Will Texas execute two innocent men? [CNA]

[graciew]

This makes zero sense.

How can an act be moral, yet its implication be immoral?

It does make sense.
We try and do it all for the glory of God. We know that life and death are in His Hands.
If there was a concesion,as the wording itself indicates,how is it we can t say we need no longer this concession,permission?

      We have been able to,much of the rest of the world,with much less resources than you have,Tim.
 Three Popes have been consistently saying  this.

Maybe you do not realize what it looks like from the outside, when a persón has his death neatly planned,and so so many years after.
I once posted an article. Somewhere in Middle East,an experienced executionist,describes how he sharpened his sword neatly so as to inflict the least pain possible. It was his job ,and this wasn t many years ago. . And he said that before the execution,he visited the víctims’ family,and prayed. And if the family forgave,the execution was cancelled.
I do not know where this was in Middle East,but he also said,he still prayed and hoped he would not have to carry out the execution.
Well, we pray too for no more executions ,and for life.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This makes zero sense.

What makes “zero sense”: is the putting forward of that which is irrelevant, or worse, actually meaningless as well as purposeless to the issue.

 

[graciew]

What makes “zero sense”: is the putting forward of that which is irrelevant, or worse, actually meaningless as well as purposeless to the issue.

Ok. Maybe that of the executionist was wrong. I did not know such practice existed,and there could be forgiveness and that he would fervently pray there was .
And if there is much more,please let me know.

 

[Tim_D]

What makes “zero sense”: is the putting forward of that which is irrelevant, or worse, actually meaningless as well as purposeless to the issue.

What also makes “zero sense” is how some maintain that dangerous criminals can be safely locked away for the rest of their natural life (something that Pope Francis has spoken against, btw, yet no-one ever mentions) when our experience here in this country recently has shown that dangerous criminals serving life sentences can still instigate violence in prison and do break out and cause violence against innocent people. Need I mention the two criminals who escaped from prison, took a family hostage, raped the wife and daughters, left them all bound and set the house on fire, with only the father escaping with his life? Or is all of that irrelevant? What does that have to say about the premise that the death penalty is unnecessary because violent criminals can be safely put away?

 

[Tim_D]

Killing an entire city was moral. Once. When God ordered the destruction of Ai, obeying God was a moral act. When Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, it was not moral. Does this make God a moral relativist? Of course not. Recognizing that context can change the nature of an act is not moral relativism.

And Lot’s daughters had sex with their father.

Context?

 

[Ender]

Killing a criminal is not the only way to redress a wrong committed.

This is simply an assertion with nothing to support it. It may be true but you’ve provided no reason to believe it.

The opinion in the Catechism, and from the last three popes may well be subjective, but it is also authoritative.

I know we’ve had this discussion, and however you mean the word “authoritative” I think you know it doesn’t mean “requires assent.” That is not required of opinions.

It is also instructional. There is no contradiction with the previous catechisms.

It doesn’t contradict previous catechisms precisely because it is not new doctrine, but a prudential judgment about how the doctrine ought to be applied in modern societies. The church has always taught that capital punishment ought not be used if it had a harmful effect, which is the assumption being made today.

The world we live in does determine how we can justly punish people, and it always has.

The answer here is both yes and no. There are two aspects to a punishment that must be considered: the punishment the crime deserves, and whether that punishment should be applied in a particular case because of some conditional factor. The merited punishment, while somewhat conditioned by local tradition, is much more fixed. That is, the just punishment for murder is death; it was that way in the past and it cannot be otherwise today. That part is not dependent on tradition. Whether that punishment is applied, however, is to a large degree determined by local conditions.

Application of the death penalty is a moral issue. It is not just opinion, and it does, it must, change with society.

What makes it a moral issue? We know the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime, so from that aspect it is a just sentence. If I think more good than harm will come from executing such a sentence then I am obliged to support it; if you believe otherwise then you are bound to oppose it, but if it is equally moral to choose either side of a debate where is the moral issue? I may well be mistaken in my judgment (as may you), but an error in judgment is not a sin.

Ender

 

[Ender]

How can an act be moral, yet its implication be immoral?

I don’t quite agree with the assertion either, but it goes to the difference between the doctrine and the application of that doctrine. The doctrine is that States have a legitimate right to employ capital punishment for serious crimes, so the theoretical use of capital punishment is moral. It is a moral act when viewed solely between the State and the murderer.

It has, however, been judged that the use of capital punishment is harmful to those societies that use it, so in that sense it is held to be an immoral act when the act is seen in context with the larger society.

The problem with that position is that it is based on an assumption, an educated guess. If I know something is immoral I have a moral obligation not to do it. If I know something will be harmful I have that same obligation, but what if I don’t know? What if such knowledge is not possible to possess? Asserting that this is now a moral choice cannot be true. If I simply ignore the recommendations of those more learned in the field, or if I make my choice based on prejudice or hate, then yes, I will be held accountable.

But what if I come to the informed position that the greater harm comes from withholding capital punishment? What then? What becomes of me if I support the recommended position that I believe is wrong? Isn’t doing something you believe to be wrong itself a sin whether or not what you believe is true? If using capital punishment is by implication immoral then so is supporting its use, and its supporters are quite literally in a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” position.

One might argue that this is like deciding whether to use contraceptives: you have the choice of doing what the church teaches or of ignoring her doctrines and doing what you think best, but this ignores the crucial distinction between doctrine and prudential judgments. I am not free to ignore doctrine. I am, however, not obligated to assent to an opinion if I have good reason to oppose it, and in that case there is no question of morality. I may have made a correct or incorrect choice, but I have not committed an immoral act. That is, the implication is not moral.

Ender

 

[graciew]

What also makes “zero sense” is how some maintain that dangerous criminals can be safely locked away for the rest of their natural life (something that Pope Francis has spoken against, btw, yet no-one ever mentions) when our experience here in this country recently has shown that dangerous criminals serving life sentences can still instigate violence in prison and do break out and cause violence against innocent people. Need I mention the two criminals who escaped from prison, took a family hostage, raped the wife and daughters, left them all bound and set the house on fire, with only the father escaping with his life? Or is all of that irrelevant? What does that have to say about the premise that the death penalty is unnecessary because violent criminals can be safely put away?

I think you presuppose that avoiding / eliminating life sentences means nothing in between to restore and redress what was broken . As a free pass wiith no work from the society on behalf of the good of each and all.

It isn’ t irrelevant to be an innocent víctim. At all. And we cannot imagine the Popes are not aware.
It would be illogical to assume it just happens that by being imprisoned,all wrongs,mental illnesses,wounds and pain disappear . There is more to be done to bring peace,for me …thinking aloud with you…