Voting for pro death penalty president?

[Hope1960]

Mostly I care about the fact he isn’t Trump.

 

[Ender]

You yourself have made that argument when you admitted (a long time ago) that not every murderer deserves to die for his crime. If there are extenuating circumstances that can only be judged on a case-by-case basis, then there can never be an absolute Church law that mandates the death penalty without taking those considerations into account.

This is true, nor have I ever suggested that circumstances are irrelevant. I have any number of times explicitly made that point. This is the way I explained it before: there are two criteria that must be satisfied for any punishment to be applied: it must a fitting punishment for the crime (neither too severe, nor too lenient), and it must not cause additional problems that are harmful to the community. The first is a moral obligation, the second is a practical judgment.

I have to wonder how the death penalty can ever be both inadmissible and obligatory.

It would be inadmissible if its application was harmful to the community. It would be obligatory if it was the fitting punishment for the crime. If either the penalty or the application was inappropriate then its use would be unjust.

… if there was a specific crime for which the death penalty was mandatory (because of justice, not protection), then it would remain mandatory even under the conditions described in CCC 2267…

For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St Bellarmine)

As he said, the command is not without exception, thus it is a precept, a general rule and not an inflexible obligation.

Then there is the issue of the Catechism not being officially part of the deposit of faith.

If that’s an issue it isn’t one I raised.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

it must a fitting punishment for the crime (neither too severe, nor too lenient), and it must not cause additional problems that are harmful to the community. The first is a moral obligation, the second is a practical judgment.

They are both prudential judgements.

It would be inadmissible if its application was harmful to the community. It would be obligatory if it was the fitting punishment for the crime. If either the penalty or the application was inappropriate then its use would be unjust.

Another example of prudential judgements.

 

[Ender]

I don’t know how to reconcile these statements. Do you? Can you do so without assuming that the majority of our bishops are teaching in error?

Yes, I believe I can reconcile those statements, but before I do let me touch on the problem of not reconciling them, which you alluded to earlier: “I have always opted for choice #2, because choice #1 is an anathema to the very legitimacy of the Catholic Church.” Option #1 being that the church has made a mistake.

On the one hand you recognize the problem, but on the other you ignore it with the position you have taken on capital punishment which in fact requires you to dismiss 2000 years of church teaching, all of which would have to be error if your current understanding is correct. This is the real significance of this issue: are we willing to believe in a church that can be so wrong for so long about something so significant?

So, how do I reconcile the contradictory statements? I believe the church prior to 1995 was addressing the first concern: the fitness of capital punishment as deserved by (at least) a murderer. I don’t see how this point can be argued given that God himself commanded it.

Starting in 1995 with Evangelium Vitae and then the 1997 version of the catechism I believe the church focused on the second objection: that the application of the punishment in modern society was unjust because its use was harmful. I have always held that JPII’s objection was prudential, a position that has a lot of support.

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

Even the most recent change by Pope Francis in 2018 does not really change anything. This is why I keep returning to the question of whether capital punishment is intrinsically evil. If it isn’t then opposition to its use must be prudential because, by definition, there would exist situations where its use would be just.

So no, my understanding does not require me to accept that the church made a horrible mistake and taught error for 2000 years.

 

[Ender]

They are both prudential judgements.

If it is a prudential judgment that capital punishment is a just (fitting) penalty for murder it is one that God has made for us. He said it is just: “a murderer, who deserves to die.” Can we not simply accept that this is true? It is also what the church taught for 2000 years, so it seems to be quite a bit more than merely another prudential judgment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

On the one hand you recognize the problem, but on the other you ignore it with the position you have taken on capital punishment which in fact requires you to dismiss 2000 years of church teaching, all of which would have to be error if your current understanding is correct.

No, I reconcile it by acknowledging my imperfect interpretation of that 2000 year history.

If it is a prudential judgment that capital punishment is a just (fitting) penalty for murder it is one that God has made for us. He said it is just: “ a murderer, who deserves to die. ” Can we not simply accept that this is true? It is also what the church taught for 2000 years, so it seems to be quite a bit more than merely another prudential judgment.

You know better than to go bible verse picking. And since you have already admitted that not every murderer deserves to die, how are you not also going against this “word of God?”

 

[Ender]

No, I reconcile it by acknowledging my imperfect interpretation of that 2000 year history.

Come, this won’t fly. You’re too intelligent to claim you can’t really understand what the church taught all those centuries, especially when she has been so clear about it.

The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992)

You know better than to go bible verse picking.

I did it to make a very specific point: if God commands something it cannot be considered evil.

And since you have already admitted that not every murderer deserves to die, how are you not also going against this “word of God?”

The same way no one rationally interprets “Thou shalt not kill” to literally mean one is forbidden to ever kill. I accept St. Bellarmine’s explanation of capital punishment: it is a precept, a general rule. It is not an absolute, exceptionless command.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, I reconcile it by acknowledging my imperfect interpretation of that 2000 year history.

Come, this won’t fly. You’re too intelligent to claim you can’t really understand what the church taught all those centuries, especially when she has been so clear about it.

Appeals to my pride will not work today. Besides, I don’t know exactly what you are asking me to accept. Is it that the death penalty is sometimes allowed, or is it that it is sometimes clearly mandated by Church teaching?

 

[Ender]

I don’t know exactly what you are asking me to accept. Is it that the death penalty is sometimes allowed, or is it that it is sometimes clearly mandated by Church teaching?

At the moment, neither. I want to continue to address the problem caused by accepting a position on capital punishment today that repudiates the one the church taught for 2000 years.

Still, if you accept that even today it may be allowed, this can accord with her traditional teaching given that such opposition would be prudential and not moral. You know what the church taught. What isn’t clear is what you think she teaches today. You might start by explaining what you think inadmissible means, and why the death penalty now deserves that definition.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t know exactly what you are asking me to accept. Is it that the death penalty is sometimes allowed, or is it that it is sometimes clearly mandated by Church teaching?

At the moment, neither.

Then we have nothing to debate.

I want to continue to address the problem caused by accepting a position on capital punishment today that repudiates the one the church taught for 2000 years.

Is your beef with me or the bishops who wrote the current Catechism? I’m not saying anything more than they are saying, so I think your beef must be with them. Therefore I suggest you take it up with them. If it is with my position specifically, then you will have to point out how what I have said is contrary to or beyond what those bishops say.

What isn’t clear is what you think she teaches today.

Yes, my thinking on that isn’t clear to me either - except to the extent that what she teaches today is incompatible with the position that one can ever say for certain that someone deserves death.

You might start by explaining what you think inadmissible means, and why the death penalty now deserves that definition.

As I said, this is a question you will have to take up with those who wrote those words - not with me.

 

[Ender]

Is your beef with me or the bishops who wrote the current Catechism?

I’m trying to find out what you think the current change means. I’m asking for you to clarify your position as I have clarified mine.

my thinking on that isn’t clear to me either - except to the extent that what she teaches today is incompatible with the position that one can ever say for certain that someone deserves death.

No, if you don’t know what they are saying you can’t even claim this. This is in fact a point I would dispute.

As I said, this is a question you will have to take up with those who wrote those words - not with me.

If you don’t understand what was said how can you even take a position on the topic? How can you contest my comments?

 

[Catholic_Guy1]

In elections you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Abortion is far worse than the death penalty.

If a politician can’t get protecting the most vulnerable correct, then how can we trust them in other decisions?

 

[Ender]

(Aquinas ST Supplement to III 18)
OBJ 3: Further, Christ’s every action is our instruction. Now on some sinners He imposed no punishment, but only amendment of life, as in the case of the adulterous woman (Jn. 8).

Reply OBJ 3: Christ had the power of “excellence” in the sacraments, so that, by His own authority, He could remit the punishment wholly or in part, just as He chose. Therefore there is no comparison between Him and those who act merely as ministers.

 

[Ender]

What is clear is that he didn’t interpret the passage of the adulterous woman as a comment on capital punishment. As he said, there is no comparison between Christ and us, and specifically, that we have no authority to remit punishment.