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

[godisgood77]

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

The Church develops and deepens its doctrine. It has always been this way. I recommend St John Henry Newman on the subject as he so eloquently articulated the way this happens.

I do like your use of ‘inadmissible’ there though.

 

[godisgood77]

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?

I do not believe it is necessary to enter in to your false dichotomy (nor does the Church for that matter)

The Church clearly states that it has deepened its understanding of human dignity. The death penalty is rendered inadmissible as a result. The teaching is centered on the new understanding human dignity, not whether CP is intrinsically evil or not.

This is the eloquent ambiguity.

And authoritative teaching too

 

[Emeraldlady]

godisgood77:

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.

Why can’t it be extrinsically evil being that since it does more harm than good to society today and to admit it goes against the end of human justice which is the common good?

 

[Ender]

I do not believe it is necessary to enter in to your false dichotomy (nor does the Church for that matter)

It is not possible to answer the question because answering either yes or no is self defeating. You cannot help but recognize that, which is why you will not, and cannot, take a position.

 

[Emeraldlady]

It is not possible to answer the question because answering either yes or no is self defeating. You cannot help but recognize that, which is why you will not, and cannot, take a position.

Do you take a position on the reality of ‘extrinsic’ evils? Do you admit that killing a human being is actually evil when it doesn’t serve the purpose that justified it?

 

[Annie]

Why can’t it be extrinsically evil being that since it does more harm than good to society today and to admit it goes against the end of human justice which is the common good?

Why can it not be shown to do more harm than good to society?

If justice contributes to the common good by ensuring that each receives his due, and if a person commits a crime so heinous as to deserve the loss of his life in justice, then how can this harm the common good?

And how does leaving a heinous criminal alive when he deserves death help the common good? What are we saying when we grant the most vile of criminals mercy but refuse mercy to minor criminals?

 

[Rau]

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 need not mean that it is intrinsically evil and the church is not saying that - indeed it cannot. The message is this: The damage done to human dignity is more fully appreciated and the offsetting benefits of CP (versus alternatives) aren’t there. It’s a re-evaluation and weighing up of the consequences as is one of the steps in the process to evaluate the morality of any proposed act.

I’ve expressed this thought a number of times - with no response.

 

[Rau]

I do not believe it is necessary to enter in to your false dichotomy (nor does the Church for that matter)

It is not a false dichotomy - that is an outrageous assertion.

I refer you to Veritatis Splendor where St John Paul 2 discusses at length the centrality of the concept of intrinsic evil to catholic moral theology. And it was also JP 2 who made significant adjustments to the church’s perspective on CP, both in the 1992 Catechism and in his Encyclical Evangelium Vitae. In both cases, he focused on prudential assessments.

 

[Rau]

Why can it not be shown to do more harm than good to society?

The weighing of consequences is a prudential assessment.

If justice contributes to the common good by ensuring that each receives his due, and if a person commits a crime so heinous as to deserve the loss of his life in justice, then how can this harm the common good?

While death may be an acceptable penalty, it is not always the necessary one, no matter the crime. We have options, and we ought to choose the one that in the broadest assessment produces the best outcome - and certainly not one we perceive to entail more harm than good.

 

[Annie]

While death may be an acceptable penalty, it is not always the necessary one, no matter the crime. We have options, and we ought to choose the one that in the broadest assessment produces the best outcome

As I wrote earlier, i don’t think CP should be applied to every murderer, I think it should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes.

OTOH, i am wary about agreeing that the punishment we choose should be the one “that in the broadest assessment produces the best outcome.” That sounds too disconnected from the crime thus from justice.

 

[o_mlly]

The question is simple: does “inadmissible” mean intrinsically evil or not? How hard can that be to answer?

No.

If it [CP] 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?

CP has always been an attack on the human person. Any killing of a human being, whether an unjust aggressor or innocent, is an evil effect. The use of the word “inviolability” as it relates to human dignity also applies to valid acts of self-defense in which only saving an “inviolable” life can justify the taking of an “inviolable” life.

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.

CCC#2267, paragraph 2 begins with the word, “Today” which explicitly means that what follows did not hold in previous times, that is, circumstances have changed. What follows are two changes, one is not reversible the other is. The new “understanding” cannot be reversed but the “new systems” can revert. Therefore, only as long as the “new systems” are sustained does the “inadmissible” sanction applies. If this interpretation is correct then CP is, as it has always been, in specie not intrinsically evil.

 

[godisgood77]

I’m a little confused Rau…

First you post this comment…

It need not mean that it is intrinsically evil and the church is not saying that - indeed it cannot.

and then this one…

It is not a false dichotomy - that is an outrageous assertion.

I think there is a disconnect… my point is that limiting the discussion to whether CP is intrinsically evil or not is a false dichotomy. I am not questioning the concept of intrinsic evils in Catholic moral theology.

The first order of the Church’s development of its doctrine on the use of CPis a new, deeper understanding of human dignity. This new understanding makes the use of CP inadmissible.

My contention is that it is not necessary to judge CP as intrinsically evil or not to adhere to, to understand and to explain the Church’s teaching on this. Whether or not CP is intrinsically evil is not essential to this discussion… human dignity is.

 

[Rau]

I think there is a disconnect… my point is that limiting the discussion to whether CP is intrinsically evil or not is a false dichotomy. I am not questioning the concept of intrinsic evils in Catholic moral theology.

Every human act (in specie) is either intrinsically evil (always wrong to choose) or not. The discussion is not limited to that point, but that point is essential in understanding the basis and nature of what the church is saying and how that teaching stands with prior teaching. So - could you tell us - do you understand CP to be intrinsically evil or not?

I have given my understanding of the Church’s new formulation of teaching on the morality of CP and how that formulation derives from moral theology principles and fits with prior teaching. You are yet to agree or disagree.

 

[catholic03]

Our Holy Father has condemned the use of the death penalty. Not because it is intrinsically evil, but because in our times there are better ways to deal with people who commit such crimes.

The death penalty is a lot like ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ attitude, which as Our Lord reminded us, is not a good way of thinking. In essence, there is no place for the death penalty in this world and the Holy Father has recognised this. That is not to say that in the past it was not necessary, but in this day and age there are much more humane methods of dealing with such offenders.

The death penalty seems very ingrained into the ‘American’ way of thinking, so despite the secularism of the country on the whole, the death penalty is still widely supported.

I, as a New Zealander do not understand this way of thinking, but I am not American, so perhaps I shouldn’t expect to.

May the Lord be with you,
catholic03

IC XC NIKA

 

[Rau]

That sounds too disconnected from the crime thus from justice.

Focusing on the crime and justice may disconnect our act from what is morally good. It might distract our view from the greater good. We are talking about a choice among severe penalty options, not a choice between a just punishment and something pleasant, or a choice between justice and a lack of justice.

 

[LilyM]

OneSheep:

When a person does something egregious, our conscience is triggered and we desire to punish.

Do you not recognize that sin deserves punishment? Yes, we should desire punishment because it is a matter of justice. It is sin and sin alone that deserves punishment. It is in fact an obligation of government to punish those who “does something egregious.”

While our religion tells us to forgive, the value of forgiveness is not upheld in our society.

The obligations of the state are very different from those of the individual. The individual is called on to forgive, but the state has a duty to punish even as that right is forbidden to the individual.

In short, we want to kill those who do great evil because it is our nature. What Jesus does is invite us to transcend our nature and forgive.

You either misunderstand the nature of justice or dismiss its importance. Nowhere in the gospels or in all of scripture is it suggested that one who sins does not deserved to be punished. Quite the opposite:

On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 3:10:11): "Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him. (Aquinas, ST I-II 21,3)

Well in justice Jesus ought to have stoned the woman caught in adultery. Not only did He not do so, He dissuaded those around Him from doing so as well.

Earthly justice is far from perfect, and even in law there is room for mercy, hence lawmakers are allowed to pardon criminals.

 

[godisgood77]

do you understand CP to be intrinsically evil or not?

In light of the Church’s new, deepened understanding of human dignity, the death penalty is inadmissible as a punishment. This legitimate development of doctrine hinges on the fact that all people, even those who commit the most heinous crimes, do not lose their right to life.

Rau, I will say that your explanation seems plausible.

Relative to your direct question - whether or not CP is intrinsically evil or not - I don’t know nor do I particularly care. I will say that I believe that exacting the death penalty is never a good.

I’m happy that CP is now inadmissible according to authoritative Church teaching… a truly great moment in the pro-life movement!

 

[Rau]

Relative to whether or not CP is intrinsically evil, I don’t know or particularly care.

The church has always taught it is not. My thesis on the topic rests on that being the case.

 

[Ender]

Do you admit that killing a human being is actually evil when it doesn’t serve the purpose that justified it?

Do I believe it is evil to kill someone when it is not justified? Is that really a question?

It need not mean that it is intrinsically evil and the church is not saying that - indeed it cannot.

Thank you…and true, she cannot.

The damage done to human dignity is more fully appreciated and the offsetting benefits of CP (versus alternatives) aren’t there.

Possibly, but these are simply assertions with nothing to support them, and inasmuch as they are opinions there is no obligation to agree with them. Besides, retribution (retributive justice) is still the primary objective of punishment, and death is still commensurate in severity with the crime of murder. It remains a just punishment.

It’s a re-evaluation and weighing up of the consequences as is one of the steps in the process to evaluate the morality of any proposed act.

If in my evaluation the consequences are good then the act would be moral for me. If in your evaluation the consequences would be bad then it would be immoral for you. Given that the action is itself not immoral, what makes a particular act moral or immoral is the reason for doing it, and your (or anyone else’s) opinion that it is harmful is not binding on me (or anyone else).

The weighing of consequences is a prudential assessment.

Yes, that’s the key point.

Any killing of a human being, whether an unjust aggressor or innocent, is an evil effect.

Yes…but this is a bit misleading because there is a greater good attached to that evil.

The evil of natural defect, or of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils are attached. Thus in willing justice He wills punishment. (Aquinas ST I-II 19,9)

 

[Annie]

Yes, but I was responding to this statement of yours: we ought to choose the one that in the broadest assessment produces the best outcome, which seems like a very wide net!