Popes plural have been begging for the elimination of the DP throughout all the World.
I agree it is judgement, coming from a sequence of Popes. It is inadmissible (morally invalid) for the reasons given. If you cannot accept those reasons then you may well disagree. But it would be arrogant to do so lightly.
You know the answer to that.
Face facts - They have given reasons why it may not be used. You may dispute the validity of the reasons and on that basis disagree with the conclusion.
Given that disagreement with a judgment, even that of popes, may be legitimate, it cannot be true that inadmissible means morally invalid. Those two concepts are mutually exclusive: they cannot both be true. Since it is the church that says judgments do not require assent, it cannot be immoral to disagree with this one…which means it is not morally invalid to support capital punishment.
No, actually beyond assertions that it is immoral, I don’t know what conditions make it so, or how that could change in the future.
Yes, I may disagree, and this is why it cannot be “morally invalid” to do so. Something cannot be both legitimate and immoral at the same time; it’s one or the other.
You fail to understand my meaning. So Let me put it another way: It is inadmissible (morally invalid) if you accept the reasons given.
Funny how you are so well read in the justifications for CP but draw a blank on the other side of the question
I never said it was immoral for you to disagree with the reasons the popes have given in forming their judgement that CP is nowadays inadmissible.
Yes, if you believe it is harmful and support it anyway, that would be immoral.
The only reason given is that is that Catholics prior to Francis did not fully understand man’s dignity and how capital punishment was an offense against it. Arguments justifying CP based on community security were always unconvincing, and are in any case moot given the assertion about man’s dignity.
In that case it is incorrect to suggest that using CP is a moral choice. It is immoral to choose anything for the wrong reason, but it is not (generally) immoral to choose something (that is not itself evil) for a valid reason even if it turns out badly.
It is the morality of acts of CP we are talking about (assuming given circumstances). They are moral acts in some circumstances and immoral in others.
Morality of an act depends on the Intention, Moral Object and Circumstances. When these things are unchanging, the moral evaluation is unchanging. That is NOT the issue here - given the Popes are telling you that the Circumstances have changed. Acts of CP can be immoral.
This is true, although we have very different reasons for believing it.
No. What can possibly make a misjudgment immoral instead of a mistake? It’s only if I believe it is wrong and do it that makes it wrong. If it is not per se immoral, as you have conceded, then
This statement has nothing to do with the issue I’ve put to you. If those choosing to perpetuate CP accept the rationale provided by the Popes, they act immorally.
Which comes down to your evaluation of circumstances (given we assume the acts are well intentioned and we know CP is not intrinsically evil). And if you believe this font is good, contrary to the popes who find it not good, then your support of instanced of CP is moral.
Is it your understanding that Francis was saying that acts of CP have for all time been immoral, and that all prior magisteriums have erred?
Not exactly. This is what is implied, but not stated. Nor can it ever be stated, as Archbishop Chaput observed in 2005:
My inclination is to suspect you may exaggerate the current situation. You are heavily invested in the merits of CP and you have extraordinary knowledge of its origins and how it is justified. You are undoubtedly the premier CAF expert on those matters. Perhaps therefore you see any criticism of CP as a more than it really is?
I am very concerned about the arguments used to oppose capital punishment; I think many of them are actually quite damaging to the church. It is primarily those arguments that I have contested. This is a serious problem that only seems to get worse. A good example of this is labeling capital punishment “inadmissible”. Even the US bishops don’t know - or won’t say - what they think it means, referring to it as an “eloquent ambiguity” and then moving on. I find this appalling.
Thing is… We should strive to save the soul of anyone …
This here is a stretch…
No, it really doesn’t, nor is this anything the church has ever taught. Quite the opposite, actually.
We should all be concerned about a passage where we can only “kind of” know what it is saying. In fact, if what is said is a prudential judgment, as I believe it to be, then, no, we are not obliged to assent to it.
The argument that we don’t need capital punishment because we can protect ourselves without it was suspect before but is irrelevant now. It doesn’t matter. The change is that CP is “inadmissible”, not that it is “inadmissible except…”. That argument has been rendered moot. JPII is essentially repudiated.
That is not difficult to understand. CP is legitimate under certain cirucumstances. That means that circumstances dictate if it is legitimate or not. Most of the world is in consensus that it does more harm than good in our societies therefore according to the teaching of the Church, it should be forbidden as commanded by God under those circumstances.Rau:
Not exactly. This is what is implied, but not stated. Nor can it ever be stated, as Archbishop Chaput observed in 2005:
The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.
We are expected to act as if it is even as we recognize that it is not. I can’t do that.
Actually, that’s not true at all.