G
godisgood77
Guest
Hilarious! There is no end for you ender
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
It’s a simple question; why not answer? This goes to the problem with your understanding of what the church teaches. Your position is sustained by ambiguity, which is why it is so threatened by specific yes or no questions, even simple ones like this. The difficulty for you with this one is that either answer will expose a problem.
Last edited:
G
godisgood77
Guest
I see no difficulty with this Ender… I won’t answer your question in this thread because it is NOT pertinent to this discussion. if you would like to parse out all of the nuance of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, then please go ahead and start a thread about it.
This thread is about the Trump administration re-introducing the death penalty through aggressive legislative tactics after a 17 year hiatus for no apparent reason (as has been stated many times in this thread). The decision has been panned pretty universally by faith leaders and stands at odds with the Church’s teaching on the matter - no threat and easy alternatives (backed up by quote after quote from the catechism, St JPII, PBXVI, etc.)
Now Ender, if you would like to make an argument in favor reintroducing the death penalty in the US in 2020 and the good reasons for executing the inmates that are securely incarcerated rather than rehabilitating them, I’m all ears.
Last edited:
G
godisgood77
Guest
U.S. Government Hurriedly Executes Wesley Purkey After Overnight Rulings by U.S. Supreme Court Vacate Two Injunctions and a Stay of Execution
The Death Penalty Information Center is a non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information about capital punishment.…
A second inmate was executed as a result of the Trump administration’s reintroduction of the death penalty.
Another bad day for life.
E
Ender
Guest
In the first comment you claim my question is not relevant to the discussion, and in the second one you make a statement that demonstrates its relevance. Your claim is that the use of capital punishment is “at odds with the Church’s teaching”, yet when I try to show this is based on a misunderstanding you dodge my question by claiming it is irrelevant.
I don’t know what legislative tactics would be involved given that no legislation can pass the Senate without the concurrence of 8-10 Democrats. This charge is baseless.
OK, then answer my question: does the church allow the execution of prisoners who present a real and serious threat to the public?
F
F_Marturana
Guest
This is the man who was suffering from dementia.
His crime was heinous.
But he was in prison, and now suffering from a debilitating illness.
Lord have mercy.
His crime was heinous.
But he was in prison, and now suffering from a debilitating illness.
Lord have mercy.
G
godisgood77
Guest
I’m not dodging any questions… Go ahead and make your argument in favor of reintroducing the death penalty for these long secured prisoners and we can explore the topic from there…
E
Ender
Guest
How can we discuss the topic if we fundamentally disagree about what the church teaches? How can I make any argument if you think I start from a totally flawed understanding of church doctrine? If we do not clarify the question of church doctrine then debate is useless.
You oppose the use of the death penalty on “long secured prisoners”. This distinction is obviously significant to you, and I would like to explore it, but that will not be possible if you refuse to answer the question about what it means. Why did you use that phrase? What does it signify?
G
godisgood77
Guest
How does a difference in our respective understanding of Church teaching prevent you from putting your case forward?
C
Cicada_3301
Guest
If all lives matter, then not a single war in the history of the world could ever have been justified. Does this mean you and all Catholics should be pacifists?
G
godisgood77
Guest
The just war doctrine of the Catholic Church found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, lists four strict conditions for “legitimate defense by military force”:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).
C
Cicada_3301
Guest
Does this mean that a second American Civil War over abortion would be justified? The four points you just laid out clearly indicate that it would. Just sayin’.
B
billsherman
Guest
No. Catholic Just War Doctrine pre-supposes the belligerents be independent nation states. The Church opposes using violent means to make internal political changes.
E
Ender
Guest
How are we to resolve our differences if you refuse to explain what you believe?
However, here is my position.
What is the primary purpose of all punishment? It is retribution - retributive justice (CCC 2266). So what is the one requirement each and every punishment must satisfy? That it be just. The question of protection is not an aspect of justice; it is a secondary objective of punishment. So, what justifies the reintroduction of capital punishment? That it is necessary for protection? No. It is justified if it is necessary to satisfy the demands of justice.
What makes a punishment just? To be just a punishment must satisfy two criteria: (1) it must be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime (CCC 2266) so long as it (2) is not be otherwise harmful to society.
Is capital punishment commensurate in severity with the crime of murder? Yes, without doubt. The church has accepted it for two millennia, and God himself commanded its use. There is no question about this one.
Is there a moral objection to the use of capital punishment? No. It satisfies the primary objective of punishment in that it is a just (commensurate) punishment for the crime (of at least murder). What moral objection can there to imposing a just punishment?
Are there any valid objections to its use? There can be, but only if it is determined to be harmful to society, and while that may be a valid objection, it is certainly a prudential one - not a moral one - and that judgement is the responsibility of the State to make.
Last edited:
W
Wampa
Guest
I’m not sure I’d take his attorneys’ word for that.
His own final words strongly undercut this argument. While his attorneys claimed he “didn’t understand the reason for his execution” (the 1986 Ford v. Wainwright precedent for not executing the insane), his last statements seem to disprove that:
“I deeply regret the pain and suffering I caused to Jennifer’s family. I am deeply sorry. I deeply regret the pain I caused to my daughter, who I love so very much. This sanitized murder really does not serve no purpose whatsoever. Thank you.”
IMO he clearly understood the nature of the death penalty and why it was imposed upon him, which is the legal standard here.
By contrast, Ford believed he was the target of a complex conspiracy of prison guards and Klansmen, that 135 of his friends and family were being held hostage in the prison, that he was Pope John Paul III, and that he had appointed nine new justices to the Florida Supreme Court.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
This is the question I asked godisgood77, and to which it’s clear I’m not going to get an answer. Since I consider this a serious question, and since yes or no are the only possible answers, I’d like to point out the problems no matter which answer is given.
- YES
This is the answer JPII gave, and is the one in the 1997 version of the catechism which states:
The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude… recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
Clearly this was the answer from 1997-2018 until Francis asserted that capital punishment was “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”. So if the answer is still yes today, then Francis’ claim is rejected, because CP would be admissible to protect the public. - NO
This appears to be the answer Francis has given with his change to the catechism, but if this is true then he has repudiated JPII and in fact the “traditional teaching of the church” as well, and the argument explaining CP for the last quarter century is eviscerated.
Last edited:
G
godisgood77
Guest
Hi Ender, I plan on responding, have just been very busy. Will get to it.
- Status