Because you need to pretend that I am Texas and you better pack your lunch because it’s going to be a long day if you think your going to convince me to get rid of the death penalty without a solution other than because your CCC says so. I’m not being arbitrary or rude, I’m being realistic.The solution is incarceration, and in the case of especially dangerous offenders, isolation. How am I supposed to reason with you when you have arbitrarily ruled out the best solution for complying with the Catechism?
Punishment for multiple murders is not a consideration? Maybe it is time for a Bible quiz.You don’t have to ask me, thankfully, since the Catechism is so very clear on the matter. Punishment is not even a consideration, it is merely a question of whether an alternative besides death is available in order to defend society. This is always the case because of incarceration and solitary confinement. It is very simple, and it is unfortunate to see Catholics working so hard to justify something so contrary to human dignity as the gratuitous use of capital punishment.
Nice try, but this still is begging the question, only in syllogistic form. The reason is that your major premise is unproven (this is something the Catholic Church does not teach), as is your minor (“always”?).Not at all. (A) The Catechism has defined what the gratuitous use of the death penalty is, it is the use of the death penalty whenever there is an alternative means. ( B)Otherwise it is not permissible, and is a murder no different than abortion or any other murder.
So the argument is, symbolically:
If A then B
A
Therefore B
Or something along the lines of this:
If capital punishment is gratuitous then it is murder.
Capital punishment is always gratuitous in modern society.
Therefore capital punishment is murder.
So you are mistaking a logically sound argument (a simple syllogism, really) for begging the question.
Well, not exactly. The Catechical requirements hold no matter the place or time, it depends entirely on what options are available.I ask because the Catechism seems to contemplate a situation. Also, I am getting a sense (though, please correct me!) that you may hold that there never was a legitimate use of the death penalty after, say, the Nativity?
I can only think of very extreme and unlikely situations where the death penalty might be allowable. It would take a “Mad Max” sort of situation to make death the only possible way to protect society from a dangerous criminal.Additionally, since there at least seems to be a legitimate use, I’m wondering what that is. You’ve spoken before of the legitimate use of killing. It’s useful to know how that works. Since there seems to be some (mysterious?) legitimate use of the death penalty, I would think that we would at least be able to discuss how it would be so, and under what real conditions and how it would be implemented. If for no other reason this would show how rare it is and give us a clue of how all the non-legitimate uses fall short and where.
VC
Read your Catechism. The gratuitous use of capital punishment is murder. The discussion has since moved on.Nice try, but this still is begging the question, only in syllogistic form. The reason is that your major premise is unproven (this is something the Catholic Church does not teach), as is your minor (“always”?).
I would be concerned if I perceived a contradiction that perhaps I was misunderstanding one or the other. I think that is what is happening here. The two do not contradict each other in doctrine. Besides, the Holy Father hasn’t ordered me, or anyone here, to do anything. To disobey, there must be an order given.No, but some have suggested that following the opinions of the Holy Father supercede our obedience to the CCC.
Capital punishment is only an intrinsic evil when it is gratuitous. Punishment, vengeance, deterrence, or any other consideration cannot justify capital punishment. Only when capital punishment is the only method possible to protect society can it be justified.If capital punishment was not intrinsic evil in 30 AD, it cannot be intrinsic evil today. If it was true that serious crimes deserved serious punishment, even death, in 30 AD, it is still true today.
Yes, I agree with the CCC. I do* not* agree that we can safely incarcerate the rare few that will continue to pose the greatest danger. My only disparent opinion with the Holy Father is in the area of modern penology. This is no more disobedience that disagreeing with him on any other science. I have attempted for years to determine what this opinion is based (both his and others who hold this view) on to no avail. I suspect that it is somewhat of an urban myth, that if repeated often enough will gain ground. Yet we conitune to have incidents that prove this false.Just to clarify, pnewton, do you disagree with the CCC on this issue? Because if you do, that position makes sense to me. (It’s not one that I hold, but it makes sense.) On the other hand, I’m having trouble seeing how a position accepting of the death penalty in a civilized country today is consistent with the CCC.
Thanks for your response. Not to be difficult, but you must disagree with the CCC at least partly, right? I mean, insofar as the CCC says that cases in which the death penalty is necessary are “very rare, if not practically nonexistent”?Yes, I agree with the CCC. I do* not* agree that we can safely incarcerate the rare few that will continue to pose the greatest danger. My only disparent opinion with the Holy Father is in the area of modern penology. This is no more disobedience that disagreeing with him on any other science. I have attempted for years to determine what this opinion is based (both his and others who hold this view) on to no avail. I suspect that it is somewhat of an urban myth, that if repeated often enough will gain ground. Yet we conitune to have incidents that prove this false.
No, I agree the circumstances are rare. The phrase “if not” leads for one to believe either possibility.Thanks for your response. Not to be difficult, but you must disagree with the CCC at least partly, right? I mean, insofar as the CCC says that cases in which the death penalty is necessary are “very rare, if not practically nonexistent”?
Ok, thanks.I can only think of very extreme and unlikely situations where the death penalty might be allowable. It would take a “Mad Max” sort of situation to make death the only possible way to protect society from a dangerous criminal.
The legitimate use of the death penalty is fundamentally no different than any other legitimate killing. Just like killing somebody in self defense when they present a threat. If you kill somebody who presents no threat you can’t say it is self defense. If you have so other way to neutralize the threat besides killing, you can’t use self defense to justify the killing, it is simply murder.
You’re right, I did mean Road Warrior, thank you for the correction.Ok, thanks.
So, would you say there never has been a case of legitimate capital punishment that you know of?
And, since you have something in mind in a “Mad Max” scenario (or perhaps you mean “Road Warrior” since Mad Max wasn’t quite post-apocalyptic yet) could you please describe how it would work? Can you show us how the death penalty could be legitimate? (In particulars: the crime, the danger posed by the individual, why other options aren’t available or practicable, and finally the timing of the execution?)
Thanks,
VC
Thanks,So, would you say there never has been a case of legitimate capital punishment that you know of?
I have, Catechism says no such thing. This conclusion is your opinion with no support from either the current Catechism or past teachings. The current Catechism limits the use of capital punishment to certain cases, but nowhere declares it murder even if used outside those cases. This is putting words in the Catechism’s mouth and is again, a flawed premise.Read your Catechism. The gratuitous use of capital punishment is murder. The discussion has since moved on.
Yes, I would say that. I am not aware of any specific case recorded in scripture.Also, did you have a response to:
Thanks,
VC
More wrong definitions. An intrinsic evil is intrinsic in and of itself, not subject to external factors (which would make it extrinsic). An intrinsic evil “if” something else is true is a contradiction in terms.Capital punishment is only an intrinsic evil when it is gratuitous.
is actually a very valid and in fact the primary purpose of capital punishment, or any penalty for that matter. This is the Church’s age-old teaching.Punishment,
Vengeance is prohibited by the moral law; which is why the offended victim cannot take the aggressor’s life in his hands. Victims must defer to the State, to whom God has given the power to take life. This is Biblical and is supported the Church’s moral teachings.vengeance, deterrence,
Not even this is the primary purpose of capital punishment, but then is a bonus if it does succeed. Here I can depart from the Catechism because it is not teaching a moral principle, but is a prudential judgment on when the moral use of capital punishment can be applied.or any other consideration cannot justify capital punishment. Only when capital punishment is the only method possible to protect society can it be justified.
But, not just in scripture, right? You hold that there never has been a case of legitimate use of the death penalty, that you are aware, and probably has never been a a case of legitimate use period?Yes, I would say that. I am not aware of any specific case recorded in scripture.
I would say that there probably has been, the world is a big place and history goes back a long time. But nothing specific that I can think of, no.But, not just in scripture, right? You hold that there never has been a case of legitimate use of the death penalty, that you are aware, and probably has never been a a case of legitimate use period?
VC