Why does the US and so many of its citizens continue to support the death penalty?

[Emeraldlady]

Annie:

However, when people make a mistake in executing someone who by all the evidence is guilty, then how can God condemn that act, serious as it may be?

On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas ST II-II 64,8)

In quoting Aquinas on the principle of double effect can we assume that you now believe the death penalty is justifiable as self defense ie an unintended death?

 

[Bernoulli]

In quoting Aquinas on the principle of double effect can we assume that you now believe the death penalty is justifiable as self defense ie an unintended death?

I think the point was that if a judge, a member of the jury or other minister of the judiciary condemns an innocent person, even to death, but the available evidence pointed to guilt, the minister is not guilty for the innocent blood because in that case the death was unintended.

 

[Ender]

I believe the language is easy to understand. Clearly it is difficult for some to accept. Perhaps reference the CDF’s letter of explanation for assistance?

Let’s at least be honest about this: the language is anything but clear. This exact question was asked by the US bishops at their annual meeting this past fall in Baltimore: what does “inadmissible” mean? The response? It was called an “eloquent ambiguity”…and left at that. If the bishops can’t or won’t explain it’s meaning the most reasonable explanation is that its meaning is anything but clear.

Again… some simply reject the Church on this matter.

In the end it always comes down to this: those who disagree are just not as Catholic as the rest of us. When there are no more real arguments there’s always this one.

 

[Ender]

In quoting Aquinas on the principle of double effect can we assume that you now believe the death penalty is justifiable as self defense ie an unintended death?

The citation was on the question of murder, specifically: “Whether one is guilty of murder through killing someone by chance?” It has nothing to do with the principle of double effect, and no, the death penalty is not now and never has been justifiable as self defense.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

In quoting Aquinas on the principle of double effect can we assume that you now believe the death penalty is justifiable as self defense ie an unintended death?

I think the point was that if a judge, a member of the jury or other minister of the judiciary condemns an innocent person, even to death, but the available evidence pointed to guilt, the minister is not guilty for the innocent blood because in that case the death was unintended.

Even that is a stretch in the light of the current state of things in the US. Annie prefaced her post with…

“First let me say that 1) there are problems with CP as applied in the US, and not only because different states have different rules; 2) that we have found that CP has been applied to too many innocent people (imo).”

The conditions for blamelessness don’t seem to exist to qualify for double effect.

 

[godisgood77]

In the end it always comes down to this: those who disagree are just not as Catholic as the rest of us.

No, that is not really it. It’s not personal as you try to make it. It’s objective, you either accept or reject the teaching. Or as is common these days, are ignorant to the teaching.

The language is indeed clear… The word inadmissible is used as it always is… no ambiguity and quite simple spoken. I understand that there exists disagreement on the teaching though… that is not uncommon in the Church and among Catholics

 

[Ender]

It’s objective, you either accept or reject the teaching. Or as is common these days, are ignorant to the teaching.

Not exactly. The question is whether I accept your understanding of what the church teaches, not whether I accept the church. Clearly I disagree with you.

The language is indeed clear… The word inadmissible is used as it always is… no ambiguity and quite simple spoken.

Let’s examine that assumption. You’ve not taken a position on the question of CP being intrinsically evil, but you really need to. Here’s the problem: if it isn’t intrinsically evil then - by definition - there are situations where it could be acceptable…and that means it can’t really be inadmissible if there are situations where it is admissible.

If you argue that conditions are such that its use is unjustifiable then you admit that opposition to its use is prudential. The problem there is that prudential judgments are not binding on our conscience; one may justifiably hold the contrary position.

This is almost surely why the bishop raised the question, because either yes or no creates a serious problem, which can only be avoided by not answering the question in the first place. Hence the “eloquent ambiguity” dodge.

 

[godisgood77]

…and that means it can’t really be inadmissible if there are situations where it is admissible.

Except that Church teaches that it is inadmissible… that is where your argument falls completely apart.

So, do you accept that CP is inadmissible for Catholics or not? You certainly do not seem ignorant to the teaching… so yay or nay?

You are trying to frame the argument around CP being intrinsically evil or not. Pope Francis, the CDF and the Catechism frame the teaching based on the Church’s understanding of the inviolability of each human person. As the CDF letter referenced earlier states, the teaching has been reformulated to be based on human dignity…if one clings to making the argument about the morality of CP, then I could see your point, but it is not about that

 

[Rau]

The language is indeed clear… The word inadmissible is used as it always is… no ambiguity and quite simple spoken.

Inadmissibility attaches to a set of circumstances. Eg. certain evidence is “inadmissible in court in prescribed circumstances”. But the same evidence may be admissible in court in other circumstances, or it may be admissible in other fora. Circumstances matter.

The statement “CP is inadmissible” on its own is unclear. But it can be understood if read in context. I provided a context earlier:

I assume you agree that CP is not intrinsically evil? If you are familiar with catholic moral theology, you’ll know this is not some minor side issue. Because what it means is that (given proper intentions), an act of CP can be good in appropriate circumstances (and evil in other circumstances). And it leads to the conclusion that the Church is identifying that it is circumstances that render (nowadays) CP inadmissible. The dignity of the individual is assaulted by CP and that evil effect is to be weighed in the consequences along with other good and evil effects. The church has done so and thus arrived at its conclusion. I concur with that weighing.

Placing the Church’s conclusion in the Catechism IMHO adds a little more to the potential confusion, because, as explained earlier:

the prudential assessment involved is not typically found in a Catechism. It’s surprising to me that an Encycyclical was not used.

So, do you accept that CP is inadmissible for Catholics or not?

Is morality limited to Catholics?

if one clings to making the argument about the morality of CP, then I could see your point, but it is not about that

The matter in debate is precisely the morality of CP, in itself, and in the circumstances of the world today.

 

[Annie]

Except that Church teaches that it is inadmissible… that is where your argument falls completely apart.

Inadmissible is not a word that can be applied to an action, because the word means that something can not be admitted, and is a legal term isually applied to evidence.

Hence the “elegant ambiguity.”

 

[Ender]

Except that Church teaches that it is inadmissible… that is where your argument falls completely apart.

So, do you accept that CP is inadmissible for Catholics or not? You certainly do not seem ignorant to the teaching… so yay or nay?

You’ll have to explain to me what the word means. Is it inadmissible because it is intrinsically evil, or is it inadmissible because current circumstances make it wrong to use? And don’t say it doesn’t matter because the implications are entirely different.

Or, you could take the approach the bishops used and go with “eloquent ambiguity”. It’s an evasion, but it is also the only way to salvage a position where yes and no are equally wrong.

if one clings to making the argument about the morality of CP, then I could see your point, but it is not about that

If the question of using capital punishment is not a moral issue then why have church leaders taken a position on it? And again, if it’s not moral then what does it even mean to charge me with not accepting the church? If it’s not moral doctrine, what is it? Opinion?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Or, you could take the approach the bishops used and go with “eloquent ambiguity”. It’s an evasion, but it is also the only way to salvage a position where yes and no are equally wrong.

Parents know this term and how it is useful when they have a child who they know doesn’t want to accept something and is only intent on blindly arguing from their own agenda.

 

[Annie]

This might be applicable to me, who just says her own stuff, but Ender has been quoting what Doctors of the Church have been saying.

 

[Emeraldlady]

This might be applicable to me, who just says her own stuff, but Ender has been quoting what Doctors of the Church have been saying.

Ender quotes only what suits his agenda but rejects what doesn’t or that which would expound on the big picture of 2000 years of Church teaching on the subject. I have little respect for that.

 

[godisgood77]

Inadmissible is not a word that can be applied to an action,

And yet the word is used…

The term is commonly defined as not allowable.

i.e. Such evidence would be inadmissible in any court.

Or Such an action would be inadmissible as a punishment

 

[godisgood77]

You’ll have to explain to me what the word means. Is it inadmissible because it is intrinsically evil, or is it inadmissible because current circumstances make it wrong to use?

As simply as I can put it (which is easy because the letter of explanation from the CDF was so clear). It is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability of the human person.

 

[Annie]

So you are familiar with the centuries of teaching contrary to what Ender is posting?

 

[Annie]

And yet the word is used…

If I were to tell everyone I had bought or owned some grammar, I would have to explain myself, because this is not a way in which the word grammar is used.

In the same way, this is not a way in which the word inadmissible is used.

This problem could have been easily clarified, but it has not been.

It is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability of the human person.

This sounds like it is intrinsically evil, and yet for 90%of Church history, it was not.

Which kinda goes against the teaching of the Church that changing Church teaching is inadmissible.

 

[Ender]

As simply as I can put it (which is easy because the letter of explanation was so clear). It is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability of the human person.

The question is simple: does “inadmissible” mean intrinsically evil or not? How hard can that be to answer? If it really is an attack on the inviolability of the human person, that sounds like it is an intrinsic evil, so why would you not be willing to declare it? It is unquestionably implied that this is what the word means, but the unwillingness to actually state it demonstrates that there is a serious problem with doing so.

The only way this charade can be sustained is by implying CP is intrinsically evil without ever specifically asserting it. We are to act as if it is even as we know it cannot be. This is the eloquent ambiguity.

 

[EvangelistVictor]

Moses would endorse the death penalty under his laws.

Jesus was lifted up on that old rugged Roman cross and took the death penalty we all deserved because of our sins.

You really think Jesus would support an institutionalist death penalty for criminals?