“Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.” St Pope John Paul II
OK, but what does that mean with regard to punishment? People are punished because they commit crimes, and sin deserves punishment. People aren’t executed because they “lose their dignity”, but because that is a fit punishment for their crime. It is a just punishment, and a just punishment confirms a person’s dignity by treating him as a moral agent responsible for his actions.
Then perhaps someone can explain how “we” came to this realization and understanding of something that eluded everyone in the church prior to 2018.
It means that certain punishments no longer suit the crime. As the Ladaria lays out in the explanation of the development of CC2267
Sure, I’ll refer you to the writing if St Pope JPII, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis… they all provide ample explanation for why the Church opposes the death penalty and works towards its abolition.
A punishment is just if it is of commensurate severity with the crime. We know beyond doubt that death is a just punishment (at least for murder) because God himself commanded it, and if it was just before it is just now inasmuch as neither the severity of the crime nor of the punishment can change with time.
What I asked was for an explanation of “our” new understanding of dignity, which is not something either Benedict or JPII recognized given that their position on the death penalty was repudiated by Francis.
Ender… again?
Ender I suggest you read the CDF’s letter explaining the development of this doctrine. All of what you look for is there.
You need to understand: Pope Francis repudiated the position taken by Pope JPII. JPII recognized the validity of the death penalty at least theoretically; Francis has called it “inadmissible” and allowed no exceptions. He did this based on his claim that we now have a better understanding of man’s dignity, an understanding that apparently eluded both JPII and BXVI.
Those are assertions, not explanations.
Read my response to @graciew on this point. Capital punishment cannot be both justifiable (JPII) and inadmissible (Francis).
None of this is true. The argument that the death penalty removes the “chance at reform and repentance” is explicitly rejected by church teaching. This is just a repetition of a charge others have made who have no knowledge of what the church actually believes.
No they are not assertions. There is an explanation (from the competent authority I might add) for you to accept or reject. The CDF letter explains the development of doctrine (clearly in my view).
I don’t know.
Where is the evidence that this policy was “aggressively” pursued? Given that the first execution occurred near the end of his four year administration it would seem that your characterization isn’t supported by the facts.
Two problems with this argument: (1) the church never taught that capital punishment was restricted to those times it was necessary to protect society. That would in fact contradict what she does teach, and (2) this argument, even if it had made sense before, would make none at all now inasmuch as Francis has closed that exception.
If you’re making the argument that protection matters you’re arguing a position that has been rejected by Francis. Your own position contradicts itself. I understand that Francis opposes capital punishment, as did BXVI, and JPII. I also understand that that opposition was a prudential judgment against its use, not a doctrinal rejection of the morality of its application.
Read the news…
I have been making that very argument, but the particular comment I made was against your claim that Trump “aggressively pursued” the reintroduction of capital punishment. As I said, there is no evidence to support that claim.
You can reference back to the article linked in the original post…The evidence is in plain sight
Have you read the CDF’s explanation? The protection of society weighs heavily throughout.
Obviously the administration re-started using the death penalty, but you have repeatedly claimed they “aggressively pursued” it. There is no evidence of aggressiveness. You are simply repeating an otherwise unsubstantiated charge made by others. I don’t doubt the charge was made. What I doubt is that there is any truth to it.
If the protection of society matters then in what sense can capital punishment be considered inadmissible, because (apparently) protection would render it admissible? Also, if it is admissible then what does it mean that it is contrary to man’s dignity? Are we permitted to violate that dignity if we decide we need to execute someone to protect our own lives? This argument is incoherent.
The Trump administration decided to turn the death penalty back on. Attorney General Barr was instructed to gather legal resources and make this item a priority over other items. The effort to turn it back on was blocked in court, the administration quickly appealed and ran through the process very quickly. Throughout the process, the administration looked to short cut the process (see the linked article below)
thehill.com
Does the question of a threat matter?