The death penalty is justified

[pnewton]

You’re behind the curve. Pope John Paul II specifically rendered an opinion on the matter. In the UNITED STATES CATECHISM FOR ADULTS (approved by Rome) the teaching is reiterated.

You have chosen dissent:

The CCC is behind the curve? I will stick with it and ignore you. It has been updated already and I am not in dissent. Perhaps you can show in Lumen Gentium where* you* have been given authority to define dissent. You continue to repeat yourself if you have time.

From the USCCB statement on the death penalty.

We recognize that many citizens may believe that capital punishment should be maintained as an integral part of our society’s response to the evils of crime, nor is this position incompatible with Catholic tradition. We acknowledge the depth and the sincerity of their concern.

Yes, one can still believe in a death penalty and be in an acceptable Catholic position. If our bishops can be charitable, why can’t others. Or is charity only reserved for convicts?

As long as one has fulfilled this obligation:

We urge them to review the considerations we have offered which show both the evils associated with capital punishment and the harmony of the abolition of capital punishment with the values of the Gospel. We urge them to bear in mind that public decisions in this area affect the lives, the hopes and the fears of men and women who share both the misery and the grandeur of human life with us and who, like us, are among those sinners whom the Son of Man came to save.
We urge our brother and sisters in Christ to remember the teaching of Jesus who called us to be reconciled with those who have injured us (Matthew 5:43-45) and to pray for forgiveness for our sins “as we forgive those who have sinned against us.” (Matthew 6:12) We call on you to contemplate the crucified Christ who set us the supreme example of forgiveness and of the triumph of compassionate love.

,then they have fulfilled what the bishops have asked and maintained obedience.

And a whole passle of bishops trumps anonymous internet posters.

 

[wow]

And a whole passle of bishops trumps anonymous internet posters.

Since I am not inconcert with most of the US bishops, the USCCB or Pope JPII, let me state this is only my opinion.

 

[wow]

The CCC is behind the curve? I will stick with it and ignore you. It has been updated already and I am not in dissent. Perhaps you can show in Lumen Gentium where* you* have been given authority to define dissent. You continue to repeat yourself if you have time.

**From the USCCB statement on the death penalty. **

Yes, one can still believe in a death penalty and be in an acceptable Catholic position. If our bishops can be charitable, why can’t others. Or is charity only reserved for convicts?

As long as one has fulfilled this obligation:
,then they have fulfilled what the bishops have asked and maintained obedience.

And a whole passle of bishops trumps anonymous internet posters.

Since I am not inconcert with most of the US bishops, the USCCB or Pope JPII, let me state this is only my opinion.

 

[pnewton]

What? It is hard to understand the meaning of a smilie (or frownie) without words.

 

[Ender]

Protecting society from the aggressor is not the same thing as sacrificing the aggressor to deter others.

The Church recognizes deterrence as one of the proper objects of punishment. Referring to this as “sacrificing the aggressor” is trying to win the argument by definition rather than by debate. Inasmuch as the protection of society was given as the only reason for which the death penalty is appropriate, if executions protect society by deterring other murders then what could be the argument against executions?

Brutality to obtain order is specifically against the inalienable rights of the human person defined by the Second Vatican Council.

You’re playing with the meaning of words again. Modern executions are not brutal and that clearly was not what the Church had in mind when it referred to brutal practices. It is also inconvenient to your argument that the Vatican had the death penalty on its books for a few years after Vatican II.

So, if you accept the death penalty, which does claim innocent victims, on the grounds that you cannot properly maintain civil order without lethal violence against unarmed individuals wholly under your power, then your state has no legitiamcy to exist in the eyes of the Church.

It may have no legitimacy in your eyes but the Church allows the death penalty even now, included it in her own laws in the past, and recognized it as not only valid but necessary and appropriate until 1995. Your argument really should take into account the historical record.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Oh, I think I understand. You have searched back to find posts that refer to different thing and have different contexts, glued them together and thereby are confused. First, I would recommend that you not paste posts like that as it will lessen your confusion.

To wit:
*

Since I am not inconcert with most of the US bishops, the USCCB or Pope JPII, let me state this is only my opinion.

This refers to the prudential judgement on whether the US meets the criteria as defined by the CCC on the use of the death penalty. I think it does. John Paul II did not think it did. The USCCB statement believes the use of the death penalty in the US is not acceptable by the criteria defined in the CCC.

The other issue is whether of not the Catechism is outdated and has changed. It has not. The death penalty is still theoretically permitted in the certain circumstances. I believe these circumstances still exist in the US. It is thus the question of application and prudential judgement which I forward as “my opinion.” I would also note that in no writing, article, statement or homily has any Chuch official given any justification for their prudential opinion, at least that I have been able to find. I know this because I have looked. It is posited without reference that in our civilized society that we can safely incarcerate anyone.

If anyone has ever seen any documentation the Church has presented on this, I would be most interested.

 

[Ender]

Deterrence is the idea that a punishment is useful or justified not because of its effect on the criminal, but for its effect on other people. This argument cannot be morally applied to the death penalty.

That would be a much stronger argument if the Catechism didn’t already state that executions are proper if they are the “only practicable way” to protect lives. What is the difference between executing someone to prevent him from killing in the future and executing him to prevent someone else from killing in the future? Both are the most practicable ways of saving lives and, if executions deter, then - by the criteria laid out in 2267 - executions become very appropriate.

How can it be moral to kill people, not because their actions require it, but because we believe their death will be useful to us in an unrelated matter?

This points out another problem with 2267: it allows the execution of a prisoner (in those rare cases) not for what he did in the past but for what he might do in the future. This is being so, your argument cannot hold as the Church has already authorized executions to eliminate future threats.

I tend to agree with your argument. I believe that if a person merits execution it must be because of what he has already done, not for what he may do … but 2267 only authorizes executions for what may happen in the future. Furthermore, since the protection of society is the sole criteria given in 2267, then if executions deter other killings they surely protect society and therefore meet the requirements 2267 sets out.

You don’t like this argument and I don’t blame you, but I am only applying the logic of 2267. As I’ve said before, this section does not hold together logically and at some point will have to be rewritten.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

The Church recognizes deterrence as one of the proper objects of punishment.

Not in this case. CCC 2266 assigns a responsibility to proper authority. CCC 2267 puts specific constraints on that authority with regards to the death penalty.

Further, look at your own quotes. Pope Pius XII noted that the “right to life” is unabridgable, even in the case of the death penalty. A legitimate state has no right to infringe on that right for its own purposes:

In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination." - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (which, in turn, quotes LUMEN GENTIUM, the Dogmatic Constition of the Church)

Life was perceived as the purpose of law by the Council of Trent (see your preferred quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent). Pope Pius IX, in response to the rise of eugenics taught that life was an inviolate right. This message was upheld by subsequent Popes and held to be true by ecumenical council (Second Vatican Council) and became part of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Hence the Church now teaches that the death penalty is only licit for societal self defense. Further, the Church prudentially teaches that self defense is not a legitimate factor.

However, the Church teaching is not absolute. So I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger’s assertion that, in of itself, dissent with the Church on the teaching does not raise to the level of Canon law (obstinate grievous sin) that would make it reasonable for priests and bishops to withhold communion from dissenters.

None the less, we are still instructed to ‘reverently obey’ prudential teachings of the Pope and the Bishops. You previously sneered at this as some sort of military thinking. However, it is in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church - reaffirmed just 50 years ago, and was a subject of a recent document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. You either accept the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, or you don’t.

 

[Ender]

I am not judging you. I am simply noting that obedience is Dogmatic, so, having chosen dissent, it is incorrect to contend that your position is morally equivelent to deference to the Magesterium.

This is from the reference you helpfully provided:

38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. …

Note first that this sentence only makes sense if there is something that can be considered legitimate dissent.

*… This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement.

*“Here concerned” is from the section you cited, but you have also conceded that the section in the Catechism re the death penalty (2267) is prudential, not doctrinal. Our obligations of assent to doctrine are not the same as our obligations to prudential judgments.

In section 25 of this same document is this:

*“When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies.” *

The Church does not forbid one from pointing out those deficiencies.

Ender

 

[TMC]

That would be a much stronger argument if the Catechism didn’t already state that executions are proper if they are the “only practicable way” to protect lives. What is the difference between executing someone to prevent him from killing in the future and executing him to prevent someone else from killing in the future? Both are the most practicable ways of saving lives and, if executions deter, then - by the criteria laid out in 2267 - executions become very appropriate.

This points out another problem with 2267: it allows the execution of a prisoner (in those rare cases) not for what he did in the past but for what he might do in the future. This is being so, your argument cannot hold as the Church has already authorized executions to eliminate future threats.

I tend to agree with your argument. I believe that if a person merits execution it must be because of what he has already done, not for what he may do … but 2267 only authorizes executions for what may happen in the future. Furthermore, since the protection of society is the sole criteria given in 2267, then if executions deter other killings they surely protect society and therefore meet the requirements 2267 sets out.

You don’t like this argument and I don’t blame you, but I am only applying the logic of 2267. As I’ve said before, this section does not hold together logically and at some point will have to be rewritten.

Ender

I disagree. Deterrence is not one of the reasons given for allowing the death penalty. Killing one person to influence the actions of another is not moral. If there is a serial killer loose whose identify is known, would it be moral to hold a gun to his mother’s head to force him to turn himself in? To kill his brother to show that we mean business? How can it be moral to kill one person to scare another into behaving? The catechism does not allow this in any way. It allows the killing of a person to prevent him from killing others. This is simply an extension of the self-defense doctrine applied at a societal level. Self defense does not include the idea of killing as a deterrent to others.

 

[Ender]

Deterrence is not one of the reasons given for allowing the death penalty.

True, the only reason given is the protection of society - therefore whatever meets that criterion is justified. Either you accept 2267 as the primary determinant or you don’t, but if you accept that the protection of society justifies the death penalty then you are stuck with all of the implications. I don’t accept 2267 so I don’t have that problem.

Killing one person to influence the actions of another is not moral.

The Church has always taught that deterrence is an appropriate object of punishment.

This is simply an extension of the self-defense doctrine applied at a societal level. Self defense does not include the idea of killing as a deterrent to others.

I have argued for capital punishment as an issue of justice, not as an act of self defense. 2267, however, justifies it on the basis of the protection of society. How can you say you accept 2267 and then reject what it implies?

Ender

 

[TMC]

True, the only reason given is the protection of society - therefore whatever meets that criterion is justified. Either you accept 2267 as the primary determinant or you don’t, but if you accept that the protection of society justifies the death penalty then you are stuck with all of the implications. I don’t accept 2267 so I don’t have that problem.
The Church has always taught that deterrence is an appropriate object of punishment.
I have argued for capital punishment as an issue of justice, not as an act of self defense. 2267, however, justifies it on the basis of the protection of society. How can you say you accept 2267 and then reject what it implies?

Ender

I really can’t tell if you are being deliberately disingenuous, or if you really believe what you are writing. You know that 2267 does not say that “whatever” meets the criterion of protecting society is justified. That is not an “implication” of 2267, its not even an attempt to stretch the doctrine into absurdity. Its just wrong.

2267 says that killing is only justified if it is “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” It also says that is may not be morally imposed if “nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor.” Even setting aside whether ‘deter’ can be read into ‘defend’, the doctrine clearly says the opposite of what you say it does. It doesn’t say anything that might protect society is moral. It says killing is moral only if it is the only way to protect society.

 

[Ender]

I really can’t tell if you are being deliberately disingenuous, or if you really believe what you are writing.

I believe what I write. I also believe I haven’t clearly explained the dilemma that I see in 2267.

2267 says that killing is only justified if it is “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Are we arguing over the word “only”? We have laws, police, courts, and prisons and they are all effective in defending lives. The authors of 2267 knew that but they still foresaw some situations where these would be insufficient to “effectively” protect human life. My point here is that **if **it is discovered that executions **effectively **protect human life by deterrence then, by the criterion specified above, executions are justified.

It also says that is may not be morally imposed if “nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor.”

**If **capital punishment works as a deterrence then clearly non-lethal means are not sufficient to defend and protect peoples safety. Given that government has a moral responsibility to protect the public, capital punishment would not only be justified but would be obligatory inasmuch as it is the only sentence that effectively protects innocent life.

Ender

 

[St_Aloysius]

I’d like to point out something here:

For those that defend CP with citations from the Mosaic Law:

The more and more I do my homework, the more I’m amazed at how ridiculously hard at various times the Jewish people have tried to make the qualifications for actually being sentenced to death. In the early days of the nation, it was necessary to keep order. The more established the people became, the more it was treated as a “last resort,” so much so that it eventually was near-abolished by 70 A.D.

 

[Hastrman]

… it eventually was near-abolished by 70 A.D.

Um…right, because in 70 AD the Pax Romana said “Life and Death are solely in the hands of Caesar–therefore if *you * execute anyone, we’ll crucify you and throw your bones to the dogs.”

Truly, their enlightenment is a model to us all, phasing out a practice that would’ve gotten them all killed.

I don’t cite the Mosaic Law, other than to point out that God instituted it, therefore CP can’t be intrinsically wrong. I do point out that Justice should be the sole consideration–because you can never render any human “inoffensive”, unless you chain them to a wall 24/7 (i.e. cruel and unusual punishment). What do we do, as I’ve asked before but never gotten an answer, if a lifer kills someone in prison?

Well, first, the mere fact you can be killed in prison means modern methods cannot render offenders harmless–therefore the whole argument predicated on that assumption falls like a stack of cards.

And second, how do you punish someone who’s already in prison for life?

 

[Ender]

For those that defend CP with citations from the Mosaic Law:

It is not necessary to rely on Mosaic law at all. The most compelling OT citation is from God’s covenant with Noah (in the same conversation where God tells Noah to be fruitful and multiply): “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” (Gen 9:6). Nowhere, prior to 1995, had the Church tried to abridge this teaching.

The more and more I do my homework …

You should spend less time researching the Jews and more time with past Church documents. You will find nothing to support the assertion of 2267, rather you will find, in every document that addresses the issue (prior to Evangelium vitae), support for capital punishment.

Ender

 

[wow]

It is not necessary to rely on Mosaic law at all. The most compelling OT citation is from God’s covenant with Noah (in the same conversation where God tells Noah to be fruitful and multiply): “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” (Gen 9:6). Nowhere, prior to 1995, had the Church tried to abridge this teaching.

Wasn’t this covenant replaced with the new covenant?

You should spend less time researching the Jews and more time with past Church documents.

Wouldn’t spending less time researching Jews be less time researching Mosaic law?

You should spend less time researching the Jews and more time with past Church documents. You will find nothing to support the assertion of 2267, rather you will find, in every document that addresses the issue (prior to Evangelium vitae), support for capital punishment.
Ender

Please explain why we should ignore the Evangelium vitae.

Thanks,

 

[pnewton]

Please explain why we should ignore the Evangelium vitae.

Thanks,

I read his post. He did not say that you should ignore EV.

 

[Ender]

Wasn’t this covenant replaced with the new covenant?

The Church teaches that morality doesn’t change with time or place: what was immoral before is immoral now and if it is immoral now it was always immoral. What seems more likely: that God commanded Noah to commit an immoral act, that Church teaching on the unchanging nature of morality is false, or that capital punishment is in fact just?

Please explain why we should ignore the Evangelium vitae.

Let’s be more precise. I’m not saying you should ignore Evangelium vitae; I am saying that EV no. 56 is the prudential judgment of JPII and as such a Catholic is not obliged to assent to it.

Ender

 

[wow]

I read his post. He did not say that you should ignore EV.

I didn’t mean it that way it’s just he referred to the part before the EV so it made me think he didn’t think that part was important.