Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[stanczyk]

So, you believe its evil is conditionally intrinsic?

No, as you can see from my explanation above. You can say the same thing about murder. Murder is killing a person under certain conditions, is it not? These conditions are what make murder morally distinct from killing in self-defense. The same action (say, shooting a person) under one set of conditions is murder, or another set of condition is self defense. As we see in the Catechism, murder is an intrinsic evil. Obvious killing under certain conditions (i.e. murder, gratuitous capital punishment) is intrinsically evil, and killing under other conditions (self defense, or capital punishment when there is no alternative means to protect society) is not an intrinsic evil.

So what you wryly consider to be “conditionally intrinsic” is equally applicable to murder (which is specifically enumerated in the Catechism as an intrinsic evil), as it is to gratuitous capital punishment. This is a weird way of putting it, and is the result of a definitional confusion rather than a contradiction within Church teaching.

 

[stanczyk]

stanczyk,

Perhaps it might be helpful to inquire how familiar you are with the terminology that is being discussed. Is it possible that you’ve come to it from a different tradition? Have you had training or formal study in this area? There’s a chance that folks might be talking past each other because of different educational backgrounds.

VC

Hi VC

I’m approaching this from a strictly Catholic point of view, and my philosophy tradition is strictly Thomistic. In that respect, perhaps you are correct, I cannot be sure how Scott or the others are approaching the terminology, and perhaps they have adopted so extra-ecclesiastical approach to the issue.

That being said, I’m not really concerned about the non-Catholic viewpoint on this issue. The Catechism, and Aquinas (from whom we get the notion of intrinsic evil), are both quite clear on the subject.

Since you ask, my own formal training is in Latin, Greek and philosophy; but I don’t think that a person’s training or lack thereof is important. The arguments must stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of the training of the person in question.

 

[rlg94086]

No, as you can see from my explanation above. You can say the same thing about murder. Murder is killing a person under certain conditions, is it not? These conditions are what make murder morally distinct from killing in self-defense. The same action (say, shooting a person) under one set of conditions is murder, or another set of condition is self defense. As we see in the Catechism, murder is an intrinsic evil. Obvious killing under certain conditions (i.e. murder, gratuitous capital punishment) is intrinsically evil, and killing under other conditions (self defense, or capital punishment when there is no alternative means to protect society) is not an intrinsic evil.

So what you wryly consider to be “conditionally intrinsic” is equally applicable to murder (which is specifically enumerated in the Catechism as an intrinsic evil), as it is to gratuitous capital punishment. This is a weird way of putting it, and is the result of a definitional confusion rather than a contradiction within Church teaching.

It’s certainly “definitional confusion” on your part. Here is a link to a good discussion on “intrinsic evil.” Maybe it will help you out:
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11166

1. “Intrinsically evil” does not mean “gravely evil.”

Reflecting Aquinas’s action theory, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that for an act to be morally good, it needs to be good in every respect. For an act to be morally wrong, however, any single defect will suffice. It can be performed for the wrong motive; if I give alms solely in order to earn fame, then my act is morally wrong. It can be performed under the wrong circumstances; it is entirely good for a newly wedded couple to consummate their union, but not in the church vestibule immediately following the ceremony. Most significantly for our discussion, the immediate “object” of the acting agent’s will can be disordered or defective. Because an act takes its identity primarily from its object, Catholic moralists say that an act with a defective or disordered object is “intrinsically” evil.

Intrinsically evil acts are acts that are wrong by reason of their object, not by reason of their motive or their circumstance. The Splendor of Truth (No. 80) states that they are “‘incapable of being ordered’ to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image.” Consequently, they can never be morally good, no matter what the intended outcomes. What are some examples? It is always wrong to act with the intention of killing an innocent human being, no matter what the context or larger motivation. This prohibition rules out not merely contract killing but also intentional killing of the dying in order to end their suffering, intentional killing of unborn children and saturation bombing of cities in wartime.

 

[stanczyk]

It’s certainly “definitional confusion” on your part. Here is a link to a good discussion on “intrinsic evil.” Maybe it will help you out:
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11166

I’m afraid I must correct you again. This quote you have provided is a good starting point to explain your error.

1. “Intrinsically evil” does not mean “gravely evil.”

Reflecting Aquinas’s action theory, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that for an act to be morally good, it needs to be good in every respect. For an act to be morally wrong, however, any single defect will suffice. It can be performed for the wrong motive; if I give alms solely in order to earn fame, then my act is morally wrong. It can be performed under the wrong circumstances; it is entirely good for a newly wedded couple to consummate their union, but not in the church vestibule immediately following the ceremony. Most significantly for our discussion, the immediate “object” of the acting agent’s will can be disordered or defective. Because an act takes its identity primarily from its object, Catholic moralists say that an act with a defective or disordered object is “intrinsically” evil.

This is not incorrect. Now, pay attention to this next part.

Intrinsically evil acts are acts that are wrong by reason of their object, not by reason of their motive or their circumstance.

Exactly right, and key to this entire discussion. Why is murder an intrinsic evil, while killing in self defense is not? Murder is wrong because of the object of the action, the taking of a life that presents no direct threat to another. It is not the circumstance that make the act wrong, but the defective object. Conversely, the circumstance will dictate the morality of killing in self defense. The object of killing in self defense is to preserve a life, and so the circumstances dictate the morality, not the object. (Was lethal force necessary? etc.) Murder is an intrinsic evil, and self defense is not, do we not agree to that much at least?

Now, since I assume we do agree that murder is an intrinsic evil, we can look at capital punishment that is gratuitous/necessary as analogous to killing in murder/self defense. Gratuitous capital punishment is capital punishment that is performed when alternatives such as lifetime incarceration are present. The object of gratuitous capital punishment is the taking of a life that presents no direct threat to another (same as murder). And, conversely, necessary capital punishment has the object of taking a life when no alternative is available for the defense of society. Necessary capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil.

But the point is that they are distinct. Capital punishment is, strictly speaking no more an intrinsic evil than killing. But this implies two types of capital punishment, which are distinct. One is gratuitous, one is necessary. Just like there are two types of killing, murder and self-defense. In both dichotomies, the former is an intrinsic evil while the later is not.

The reason for your confusion, if I may speculate, is that the terms gratuitous and necessary capital punishment are being conflated. You are just calling both of these capital punishment. I understand the confusion. Earlier in the thread, I was doing it too. But the reason for this conflation is because necessary capital punishment doesn’t even exist any more. As John Paul II observed, the circumstances render necessary capital punishment nonexistant. So when you talk about capital punishment today, you are always talking about the gratuitous variety, which is an intrinsic evil just like murder.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m afraid I must correct you again. This quote you have provided is a good starting point to explain your error.

This is not incorrect. Now, pay attention to this next part.

Exactly right, and key to this entire discussion. Why is murder an intrinsic evil, while killing in self defense is not? Murder is wrong because of the object of the action, the taking of a life that presents no direct threat to another. It is not the circumstance that make the act wrong, but the defective object. Conversely, the circumstance will dictate the morality of killing in self defense. The object of killing in self defense is to preserve a life, and so the circumstances dictate the morality, not the object. (Was lethal force necessary? etc.) Murder is an intrinsic evil, and self defense is not, do we not agree to that much at least?

Now, since I assume we do agree that murder is an intrinsic evil, we can look at capital punishment that is gratuitous/necessary as analogous to killing in murder/self defense. Gratuitous capital punishment is capital punishment that is performed when alternatives such as lifetime incarceration are present. The object of gratuitous capital punishment is the taking of a life that presents no direct threat to another (same as murder). And, conversely, necessary capital punishment has the object of taking a life when no alternative is available for the defense of society. Necessary capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil.

But the point is that they are distinct. Capital punishment is, strictly speaking no more an intrinsic evil than killing. But this implies two types of capital punishment, which are distinct. One is gratuitous, one is necessary. Just like there are two types of killing, murder and self-defense. In both dichotomies, the former is an intrinsic evil while the later is not.

The reason for your confusion, if I may speculate, is that the terms gratuitous and necessary capital punishment are being conflated. You are just calling both of these capital punishment. I understand the confusion. Earlier in the thread, I was doing it too. But the reason for this conflation is because necessary capital punishment doesn’t even exist any more. As John Paul II observed, the circumstances render necessary capital punishment nonexistant. So when you talk about capital punishment today, you are always talking about the gratuitous variety, which is an intrinsic evil just like murder.

I’m sorry, but there is no way you can compare capital punishment to the murder of an innocent person, which is intrinsically evil. Capital punishment is a form of justice taken out on a guilty person. It is morally equivalent to self defense.

I’m opposed to it, but it isn’t an intrinsic evil. Can you find something from the Church declaring it an intrinsic evil? If so, it will change my understanding. Your verbal gymnastics won’t do it for me.

 

[stanczyk]

I’m sorry, but there is no way you can compare capital punishment to the murder of an innocent person, which is intrinsically evil. Capital punishment is a form of justice taken out on a guilty person. It is morally equivalent to self defense.

You are merely repeating yourself. I have already addressed and debunked this argument above. If you have no counter-argument, repeating yourself will not take the place of one.

I’m opposed to it, but it isn’t an intrinsic evil. Can you find something from the Church declaring it an intrinsic evil? If so, it will change my understanding. Your verbal gymnastics won’t do it for me.

What you call “verbal gymnastics” is, in fact, a sound argument. If you cannot provide a counter-argument, it only demonstrates the untenability of your own position.

 

[estesbob]

You are merely repeating yourself. I have already addressed and debunked this argument above. If you have no counter-argument, repeating yourself will not take the place of one.

What you call “verbal gymnastics” is, in fact, a sound argument. If you cannot provide a counter-argument, it only demonstrates the untenability of your own position.

You have offered no argument as to why would accept you opinon over the Teachings of the Church. You have been provided direct quotes from The Pope and an Archbishop clearly refuting what you have said & you have offered nothing but your opinion in return

 

[stanczyk]

You have offered no argument as to why would accept you opinon over the Teachings of the Church. You have been provided direct quotes from The Pope and an Archbishop clearly refuting what you have said & you have offered nothing but your opinion in return

You’ll have to forgive me, but upon re-reading the thread just now I did not see any such quotations that contradict my position. Please provide them and I will be happy to address them.

 

[ringil]

Yes but at the end of the day one can not forget about the retributive goals of the Death Penalty which the Church recognizes. This is why the DP in today’s high tech world is not sinful. The Pope/JP II are asking Catholics to turn away from this Church recognized justification. This has Catholics like Scalia very upset.

Well I guess that’s too bad for Scalia, right?

 

[rlg94086]

You are merely repeating yourself. I have already addressed and debunked this argument above. If you have no counter-argument, repeating yourself will not take the place of one.

You haven’t “debunked” anything. What you are describing may very well be “grave evil,” but the object - e.g. a convicted murderer - is what determines whether the evil is intrinsic.

 

[stanczyk]

You haven’t “debunked” anything. What you are describing may very well be “grave evil,” but the object - e.g. a convicted murderer - is what determines whether the evil is intrinsic.

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. You’re still wrong, but at least you’ve proposed a counter-argument. This is fruitful.

The reason you are wrong is that you seem to have an incomplete understanding of what the “object” of an action is. Similarly, the object of euthanasia (another intrinsic evil), is the “intentional killing of the dying in order to end their suffering.” Take note that the “object” of euthanasia is not “a suffering person.”

Thus, the “object” of capital punishment is not “a convicted murderer.” This is incoherent. The object is, precisely, the “killing of a convicted murderer.” But, even more precisely, there are two types of capital punishment, the gratuitous type, the object of which is “killing a convicted murderer when alternatives are available,” and necessary capital punishment, the object of which is the “killing of a convicted murderer when there is no other alternative that can protect society.”

We both agree that capital punishement per se is not intrinsically evil. Just like we are both in agreement that killing is not intrinsically evil. But where you are wrong is in forgetting the two varieties of capital punishment. Moreover, the only sort of capital punishment available in the modern era is gratuitous capital punishment; an intrinsic evil. We both agree that capital punishment is no more intrinsically evil than killing. Where you are wrong is in ignoring the fact that, just like killing can be murder or self defense, capital punishment can be gratuitous or necessary. As John Paul II said, today, practically speaking, gratuitous capital punishment is the only sort available, or at least necessary capital punishment is exceedingly rare. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it is not incorrect to say that capital punishment is an intrinsic evil today, since the only kind that can happen today is the gratuitous kind. Q.E.D.

 

[rlg94086]

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. You’re still wrong, but at least you’ve proposed a counter-argument. This is fruitful.

The reason you are wrong is that you seem to have an incomplete understanding of what the “object” of an action is. Similarly, the object of euthanasia (another intrinsic evil), is the “intentional killing of the dying in order to end their suffering.” Take note that the “object” of euthanasia is not “a suffering person.”

Thus, the “object” of capital punishment is not “a convicted murderer.” This is incoherent. The object is, precisely, the “killing of a convicted murderer.” But, even more precisely, there are two types of capital punishment, the gratuitous type, the object of which is “killing a convicted murderer when alternatives are available,” and necessary capital punishment, the object of which is the “killing of a convicted murderer when there is no other alternative that can protect society.”

We both agree that capital punishement per se is not intrinsically evil. Just like we are both in agreement that killing is not intrinsically evil. But where you are wrong is in forgetting the two varieties of capital punishment. Moreover, the only sort of capital punishment available in the modern era is gratuitous capital punishment; an intrinsic evil. We both agree that capital punishment is no more intrinsically evil than killing. Where you are wrong is in ignoring the fact that, just like killing can be murder or self defense, capital punishment can be gratuitous or necessary. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it is not incorrect to say that capital punishment is an intrinsic evil today, since the only kind that can happen today is the gratuitous kind. As John Paul II said, today, practically speaking, gratuitous capital punishment is the only sort available, or at least necessary capital punishment is exceedingly rare. Q.E.D.

Cool. Well argued. Now, just give me something from the Church to back up your argument, and we are as good as gold.

 

[stanczyk]

Cool. Well argued. Now, just give me something from the Church to back up your argument, and we are as good as gold.

Only too happy to oblige, my friend.
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. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, 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.” 68

Notes:
68 John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.

Evangelium vitae 56:

Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
Evangelium Vitae 56
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM

CCC 1756:

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[rlg94086]

Only too happy to oblige, my friend.

Still waiting.

 

[stanczyk]

Still waiting.

It’s all there in black and white. What else, exactly, are you waiting on?

 

[rlg94086]

It’s all there in black and white. What else, exactly, are you waiting on?

Something from the pope saying the Church has changed its stance on capital punishment because it is now an intrinsic evil.

Your argument is sound, but my Catechism still states that capital punishment is licit, and I’ve never seen anything definitive claiming it’s not. If it is now an intrinsic evil, it should be stated as such.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip

In advocating the abolishment of the DP, the Pope is declaring that the intrinsic good associated with retribution is not sufficient, in of itself, to warrant the continued implementation of the DP. THis seems to go against Church Tradition which upholds the values of retribution.

It doesn’t seem to, it does.

Nearly 2000 years of Catholic teachings support the death penalty, through tradition and reason, bibilcal and theological reviews.

Since 1995, the teachings have taken a turn, based upon an error in secular foundation, defense of society, which, if analyzed properly, would have found that “defense of society” calls for more executions, not less.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip there is simply no case where the death penalty can serve the interest of justice; the death penalty is violative of natural law and is intrinsically unjust. Any support for the death penalty, even for pragmatic reasons, is at odds with the Church’s reverence of life.

You contradict all Church teachings. Natural law has always found support for the death penalty, as is reviewed so many times in Cathoic teachings.

The Church has never and can never find the death penalty unjust, based upon 2000 years of Cathoic teachings.

The death penalty has a Church foundation in reverence for life:

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. the law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

“An ‘innocent’ person.”

 

[dudleysharp]

When there are alternative means to death in order to defend society, the government must make use of them. Any use of the death penalty when an alternative exists (i.e. lifetime incarceration) is violative to natural law. Since the alternative of lifetime incarceration is always present, the death penalty is therefore always violative of natural law.

Church teaching has alwasy been to the contrary.

Thee is no government “must”, with regard to the Church’s newest teachings.

The Church’s defense of society secular standard is a prudential judgement, which all governments and all good Cathoics may (and should, IMO) disagree with if their thoughtful reflection so finds.

The death penalty is a better defender of society and, therefore, a greater protector of innocents. Therefore, I think the Church will, someday, reject these new teachings, as the Church has never chosen the path of more innocents harmed, until now.

 

[dudleysharp]

There is a moral equivalence of abortion and capital punishment, and to suggest otherwise is to incorrectly enunciate the Church’s teaching. snip
Catholics are required to take the side of life, in all instances. It is not for us to pick and choosesnip
.

Again, the Church teaches just the opposite of what you have said.

The Catholic Church has made it very clear that the death penalty and abortion are very different topics, morally and theologically.

Catholics in good standing can support the death penalty and even an increase in executions, if their own prudential judgement calls for it.

Abortion is always an intrinsic evil.

Some teachings:

1. Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger)

“stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows”: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” (1)

1. Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ

"Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. " “No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.” (2)

1. Fr. John De Celles, “What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do” (3)

"Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is … a grave and clear obligation to oppose them … *t is therefore never licit to … “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.” “In other words: it is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion.”

“Now, some will want to say that these bishops-and I- are crossing the line from Religion into to politics. But it was the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) who started this. The bishops, and I, are not crossing into politics; she, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, regularly cross over into teaching theology and doctrine, And it’s our job to try clean up their mess.”

"Some would say, well Father, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens? Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Catholic politicians who support those “bad Catholics” too?

“Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems.”

(1) “More Concerned with ‘Comfort’ than Christ?”, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: Catholic Online, 7/11/2004 catholic.org/featured/headline.php NOTE: Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and delivered this with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

(2) (3) “The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?” at pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3

(3) “What Ardent Practicing Catholics Do: Correcting Pelosi”, National Review Online, 9/1/2008 6:00AM
article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY1MzAwOTc5MmViMzUyYzM5YmY3OWFkYzdkMzY0YzM=

ALSO:

Cardinals, Bishops and Congressmen Slam Pelosi on Abortion
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082601.html

New York Cardinal - Pelosi Not Worthy of “Providing Leadership in a Civilized Democracy”
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082605.html*