Catholics emboldened to abolish death penalty

[chevyontheriver]

I actually wrote a detailed post on my opinion of the matter here. Although I don't like John Paul II's decision, my primary aim in these discussions has been to tease out the fact that John Paul II's teaching was a substantial revision of the long tradition of the Church. I think more people need to admit that fact. That's not to say the revision was intrinsically illegitimate, just that it was in fact a revision.

John Paul didn't allow any reason for capital punishment except for the preservation of order and safety. But for those things he did allow it. I accept that and there are real circumstances that will probably always exist where a convicted person will have to be put to death to protect society. A person who murders even in prison for example, or narco-terrorists who can buy their way out of prison. The perfect prison does not exist even though a supermax prison is pretty good. So we will always have a need to put some particular convict to death.

Pope Francis is naive to think otherwise. It's as if he decided there would be no exceptions and that was that. He's the pope and he thinks that means he can make things up. Argh.

You say pope John Paul II made it up as well. I know little about whether that is so or not. I do know that a Moral Theology textbook from the 1950's by Heribert Jone doesn't find the death penalty problematic for a grave crime as long as guilt is assured with moral certainty, and that the criminal is given an opportunity for the sacraments. It says only that it is allowed 'in the interest of the common welfare'. I don't think this is anywhere near an exhaustive. It isn't clear what 'in the interest of the common welfare' really means. That's about the extent of my understanding of the pre-John Paul situation.

 

[Rhamiel]

Maybe I'm the first Catholic ever to draw the connection to Cain. I don't know. Why did God spare Cain?

Well if you are the first person to make that up then it is an innovation and not proper exigencies

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well if you are the first person to make that up then it is an innovation and not proper exigencies

I don't know if I am the first person or not. Maybe I am. If so, it would be an innovation. However as to whether it is proper exegesis, one just has to ask why God marked Cain to protect him rather than marking him to be killed. That God did mark Cain for protection is a given from the text itself without exegesis.

 

[zippy2006]

John Paul didn't allow any reason for capital punishment except for the preservation of order and safety. But for those things he did allow it. I accept that and there are real circumstances that will probably always exist where a convicted person will have to be put to death to protect society. A person who murders even in prison for example, or narco-terrorists who can buy their way out of prison. The perfect prison does not exist even though a supermax prison is pretty good. So we will always have a need to put some particular convict to death.

Pope Francis is naive to think otherwise. It's as if he decided there would be no exceptions and that was that. He's the pope and he thinks that means he can make things up. Argh.

Pope Francis' position is definitely stronger and less principled.

You say pope John Paul II made it up as well. I know little about whether that is so or not. I do know that a Moral Theology textbook from the 1950's by Heribert Jone doesn't find the death penalty problematic for a grave crime as long as guilt is assured with moral certainty, and that the criminal is given an opportunity for the sacraments. It says only that it is allowed 'in the interest of the common welfare'. I don't think this is anywhere near an exhaustive. It isn't clear what 'in the interest of the common welfare' really means. That's about the extent of my understanding of the pre-John Paul situation.

I would say that the sources which influenced JPII's revision are primarily post-Enlightenment sources. From reading Aquinas, Feser, and the New Natural Lawyers it seems to me that there has been a shift regarding the specific nature of human dignity and the right to life, and that this shift influences other areas as well, such as freedom of religion. The Church will go on to decide whether that shift is legitimate.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Pope Francis' position is definitely stronger and less principled.

Sadly I agree.

I would say that the sources which influenced JPII's revision are primarily post-Enlightenment sources. From reading Aquinas, Feser, and the New Natural Lawyers it seems to me that there has been a shift regarding the specific nature of human dignity and the right to life, and that this shift influences other areas as well, such as freedom of religion. The Church will go on to decide whether that shift is legitimate.

I hope to hear a bit more on this in the future. To me John Paul seems sensible.Francis does not.

 

[Rhamiel]

Sadly I agree.

I hope to hear a bit more on this in the future. To me John Paul seems sensible.Francis does not.

I agree that Pope John Paul II has a view on this that is very sensible, it just does not line up with the historical Christian view

 

[zippy2006]

Sadly I agree.

I hope to hear a bit more on this in the future. To me John Paul seems sensible.Francis does not.

Thinking about this more, I am wondering how much the societal belief in the afterlife influences notions of the value of earthly life. In an era like the Middle Ages when everyone believed in life after death capital punishment was presumably not seen in the same way it is today. As less and less people believe in an afterlife the perceived value of earthly life grows until today we have many saying that the earthly portion of our life has infinite value.

That might be a clumsy way to put the point, but I think it plays a large role in the ethical systems that have influenced a modern view of the dignity of human life and capital punishment. Today the act is simply seen quite differently than it was in the past.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thinking about this more, I am wondering how much the societal belief in the afterlife influences notions of the value of earthly life. In an era like the Middle Ages when everyone believed in life after death capital punishment was presumably not seen in the same way it is today. As less and less people believe in an afterlife the perceived value of earthly life grows until today we have many saying that the earthly portion of our life has infinite value.

That might be a clumsy way to put the point, but I think it plays a large role in the ethical systems that have influenced a modern view of the dignity of human life and capital punishment. Today the act is simply seen quite differently than it was in the past.

I don't know. Life is pretty cheap. How many were gunned down in Chicago last week. There might be a select crowd that has become more valuing of life while becoming more secular, but for most it is secular nihilism and getting what's good while one can.

And then there is that movie saying about killing them all and letting God sort it out.

 

[zippy2006]

It seems to me that the errors of Francis pontificate are quickly growing with his latest encyclical, Fratelli Tutti:

"There can be no stepping back from this position. Today we state clearly that "the death penalty is inadmissible" and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide" (#263).

"I would link this to life imprisonment… A life sentence is a secret death penalty" (#268).
​

The denial of retributive punishment, the denial of life imprisonment, and the reordering of the concept of punishment according to recent secular theories are all big problems. The slippery slope steepens.

 

[Basil the Great]

*You are in the Catholic forum*

New Hampshire became the 21st state to formally end the death penalty, after its legislature overrode the governor's veto.

Continued below.
Catholics Emboldened to Abolish the Death Penalty

Wonderful news If every human life is precious, then State sanctioned murder in maximum security settings would appear to be an act of vengeance and not self defense.

 

[zippy2006]

Wonderful news If every human life is precious, then State sanctioned murder in maximum security settings would appear to be an act of vengeance and not self defense.

The idea that capital punishment in the Christian tradition is merely a matter of self-defense is a strawman par excellence, and the idea that prisons have been unable to hold captives for the last 2,000 years is simply false. These are bad arguments.

 

[Basil the Great]

The idea that capital punishment in the Christian tradition is merely a matter of self-defense is a strawman par excellence, and the idea that prisons have been unable to hold captives for the last 2,000 years is simply false. These are bad arguments.

I think we can say that most prisons have been pretty secure since Roman times, though perhaps not in the Old West times in the U.S.