T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Isn’t there an easier way? As Hitler was head of civil authority of German was his use of Capital Punishment justified by Catholic teaching?
- Status
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
You have made the same presumption here -one which forms the very core of your argument - which Ender, pnewton and I (and estesbob) have been as asking for proof of all along of this claim. There is no indication whatsoever that the Church has formally revoked the authority of the state to avenge crimes in which the criminal has deprived himself of the right o life by his crime 9c.f. Catechism of Trent an A.A.S by Pius XII in post 46). It is clear that JP II wished he had the authority to do so. Yet again switching back to explaining the logical conclusions of your premise if it is true does nothing to prove the premise itself (especially when those conclusions themselves have not actually been challenged).
One is engaging in wishful thinking anywhere one is seeing a “progression” that requires not even questioning a contradiction to the consistent teaching of the Church until <15 years ago.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
TOME,
That was very thoughtful post.
I wonder, however, if you can show where Augustine and Aquinas and subsequent moral theology have appealed to the actual application of self-defense to justify the death penalty? When I say actual I mean self-defense as commonly analyzed in moral theology – in other words, analyzed under the principle of double effect.
The justification for defense of self and defense of another use strict double effect principles, but the justification for the death penalty does not, as far as I am aware.
What do you think?
VC
P
pnewton
Guest
I think it is your last statement that I have the most issue with. If this is the case and since using force means not just deadly force but all force, I think you prove too much. Namely, that if the act must be eminent, then even imprisonment should not be allowed since imprisonment is aimed at preventing future acts. Also, you would have disallowed the Catholic Just War doctrine if self-defence is defined as only when an act is in progress. No war can ever be one if each individual soldier can only kill when he is in danger.
I not only see a problem with defining self-defense so narrowly as to include the actual time of the act, I also see no reason for it. Legally, that has only been used to apply to individuals, not the actions of society. Morally, governments have a moral obligation to protect its citizens, according to Catholic teaching. This can never be done simply be hoping the police intervene in a timely manner during the commission of every crime.
I also disagree that once someone has been locked up that they can no longer commit aggressive acts.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Yes I’m quite aware of the fact that “real” catholics don’t like to be tagged with cafeteria style picking but, the facts are the facts. You now are classifying a group of people. This always returns to the real issue, Vatican II doesnt it? Why are you ignoring 2 popes and the USCCB? Because I submit, you don’t like what they say.
The problem with your argument is that you presuppose that your citation is Black letter law which must be overturned by the Vatican to justify its present position. That is your opinion. The Vatican may not at all share you belief and may believe that its position is directly in line with a series of documents. I don’t know, I don’t claim to know, but I do assume they know and if things are as you say, then they are simply idiots and should be turning over things to you. I know its fun to pretend we are amateur magisterium experts, and we all fall victim to the temptation to play what is the teaching, but in fact, we do best when we listen to what they say, and the safest thing is to listen to what they have said last, assuming as we should that they know what they are talking about and know they have the authoriity to do so.
The USCCB speaks with moral authority, and while I agree it does not bind Catholics in this country, your attempt to denigrate it it is not uncommon on this site. It is not the Ultra-conservative council that a minority of catholics want to be sure.
I’m not sure, but I do believe that we no longer pray for the coversion of Jews. I think you should read that in line with JPII’s serious attempts to repair the rift that has grown between ourselves and the Jewish people.
There really seems no point in continuing. We are not going to agree. You wish to continue favoring the death penalty and as I said, I can respect that, but I disagree that you should try to make the Vatican and CCC and USCCB look wrong in order to do it.
If you insist on continuing to overstate to try to create a straw man to laugh at, I can’t stop you from doing so, but it is not me that looks silly when you are trying to force such a stretch.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
YOu call it apply it? Well he cited no particular case. And he cited no particular country. So I take it that he interpreted. Benedict called for its end and supports the UN resolution calling for it worldwide. Is he applying it too? How about the USCCB?
So intense that you are willing to kill another in revenge? There has never been a study that proves that execution deters anyone. Most murders are not intended, but result from immediate circumstances. Most are killings within families caused by intense stress. These are not the types of crimes that can be deterred by fear of some death penalty.
I’m afraid I’m confused. Have you switched sides now? Why do you think we need to abandon the constitution to achieve the result you desire? I’m not sure what that it actually, put all prisoners in segregation? Have you ever thought that incarceration has anythnig to do with rehabilitation? Or do you not care about that? I’m don’t know what your last paragraph means? Perhaps you should learn about what maximum security means. This is not a cruel and unusual punishment issue except insofar that killing anyone might well be so named.
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
If I’m going back to Vatican II like you keep claiming, explain why it is you that is refusing to consider even the original wording of the new CCC on these sections - wording that I fully accept - considering that came out a couple of decades after Vatican II? That alone makes if clear who is picking and choosing and who isn’t, and that the dividing line between us is not Vatican II but the release of EV.
If you are claiming that two popes have formally taught that the state is no longer the legitimate authority to decide when to administer the death penalty, and that it can no longer do so to avenge crime I need a citation. If not, I need a retraction for again falling back to this accusation that those who actually follow the written law of the Church are somehow “rejecting” it be not ceding to a presumption you are making.
It is only NOT “Black letter law” if someone rejects the majority of the citations I provided back in post 46. It appears you do.
This is patently false. You’ve been repeatedly claiming that anyone who didn’t accept a presumption you are reading into EV was rejecting the teaching of the Church, and acting as if merely making that accusation exempts you from backing up the presumption you are basing the accusation on.
And you drift even further into personal accusations to try to clamber back up on the high horse you’ve been using as your excuse to avoid backing up the presumption behind your claims…
First you try to use a lack of action against the USCCB on a non-heresy as a reason to try to trifle me off, but when I point out where the Vatican has taken formal action to suppress a document one of their committees released I’m suddenly degenerating them for using that as an illustration of where the Vatican intervenes and where it does not after you were the one trying to make a case of the lack of action in the first case that you were attempting to overstate. Make up your flip-flopping mind already on this.
A prayer said during the Tridium outside of Mass was edited to remove a reference to the “perfidious Jews”; attempting to heal a rift by removing insulting language and using a more caring approach is a far, far cry from claiming the primary mission of the New Testament is “theologically inappropriate”.
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
A clue for you: pnewton is a multi-decade employee of the Texas Department of Corrections; a place I’ll reach my 12-year mark with in a few weeks. We both know what “maximum security” ***REALLY ***means, and that it is not nearly sufficient to keep the innocents safe from the incorrigibles as some bishops seem to think, especially with some judicial interpretations of inmate rights that prevent us form actually preventing those who will never be released from causing further harm.
T
TOME
Guest
Ray_Scheel,
Perhaps you misunderstood me and thought that I held the state did not have the right and duty to promote the common good of which the right of self defense is essential. What I was questioning was the proper exercise of this right (self defense) in the matter of the death penalty as it is commonly exercised. Nor did I deny that there has been a long tradition of Church teaching that the DP could be exercised in regards to avenging a capital offense.
However, before I write any more I would like to ask you to tell me what you think my “Premise” actually is. In discussions such as this I found that it is better to be sure all parties understand what exactly each one is saying. Hopefully you will agree with me on this.
Perhaps you misunderstood me and thought that I held the state did not have the right and duty to promote the common good of which the right of self defense is essential. What I was questioning was the proper exercise of this right (self defense) in the matter of the death penalty as it is commonly exercised. Nor did I deny that there has been a long tradition of Church teaching that the DP could be exercised in regards to avenging a capital offense.
However, before I write any more I would like to ask you to tell me what you think my “Premise” actually is. In discussions such as this I found that it is better to be sure all parties understand what exactly each one is saying. Hopefully you will agree with me on this.
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
TOME:
Perhaps I did misunderstand. A great portion of this thread has been centering on those who are essentially claiming that self-defense is the only allowable reason now, and that by papal fiat even that need has been declared no longer applicable in many places, and then you declared you were restricting yourself in a similar manner - and using the presumption that the pope had the authority to make a scientific declaration abouthte status of corrections technology and a practical assessment of its level of implementation - as far as what you were wanting to look at when the chief contention for the past ~60 posts has been a more or less outright refusal by one group to inspect anything outside of what they had already decided what everyone else had to believe in order to not be declared to be rejecting the Catholic faith.
Perhaps I did misunderstand. A great portion of this thread has been centering on those who are essentially claiming that self-defense is the only allowable reason now, and that by papal fiat even that need has been declared no longer applicable in many places, and then you declared you were restricting yourself in a similar manner - and using the presumption that the pope had the authority to make a scientific declaration abouthte status of corrections technology and a practical assessment of its level of implementation - as far as what you were wanting to look at when the chief contention for the past ~60 posts has been a more or less outright refusal by one group to inspect anything outside of what they had already decided what everyone else had to believe in order to not be declared to be rejecting the Catholic faith.
T
TOME
Guest
Verbum Caro,
Hopefully my response will show that I have at least a basic understanding of the “Double Effect” principle, and if you are satisified that my understanding is adaquate then I will continue.
My understanding of the double effect principle is this, a single human act can have more than one effect (Double Effect), one effect may be “Good” in that it tends to the perfection of the person (or in this case the state) or it may have an “Evil” effect, that is it eithers hinders or destroys the movement towards perfection. To judge whether or not the single act is good or evil first thing to be considered is the “Intent” of the act (The Why). All “Good” acts must begin and proceed from good intent. However, an act may have “Un-intended” consequences or effects,
therefore an act which has more than one effect is only permissible if (a) Only the “Good” is intended and (b) the bad effects, even if not intended, do not out weight the actual good produced.
If my definition is pleasing to you then I will go on but if I have come up short or miss the point all together that I am certainly open to your corrections or instruction.
Hopefully my response will show that I have at least a basic understanding of the “Double Effect” principle, and if you are satisified that my understanding is adaquate then I will continue.
My understanding of the double effect principle is this, a single human act can have more than one effect (Double Effect), one effect may be “Good” in that it tends to the perfection of the person (or in this case the state) or it may have an “Evil” effect, that is it eithers hinders or destroys the movement towards perfection. To judge whether or not the single act is good or evil first thing to be considered is the “Intent” of the act (The Why). All “Good” acts must begin and proceed from good intent. However, an act may have “Un-intended” consequences or effects,
therefore an act which has more than one effect is only permissible if (a) Only the “Good” is intended and (b) the bad effects, even if not intended, do not out weight the actual good produced.
If my definition is pleasing to you then I will go on but if I have come up short or miss the point all together that I am certainly open to your corrections or instruction.
T
TOME
Guest
Ray_Scheel,
MY premise or basic principle or starting point is this, all human life is sacred and has a dignity that comes from the fact we are all creatures created by God and the sacredness of life bgins at conception and ends, in this life, with death.
MY premise or basic principle or starting point is this, all human life is sacred and has a dignity that comes from the fact we are all creatures created by God and the sacredness of life bgins at conception and ends, in this life, with death.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have never called for revenge. Arguing against the death penalty because revenge is bad is a straw man if eveyone agrees. Yes, revenge is bad and is not the reason for the death penalty.
Agreed. Yet this is another strawman. I agree with both of the points you are arguing against. This type of murder is often called manslaughter, as opposed to murder in the first degree.
I do know what maximum security means, yes Now to the point about the constitution. The Supreme Court has expanded the definition of cruel and unusual punishment to the point that some prisoners will never be able to be kept safely from commiting more murder without violation their “rights.” Some who are granted by the courts the right to correspondance to the outside, the right to have visitors, the right to media, the right to be rehabilitated, will use those rights to continue a life of violence. The FBI thought they could shut down Nuestra Familia by identifying the heads and moving them to federal facilities all over the country. New leaders have arisen and old leaders have used their separation to spread their violence all over the country now. These are people who are in the most extreme lock-down allowed by the constitution and still they order murders and organize criminal activity.
I just happen to believe that innocent people should be protected from their violence. I also believe that other criminals, most of who still have a great deal of good in them, deserve to be able to do their time without threat, intimidation and murder from the more violent.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Hi TOME,
I think your basic outline of the principle of double effect is sound. What I was pointing out, and my question really is, how does one use the principle of double effect to justify the death penalty?
To my knowledge Aquinas (and those following) did not use the principle of double effect to justify the death penalty because the principle is inapplicable. It is seemingly inapplicable because the so called “bad effect” of the death penalty is the taking of another human life. But this bad effect is directly intended by the state. The death of the convict is not a secondary unintended effect. Furthermore the so called “good effect” of the death penalty is directly caused by the bad effect. That also violates the principle of double effect which states that the good effect can not be caused by the bad effect.
Do you see the issue? Can you show where Aquinas used the principle to justify the death penalty? I’m not aware of it, but I’d like to find out!
Aquinas did use the principle of double effect, famously, in his justification of self-defense and defense of another. But in those cases the death of the aggressor is not directly intended. That is not the same as the death penalty. Furthermore, it seems problematic to try to recast the death penalty as “self-defense” or “defense of another” as classically understood, because in those cases the threat of harm must be imminent. The death penalty is not a response to an *imminent *threat of harm.
What do you think?
VC
I think your basic outline of the principle of double effect is sound. What I was pointing out, and my question really is, how does one use the principle of double effect to justify the death penalty?
To my knowledge Aquinas (and those following) did not use the principle of double effect to justify the death penalty because the principle is inapplicable. It is seemingly inapplicable because the so called “bad effect” of the death penalty is the taking of another human life. But this bad effect is directly intended by the state. The death of the convict is not a secondary unintended effect. Furthermore the so called “good effect” of the death penalty is directly caused by the bad effect. That also violates the principle of double effect which states that the good effect can not be caused by the bad effect.
Do you see the issue? Can you show where Aquinas used the principle to justify the death penalty? I’m not aware of it, but I’d like to find out!
Aquinas did use the principle of double effect, famously, in his justification of self-defense and defense of another. But in those cases the death of the aggressor is not directly intended. That is not the same as the death penalty. Furthermore, it seems problematic to try to recast the death penalty as “self-defense” or “defense of another” as classically understood, because in those cases the threat of harm must be imminent. The death penalty is not a response to an *imminent *threat of harm.
What do you think?
VC
T
TOME
Guest
Pnewton,
In St. Thomas Aquinas’ "Summa Theologica’ question number 64 where he addresses the death penalty, in his reply two objection numer 5 I think he has a statement that is relative to your objection of my position that self defense can only be justified during the time of the aggression. In his reply to objection No. 5 Thomas does state “Defense is forbidden that comes from vengeful spite”. Also, an important principle of self defense is the principle of proportionality. This principle was alluded to in another post from Verbum Caro when he brought up the question of the principle double effect. An act, even an act of self defense cannot be disproportionate to the intention of the act. Self defense is justifiable only when it is applied to stop an unjust aggression. So a further question becomes is the death penalty an act that is in the proper proportion to stopping a specific unjust aggression? Or if it is meant to avenge an unjust aggression doesn’t this violate Thomas’ reply to Objection # 5 of Question 64? (I am well aware of the teachings of the Catechism of Trent and Pius VII and their reliance an the scriptural passages from especially Romans and from the Prophet Ezekiel but I found it interesting that Thomas’ reply wasn’t really addressed. If it was perhaps I missed it and knowing you a far better verse in the writings of Pius XII and the Catechism of Trent than I you will help me with this.)
Again, I am not saying that the use of the death penalty cannot by justified using the principles of self defense in all circumstances but I question whether or not the death penalty can be justifibly used in our present day situation.
[The question of intervention by police or that incareration is an act of prevention although closely related to the question we are discussing may divert my attention and get me off the subject track, so I hope you will allow me to address this later.]
According to St. Thomas, the state has the right and duty to promote and safguard the common “Good” of society. St Augustine did write that putting criminals to death may be justified, “According to the law, that is the will of the, most just reason”. However, according to Thomas the “Good” is that which leads to perfection (either of the individual - according to his human nature, or the State). My question is how does the death penalty promote the perfection of the individual and state?
In St. Thomas Aquinas’ "Summa Theologica’ question number 64 where he addresses the death penalty, in his reply two objection numer 5 I think he has a statement that is relative to your objection of my position that self defense can only be justified during the time of the aggression. In his reply to objection No. 5 Thomas does state “Defense is forbidden that comes from vengeful spite”. Also, an important principle of self defense is the principle of proportionality. This principle was alluded to in another post from Verbum Caro when he brought up the question of the principle double effect. An act, even an act of self defense cannot be disproportionate to the intention of the act. Self defense is justifiable only when it is applied to stop an unjust aggression. So a further question becomes is the death penalty an act that is in the proper proportion to stopping a specific unjust aggression? Or if it is meant to avenge an unjust aggression doesn’t this violate Thomas’ reply to Objection # 5 of Question 64? (I am well aware of the teachings of the Catechism of Trent and Pius VII and their reliance an the scriptural passages from especially Romans and from the Prophet Ezekiel but I found it interesting that Thomas’ reply wasn’t really addressed. If it was perhaps I missed it and knowing you a far better verse in the writings of Pius XII and the Catechism of Trent than I you will help me with this.)
Again, I am not saying that the use of the death penalty cannot by justified using the principles of self defense in all circumstances but I question whether or not the death penalty can be justifibly used in our present day situation.
[The question of intervention by police or that incareration is an act of prevention although closely related to the question we are discussing may divert my attention and get me off the subject track, so I hope you will allow me to address this later.]
According to St. Thomas, the state has the right and duty to promote and safguard the common “Good” of society. St Augustine did write that putting criminals to death may be justified, “According to the law, that is the will of the, most just reason”. However, according to Thomas the “Good” is that which leads to perfection (either of the individual - according to his human nature, or the State). My question is how does the death penalty promote the perfection of the individual and state?
P
pnewton
Guest
TOME, I did find you post exceptional well done. It reminds me of a priest that always visits us in the summer. We engage in the same conversation as you do, but we sit in opposite seats as you and your priest friend. I appreciate the way you limit the focus of the debate to such a narrow topic. I understand that the traditional concept of justice that the Catholic Church used to support is now been reversed. I usually choose to not go down that area and stick to the practical application of Catholic moral teaching as promulgated in the CCC. I am, according to the Catechism allowed to believe in a rare application of capital punishment. I will not consider that I am dissenting, even if in good conscience, until the CCC is changed or the Catholic Church officially reverses its postition.
E
Ender
Guest
Despite the fact that I disagree with your analysis I am grateful that you have attempted to explain the morality that lies behind the new teaching on the death penalty.
I am a little confused about your position. Even today the Church, in principle, allows the use of the death penalty. Do you accept or reject that this is what the Church teaches? What do you believe is the basis on which the Church accepts the death penalty even in theory?
Ender
Given that there are no references to earlier Church documents for the position expressed in 2267 it is seems hard to argue that this is not a new creation.
I have two problems with this: it is hard to accept that the Church has had such a deficient understanding of justice for nearly two millennia and even if your definition is correct the prohibition against the death penalty is not tied to the demands of justice. Do you have a source you can cite that supports this definition of justice?
I think the primary justification for the death penalty is as a matter of justice, as justice is the primary aim of all punishment.
I am a little confused about your position. Even today the Church, in principle, allows the use of the death penalty. Do you accept or reject that this is what the Church teaches? What do you believe is the basis on which the Church accepts the death penalty even in theory?
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
I have often wondered the weight that should be given to writings of the saints. I guess Vatican I that limited infallibility of the Pope would indicate that if a Pope is infallible only in a limited situation, then surely a Saint, even the premier Doctor of the Church can not be infallible in all things. All things considered, I would think that a Church council carries greater weight.
That being said, I think I can answer at least one reason why the Angelic Doctor may not have been quoted at Trent. Legitimate self-defense is normally used to describe what right and individual has to use force, not society I think the distinction should be made that society has a right and obligation to do many things an individual may not. Both the right to punish and the right to protect are given in the catechism to society, but not individuals. So is Thomas is speaking in the limited use of self-defense, applying it to the individual, Trent would not use it in describing the proper use of the death penalty.
Now as to how the good of society might be promoted, would not breaking up prison gangs be a good for society? It would definitely be good for the microcosm of society behind bars. If prisoners did not feel that they had to join some gang just to stay alive in prison, then their good would be protected, justice could be tempered and even rehabilitation would be facilitated.
E
Ender
Guest
Are you saying that the Church has changed her understanding of justice (as TOME has claimed) or that justice is no longer used to defend the use of capital punishment?
I agree that the latter is true (but not the former) and find this to be an indictment of the current teaching - it no longer addresses the question of justice. Since “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense” I find it incomprehensible that any statement on punishment can be considered complete that ignores its primary objective.
A just state has “has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” We are called to pay for our sins by enduring a punishment comparable to the seriousness of the sin. “When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.” (2266)
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
That’s a good question. It seems from the CCC that justice is no longer a criteria for application of the death penalty. This seems to me to be a rather basic change, although I am open to being corrected.
- Status