We’ve been bishops in 3 death penalty states. It’s time to stop federal executions for good

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

There is pretty much unanimous agreement around the civilised world that the death penalty is unnecessary and cruel and those words were reiterated by Pope St John Paul II 20 years ago.

Well if it’s cruel then why did you just cite Aquinas suggesting that it was OK to use it if only it wasn’t harmful to the society in general?

Because whether it is cruel or unjust is determined by it’s impact on the common good which is the end of human law. Aquinas also states that quoting Isidore…

Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that “law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens.” Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. (ST I II 96 art1)

 

[Emeraldlady]

Do you not recognize that if capital punishment is declared now to be immoral per se then it would be a condemnation of the church which always taught that it was acceptable? Since morality cannot change, if the death penalty is immoral today then it has always been immoral, and therefore the church (including the Fathers and Doctors) taught evil as good.

The Church has never taught that the death penalty is ‘intrinsically’ just. If it no longer serves it’s end ie the common good, and is in fact harmful to the common good, then that renders it an evil. (ie. extrinsically good or evil)

 

[Emeraldlady]

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom… (JPII)

What is an affront to man’s dignity is to fail to treat him as a moral entity who is responsible for his own actions. What does not strip him of that dignity is to visit him with a punishment commensurate with the severity of his crime.

Strawman. No one at all is suggesting there be no punishment for crime. The State is perfectly free to decide which punishment fits the crime according to its purpose as overseer of the common good.

 

[Patri]

And you believe the church was complicit in this? That she was unaware of how this punishment stripped man of his dignity?

Not at all, the church has led us according to the times and our ability to understand. Now things are different and we do not need the death penalty.

 

[Patri]

What is an affront to man’s dignity is to fail to treat him as a moral entity who is responsible for his own actions. What does not strip him of that dignity is to visit him with a punishment commensurate with the severity of his crime

Why are you so willing to share punishment? Why do people hold on so tightly to the legal right to kill criminals. Why do people not want to think about the fact that we live in a cycle of violence and that maybe at a certain point, we need to examine if we could have done more for those criminals as children. Nothing is black or white.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Why do people hold on so tightly to the legal right to kill criminals.

It’s one of the consequences of the culture of death.

 

[Ender]

Because whether it is cruel or unjust is determined by it’s impact on the common good which is the end of human law.

What is just is certainly tied to its impact on the common good, but what is cruel is not. If executing a person really is cruel then it is so whether or not it serves some beneficial purpose. Thus if it is cruel now it was just as cruel before when Aquinas (and the entirety of the church) approved of it. Is that your position, that the church approved of cruelty?

 

[Ender]

Not at all, the church has led us according to the times and our ability to understand. Now things are different and we do not need the death penalty.

Morality does not change with the times; it is immutable, and are you really comfortable holding that man was so incapable of understanding before just last year that only now can the church teach us the truth?

What has changed, and how is it tied to whether the death penalty is no longer necessary?

Why are you so willing to share punishment?

Share punishment? I don’t know what you mean.

Why do people hold on so tightly to the legal right to kill criminals?

Mostly I just provide rebuttals to the arguments made against capital punishment. The implications of many of those arguments are quite detrimental to the church, thus it is important to respond to them.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Because whether it is cruel or unjust is determined by it’s impact on the common good which is the end of human law.

What is just is certainly tied to its impact on the common good, but what is cruel is not. If executing a person really is cruel then it is so whether or not it serves some beneficial purpose. Thus if it is cruel now it was just as cruel before when Aquinas (and the entirety of the church) approved of it. Is that your position, that the church approved of cruelty?

Using Aquinas’ analogy to explain the death penalty. It was a good to amputate an infected limb to save the rest of the body. It was a definite good in the 12th century. Today we have ways of treating and preserving that limb so that the wholeness of the body can be maintained. It would definitely be a cruel evil to amputate a limb simply because that was a good in the 12th century. See?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Punishment and penal sanctions are not different,

Sure they are. That’s just common sense. Not to mention that the CCC says so.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Ender:

Punishment and penal sanctions are not different,

Sure they are. That’s just common sense. Not to mention that the CCC says so.

I have had this debate with Ender before and was equally baffled by why the difference is not understood. But interestingly it led me to find that in both Deist philosophy and Thomas Hobbs version of deist philosophy there is no belief in an objective moral principle or the authority of revelation to have revealed that to us. They conclude on morals strictly from practical reasoning and what confirms that in natural law. It is far from a Catholic philosophy though.

 

[Patri]

Morality does not change with the times; it is immutable, and are you really comfortable holding that man was so incapable of understanding before just last year that only now can the church teach us the truth?

I think as we are able to understand more is revealed to us and we have what we need in each moment. Our society now is very different from 60 years ago. For me, an example of this is Matthew chapter 19.
Mathew 19. 7* d They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” 8He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

 

[Rau]

The Church has never taught that the death penalty is ‘intrinsically’ just. If it no longer serves it’s end ie the common good, and is in fact harmful to the common good, then that renders it an evil.

Ender - you’ve not addressed the above, nor the following, which is similar:

We don’t have a doctrine declaring CP immoral per se - that would be diametrically opposed to the doctrine that it is not intrinsically evil. We have a statement that in our times killing criminals is immoral in light of circumstances. You may be right that resting on circumstances renders the statement prudential, though clearly if the judgements about circumstances are correct, then the act would be “immoral”.

 

[Ender]

Using Aquinas’ analogy to explain the death penalty. It was a good to amputate an infected limb to save the rest of the body. It was a definite good in the 12th century. Today we have ways of treating and preserving that limb so that the wholeness of the body can be maintained. It would definitely be a cruel evil to amputate a limb simply because that was a good in the 12th century. See?

While almost everything can be cruelly used that doesn’t mean that almost everything is cruel, nor would most people accept the idea that cruelty is determined by whether or not it’s good for society. That would surely be a compelling argument for the use of torture. Again, your second argument negated your first one.

Beyond that, Aquinas’ argument has been rendered invalid by what the new 2267 is (believed) to say. If capital punishment is “inadmissible” because it attacks man’s dignity then it can’t be used whether or not it is beneficial. Aquinas and everyone else who wrote on this subject have essentially been declared in error. Their arguments are not useful to you.

 

[EndTimes]

Morality does not change with the times; it is immutable,

It’s the averaged Behavioral Mores in praxis of Society
which have been swiftly going down the tubes… agreed?

The Church has addended its teaching wrt the DP/CP

People shall do whatever they shall.

Whether whatever the Church declares or not declares about this or that,
may or may not have any significant impact upon Society in general,
or even upon many/most who deem themselves “Catholic”

One of the ongoing and greatest concerns facing children of God
has been the prophecied and noted growing loss of Faith…

And it is to this that those able to - should attend to in talk and then in action.

_

_

 

[Ender]

We don’t have a doctrine declaring CP immoral per se - that would be diametrically opposed to the doctrine that it is not intrinsically evil.

I agree with this, but if this is true then it is an error to act as if it wasn’t, and saying this comes with some significant problems. What does it mean to say that capital punishment is now inadmissible? If it is not intrinsically evil then it must be admissible in certain cases (by the meaning of the terms), but that would mean it’s not actually inadmissible.

It is also asserted that its use is contrary to man’s dignity, but again, if it is not intrinsically evil then either acting contrary to man’s dignity is justifiable, or it’s not in fact an offense against that dignity.

We have a statement that in our times killing criminals is immoral in light of circumstances. You may be right that resting on circumstances renders the statement prudential, though clearly if the judgements about circumstances are correct, then the act would be “immoral”.

If its use is valid depending on circumstances then that clearly involves a prudential judgment about which circumstances render it beneficial or harmful, which reinforces the problems I cited above.

As to whether an erroneous judgment about something is sinful I would say it is not. It would be a mistake, not a sin. If I believe the consequences would be harmful and support it anyway, that would be a sin, but if I believe the consequences to be beneficial and support it, whether mistakenly or not, that can be at worst a grievous mistake. Mistake are not sins

It seems you sensed this when you put quote marks around “immoral”.

If you hold that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil it means it cannot be considered inadmissible, cannot be contrary to man’s dignity, and support for its use cannot be broadly condemned as anything other than an error of judgment…which is your opinion on the matter.

It has always been my position that the decision about whether to use the death penalty is prudential judgment about which disagreement is legitimate, and while there may be valid practical objections to its use there are no valid moral objections.

If you recognize that it is not intrinsically evil then accept the implications of that position.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Using Aquinas’ analogy to explain the death penalty. It was a good to amputate an infected limb to save the rest of the body. It was a definite good in the 12th century. Today we have ways of treating and preserving that limb so that the wholeness of the body can be maintained. It would definitely be a cruel evil to amputate a limb simply because that was a good in the 12th century. See?

While almost everything can be cruelly used that doesn’t mean that almost everything is cruel, nor would most people accept the idea that cruelty is determined by whether or not it’s good for society. That would surely be a compelling argument for the use of torture. Again, your second argument negated your first one.

What’s your point here? Torture is banned for the very reason that it is cruel and un civilised. That’s the compelling argument against the use of torture.

Beyond that, Aquinas’ argument has been rendered invalid by what the new 2267 is (believed) to say. If capital punishment is “inadmissible” because it attacks man’s dignity then it can’t be used whether or not it is beneficial. Aquinas and everyone else who wrote on this subject have essentially been declared in error. Their arguments are not useful to you.

Extend the reach of the tent pegs of you mind. It’s not that hard to understand how things can be admissible in the past and inadmissible today. It’s evident in all levels of life and all scholastic disciplines and also in the Church.

 

[Ender]

What’s your point here? Torture is banned for the very reason that it is cruel and un civilised . That’s the compelling argument against the use of torture.

I was responding to your amazing claim that cruelty can be determined by its impact on the common good. Torture works, and information obtained using it can often be beneficial to the common good, which by your definition would make it not cruel. As for whether it is “uncivilized”, I’m not aware that the church bases her doctrines on that consideration.

It’s not that hard to understand how things can be admissible in the past and inadmissible today.

That’s only possible so long as those terms are undefined and have no particular meaning, such as admissible = morally acceptable, and inadmissible = morally unacceptable. Otherwise the distinction is only one of personal preference.

 

[Rau]

What does it mean to say that capital punishment is now inadmissible? If it is not intrinsically evil then it must be admissible in certain cases (by the meaning of the terms), but that would mean it’s not actually inadmissible.

What it means is that “now” - in the present times - it is inadmissable. The word “inadmissable” is qualified. There is no problem so far, unless it is contrived to find a problem.

It is also asserted that its use is contrary to man’s dignity, but again, if it is not intrinsically evil then either acting contrary to man’s dignity is justifiable,

This may be.

If its use is valid depending on circumstances then that clearly involves a prudential judgment about which circumstances render it beneficial or harmful, which reinforces the problems I cited above.

Human acts are judged as to their morality by considering the 3 fonts. Evil in any font (net evil in the case of the circumstances) make the act immoral. The Popes are declaring a position on the circumstances, that I conclude they hold so fervently that they wish it declared accordingly in the catechism.

As to whether an erroneous judgment about something is sinful I would say it is not. It would be a mistake, not a sin. If I believe the consequences would be harmful and support it anyway, that would be a sin, but if I believe the consequences to be beneficial and support it, whether mistakenly or not, that can be at worst a grievous mistake. Mistake are not sins

That’s all very well, but you have more than just your own opinions and judgments to guide you now about the circumstances surrounding CP.

If you hold that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil it means it cannot be considered inadmissible,

That’s not the standard - it’s “now inadmissable”. So scratch that point.

cannot be contrary to man’s dignity,

It may well be contrary to man’s dignity. Scratch that point.

support for its use cannot be broadly condemned as anything other than an error of judgment…which is your opinion on the matter.

I can live with that one. But perhaps the error is a little more serious, given the firm guidance provided by the recent popes.

It has always been my position that the decision about whether to use the death penalty is prudential judgment about which disagreement is legitimate, and while there may be valid practical objections to its use there are no valid moral objections.

I can mostly live with that one. Though perhaps I feel more deference to the judgments of the Pope’s than you do.

If you recognize that it is not intrinsically evil then accept the implications of that position.

The implications of that are merely that it may sometimes be used justly. OK. The Popes are suggesting the time is not now.

 

[Ender]

What it means is that “now” - in the present times - it is inadmissable. The word “inadmissable” is qualified.

That qualification is a judgment, not a doctrine. Inadmissible can mean no more than “I believe CP to be harmful.” It cannot mean it is morally invalid.

That’s all very well, but you have more than just your own opinions and judgments to guide you now about the circumstances surrounding CP.

I’m not so sure about that. Mostly what I hear are generalized, unsupported assertions, like “It fosters a culture of death.”

That’s not the standard - it’s “now inadmissable”. So scratch that point.

What makes it inadmissible, and what would allow it to become admissible again?

The implications of that are merely that it may sometimes be used justly. OK. The Popes are suggesting the time is not now.

Yes, this is exactly how I interpret their comments as well as both versions of 2267. The popes have suggested we shouldn’t use it.