the state has a very different obligation: " Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties …" (CCC 2266)

Yup, that was true! We are Christians and it is our obligation to follow Christ and fight for the Truth or love our brothers and sisters as Christ! Thank you very much for saying that!