When or is the death penalty alright?

[diggerdomer]

“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” (CCC 2266)

Redressing the disorder means satisfying the demands of justice.

Is that interpretation of CCC 2266 your opinion, or Church teaching?

 

[Ender]

That’s not true. The morality of an act itself is not the only consideration. Intention, circumstances, etc. also play into the final moral judgment. Just because a given act was morally justified in one time does not mean it’s morally justified in all times.

If the act itself is intrinsically evil then it may never be done regardless of intent or circumstance. If the act is not intrinsically evil - and the death penalty is not - then it is essentially the intent that determines the morality of its use. The circumstances are secondary characteristics and “of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves.” (CCC 1754)

Therefore, given that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil and that the circumstances do not change the moral quality of the act, the morality of using capital punishment depends on the intent … which has always been to satisfy the obligations of justice.

For, as it says in 2260: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. … This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

If the act itself is intrinsically evil then it may never be done regardless of intent or circumstance. If the act is not intrinsically evil - and the death penalty is not - then it is essentially the intent that determines the morality of its use.

No, it’s not the intent only that determines the morality of the death penalty. That’s not what the Church teaches. It’s also the circumstances/context. See CCC 2267.

 

[Ender]

No, it’s not the intent only that determines the morality of the death penalty. That’s not what the Church teaches. It’s also the circumstances/context. See CCC 2267.

The teaching on morality is found starting at 1750

*The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.*

There is, however, also this:

1754* The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.*

Circumstances, as secondary elements, do not change the moral quality of the act. Something does not go from bad to good or good to bad depending on the circumstances.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Reference? Thanks.

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense … To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.

1957* Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.*

1958* The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. the rules that express it remain substantially valid.

*Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

The teaching on morality is found starting at 1750

*The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.*

There is, however, also this:

1754* The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.*

Circumstances, as secondary elements, do not change the moral quality of the act. Something does not go from bad to good or good to bad depending on the circumstances.

Ender

Right. So? The death penalty is obviously not a priori a good act in and of itself (according to Catholic teaching, other opinions of course may differ). Is that your point?

 

[diggerdomer]

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense … To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.

1957* Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.*

1958* The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. the rules that express it remain substantially valid.

*Ender

Thanks.

That’s different, of course, than what you claimed previously. You previously said morality does not change. Here you quote citations saying natural law does not change.

So…what are you really relying on…natural law only, or Catholic morality?

 

[Ender]

Right. So? The death penalty is obviously not a priori a good act in and of itself (according to Catholic teaching, other opinions of course may differ). Is that your point?

No. My point was to show that the circumstances do not determine the morality of an act so the fact that the circumstances of penal system changes over time do not affect the morality of capital punishment. It is now, just as it has always been, determined by the nature of the act itself and the intent for which it is used.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

No. My point was to show that the circumstances do not determine the morality of an act so the fact that the circumstances of penal system changes over time do not affect the morality of capital punishment. It is now, just as it has always been, determined by the nature of the act itself and the intent for which it is used.

Ender

The simple fact is that we are not arguing the morality of the death penalty in and of itself. I do not know a simpler way to put it. What we are arguing is that in modern society, it is by and large unneeded. Life in prison without parole sufficiently redresses the crime. Executions result in excessive spending of tax dollars, which could be better spent on truly preventative programs, and society is duly protected from violent offenders. How is any of this inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

I know you will get on your justices soap-box, so let me answer you preemptively. Absolute justice is not consistent with revealed Truth. Let me say it again, because you have a habit of ignoring my statements. Absolute justice is not consistent with revealed Truth. If it were, then there would be no salvation possible. We are guilty of personal sin. We were born under the curse of original sin. In His mercy, God provided salvation for us, not based on our merit, but on His grace. In other words, absolute justice demands that we all spend an eternity in hell. So before you yell and scream about what you think other people deserve, you must first accept your own guilt. This is why Jesus said, “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens. This is the justification for war and the death penalty. Punishment can be achieved without killing the offender.

 

[Ender]

That’s different, of course, than what you claimed previously. You previously said morality does not change. Here you quote citations saying natural law does not change.

So…what are you really relying on…natural law only, or Catholic morality?

They are one and the same.*

“The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.”
*(CCC 1955 → Thomas Aquinas)

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

No. My point was to show that the circumstances do not determine the morality of an act so the fact that the circumstances of penal system changes over time do not affect the morality of capital punishment. It is now, just as it has always been, determined by the nature of the act itself and the intent for which it is used.

Ender

So you agree that the death penalty as an act is not “good” in and of itself. Right?

You say intent defines the morality of it?

 

[diggerdomer]

They are one and the same.*

“The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.”
*(CCC 1955 → Thomas Aquinas)

Ender

No they are not.

Catholic morality does indeed rely on the natural law, but the two are not equivalent. The natural law is available to all, on the basis of reason. Catholic morality includes the additional insights given by revelation i.e. matters of faith, not only reason.

 

[d97c]

Here is what “the church” says today…from Pope Benedict…QUOTE !------->>>>>

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, **it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. **
There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Let the diversity begin !!!
So…no I think “the church” is saying that Catholics can disagree and recieve Communion and support politicians who support the death penalty. So I support “the church.”

 

[d97c]

too late to edit…“i” before “e” except after “c”…
ok…got it

 

[Lycorth]

… This is my principle objection to 2267: it focuses solely on one of the three secondary objectives of punishment and completely ignores the primary objective - which is justice. …

Of course; the death penalty certainly serves as proper justice for a grave offense. I’ll never deny that.

Second, in your comment on the first sentence of 2267 you mentioned the caveat and implied that it could be seen as just and reasonable. I disagree and your own citations should confirm that the restriction in 2267 was never part of traditional teaching. That statement is simply false.

I tend to lean towards your observations, personally. There is and never was a need for any caveat or any clarification above and beyond what has been traditionally taught.

Truth does not change, of course. But whether and how Trent (or any human expression) of the truth corresponds to “Truth” is open to question.

Trent was the inspired teaching of the Holy Spirit and given through the infallible Magisterium of the Church. It is not a “human expression”; the statement that deviates is the more likely candidate, and that honor goes to John Paul II’s remark that the death penalty is “rarely justified” - something neither explicitly or implicitly taught in any prior Catechism.

So…is the Church today in error?

Yes, but not on a matter of faith or morals. I explained this earlier.

The simple fact is that we are not arguing the morality of the death penalty in and of itself.

Yes, we have been. That has been either explicit or otherwise implied throughout this whole debate, and anytime the death penalty is debated.

I do not know a simpler way to put it. What we are arguing is that in modern society, it is by and large unneeded. Life in prison without parole sufficiently redresses the crime. Executions result in excessive spending of tax dollars, which could be better spent on truly preventative programs, and society is duly protected from violent offenders. How is any of this inconsistent with Catholic teaching.

I provided factual links that address the fact that prisons do not rehabilitate grave offenders nor do they protect society. Recidivism is strong and anyone can see that American society (particularly in urban areas where the majority of violent crime, and prisons, exist) has become more violent in recent decades. Simple truths such as these prove that the death penalty is not at fault, but rather the soft approach to crime and punishment in violent places.

Executions do not need to result in any major expense; supporting hundreds of thousands of violent criminals yearly, paying for their nutrition and health care and entertainment, is infinitely more expensive than simple and traditional means of execution. Costly chemicals and lengthy processes are not required; rifle cartridges cost pennies apiece to produce and rope is also inexpensive to manufacture and is reusable. Common sense alone dictates that it is cheaper to execute violent, grave offenders than to keep them alive at the expense of the poor and the rest of the society they violate. Moreover, it is unjust.

I know you will get on your justices soap-box, so let me answer you preemptively. Absolute justice is not consistent with revealed Truth. Let me say it again, because you have a habit of ignoring my statements. Absolute justice is not consistent with revealed Truth. If it were, then there would be no salvation possible. We are guilty of personal sin. We were born under the curse of original sin. In His mercy, God provided salvation for us, not based on our merit, but on His grace. In other words, absolute justice demands that we all spend an eternity in hell. So before you yell and scream about what you think other people deserve, you must first accept your own guilt. This is why Jesus said, “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens. This is the justification for war and the death penalty. Punishment can be achieved without killing the offender.

Get down from your own soapbox for a moment.

If it were true that mere incarceration was enough, society would be much more peaceful than it is today. The easily observed truth about modern society tells a different tale. Prisons are inhumane, dangerous, and ineffective. The traditional method of punishing grave criminals and protecting society, the death penalty, is much more effective and can be implemented with nowhere near the cost of maintaining prisons and coddling violent offenders.

There are plenty of people to fill our pews. We need to get Western civilization back on track before we will have the luxury of being able to focus mostly on society’s dangerous elements. When we have a properly Catholic civilization again, maybe then we can worry about alternative means to rehabilitate criminals - but then again, once we have a properly Catholic civilization again, violent crime will be orders of magnitude less than what it is now. If we want to redress crime without resorting to the death penalty, focus more on ending the foolish separation of church and state and on bringing the Faith to millions of innocent ears which need to hear it. That is the only bloodless method that will work.

 

[portarica]

Lycoth,

Most of the bulk of your backup for your argument in favor of the death penalty is not from sources of info regarding capital crimes.

If we used your reasoning we should be offing people who sell pot , because they are bigger members of the groups in the studies you cite.

The failures of the american penal system have little to do with the death penalty, except that the system itself is of such poor design and fair application , as is the way the death penalty has been used in the US.

Peace

 

[d97c]

You know…it all boils down to this: Those who say that the death penalty should not be used take the writings and opinion of the current catechism and Pohn Paul 2. We who argue that the death penalty should be used now rely on centuries of prior Popes, catechisms to justify its use then and now.

There is nothing about the year 2010, or the current 'feelings" toward the murderer that makes todays attitude about not applying the death penalty any more rational or sound than the centuries of the approval of the death penalty.
The Pope currently says that we can disagree about the use of it …today. So, lets get this opinion—> what makes J P 2s opinion and the lefty American Bishops of 2010 any better or more enlightened than the centuries of Popes, catechisms, writers, doctors, councils (get the drift here?) who supported the death penalty? Time???
So do you folks say that if it is written in 2010, it is “better” than prior writings??? More enlightened??? Sorry, dont even try that one.
and saying that punishment can be achieved without the death penalty disregards the reasons quoted ad infinitum here regarding the reasons for the death penalty…which is conveniently ignored by the 2010 church.
So, you have your opinion that it is “better” that we dont have the death penalty… I say it is “better” that we do. Not executing bin Laden if we caught and convicted him is a slap in the face and a total disrespect for the lives of thre 9-11 victims.

 

[CWBetts]

You know…it all boils down to this: Those who say that the death penalty should not be used take the writings and opinion of the current catechism and Pohn Paul 2. We who argue that the death penalty should be used now rely on centuries of prior Popes, catechisms to justify its use then and now.

There is nothing about the year 2010, or the current 'feelings" toward the murderer that makes todays attitude about not applying the death penalty any more rational or sound than the centuries of the approval of the death penalty.
The Pope currently says that we can disagree about the use of it …today. So, lets get this opinion—> what makes J P 2s opinion and the lefty American Bishops of 2010 any better or more enlightened than the centuries of Popes, catechisms, writers, doctors, councils (get the drift here?) who supported the death penalty? Time???
So do you folks say that if it is written in 2010, it is “better” than prior writings??? More enlightened??? Sorry, dont even try that one.
and saying that punishment can be achieved without the death penalty disregards the reasons quoted ad infinitum here regarding the reasons for the death penalty…which is conveniently ignored by the 2010 church.
So, you have your opinion that it is “better” that we dont have the death penalty… I say it is “better” that we do. Not executing bin Laden if we caught and convicted him is a slap in the face and a total disrespect for the lives of thre 9-11 victims.

do you read our posts at all? We are not arguing for abolition of the death penalty, but only for it to be used when absolutely necessary

 

[diggerdomer]

Trent was the inspired teaching of the Holy Spirit and given through the infallible Magisterium of the Church. It is not a “human expression”; the statement that deviates is the more likely candidate, and that honor goes to John Paul II’s remark that the death penalty is “rarely justified” - something neither explicitly or implicitly taught in any prior Catechism.

Not everything Trent taught was taught infallibly.

Just because the Church teaches something in a new way that had never been taught that way before does not make it wrong. Think of…well…the doctrine of the Trinity. Or…the hypostatic union. Or…religious liberty. Or…any number of examples of the Church teaching something that people who don’t accept it claim it’s “new” and so not part of Tradition and so they can individually reject it.

Yes, but not on a matter of faith or morals. I explained this earlier.

Ok. Guess I’m still sticking with Church teaching vs. yours then. Sorry.

 

[Lycorth]

Lycoth,

Most of the bulk of your backup for your argument in favor of the death penalty is not from sources of info regarding capital crimes.

I told you once before to please demonstrate a working knowledge of my posts. In post #790 and post #815 I cited sources relevant to crime. Please do not waste my time posting inaccurate gibberish about my claims or my intentions.

If we used your reasoning we should be offing people who sell pot , because they are bigger members of the groups in the studies you cite.

Strawman. I have only even spoken about the execution of violent offenders. I have never spoken about executing anyone because they fall into a larger group of criminals.

The failures of the american penal system have little to do with the death penalty, except that the system itself is of such poor design and fair application , as is the way the death penalty has been used in the US.

The death penalty is almost never used in the US, so it cannot be unfairly applied. The only poor designs are those that either rely on unnecessarily drawn-out methods of execution or unnecessarily costly methods.

Not everything Trent taught was taught infallibly.

Just because the Church teaches something in a new way that had never been taught that way before does not make it wrong. Think of…well…the doctrine of the Trinity. Or…the hypostatic union. Or…religious liberty. Or…any number of examples of the Church teaching something that people who don’t accept it claim it’s “new” and so not part of Tradition and so they can individually reject it.

Jibber-jabber. The plain facts are that the Church has consistently and clearly supported the morality of the application of the death penalty for grave offenses all throughout its history.

Ok. Guess I’m still sticking with Church teaching vs. yours then. Sorry.

I’m not teaching anything, and I’ll thank you to remember that.

The Church has never opposed the death penalty, and has clearly taught that it is morally valid for the state to use for the defense of society and the just redress of grave crimes.