A highly recommended book that sheds
the patient, clear light of reason on the issue of capital punishment. Every U.S. bishop should read it…
In recent years, position statements
and lobbying efforts of the USCCB have ranged across a wide variety of
prudential issues, from global warming and tax policy to immigration and the
death penalty.
There are many policy approaches to
such issues that might conform to the precepts of legitimate Catholic social
teaching, so Lumen
Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the
Catholic Church, requires that action on in this area be left to the laity.
However, leaders and bureaucrats at the USCCB routinely violate that magisterial teaching, and pretend that theirs is the only permissible “Catholic” position when they choose a particular agenda item to champion.
Over the years, this bad habit has
put the faithful in a position of delicacy, patiently and charitably reminding
the bishops that they are trespassing in the realm that is the property of the
laity…
Feser and Bessette’s monumental work
is so welcome in so many ways. It offers
a model for the thorough, careful, and charitable approach that the faithful
must embrace to address the myriad of issues that lie in the realm of the laity…
Regarding capital punishment, the
bishops’ strenuous advocacy is well-known…
Yes, Popes St. John Paul II and
Benedict have called for its abolition; they stressed that their opinions were
not magisterial, but that rational voice has faded. So today it falls to the laity to explain the
principles underlying the issues of crime and punishment, laying out the
arguments to explain the principles in the light of the rich tradition of
Catholic thought. After all, the laity
has a fundamental right to the truth, including when it comes to capital
punishment.
And the truth is exactly what Feser
and Bessette offer in their impressive study. Since popular arguments against the death
penalty are often based on sentiment, they take great care in presenting a
clear and rational discussion to shed the patient, clear light of reason on the
issue. The authors do a masterful job,
addressing the issue of capital punishment from the point of view of the
Natural Law, Church teaching, and theological and philosophical anthropology…
Yes, busy bishops must often assign
to their staffs, lawyers, and advisers the detailed studies that inform the
positions they take publicly. Well, it’s
time for a change: Simply put, every bishop should read this book.
Can he deal with its rational
analysis shorn of sentiment and opinion? The authors have written so clearly and
cogently that the reader who supports abolishing the death penalty can at least
say that he has honestly considered the best possible arguments against his own
position. In fact, the authors make the
bishops’ arguments better than they make them themselves! …
This beautifully researched and
clearly written work will now become the standard Catholic work on capital
punishment.
I don't know if you could have asked for a better book review!
ReplyDeleteHello Dr. Feser. How do I access a complete list of your archived blog posts, by month/year. I can't seem to find any link here on the main blog site. I could keep clicking "older posts"...but that will take forever, nor will they be archived in a easy to access format. Am I missing something obvious. Thanks advance, and God Bless.
ReplyDeleteIf any other contributor might provide some help and guidance on this question, that would be much appreciated, also.
DeleteOn the full site version (not the mobile version), it should be on the right-hand side of the page. But the mobile version doesn't have it, at least that I've ever seen.
DeleteScroll down the right side of this page. At the bottom is the Blog Archive going back to 2008.
ReplyDeleteThe latest from Dr. Fastiggi over on this blog (https://catholicmoraltheology.com/the-death-penalty-and-the-development-of-doctrine-part-ii/):
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe it’s necessary to condemn the death penalty as intrinsically evil (even though such a condemnation is theoretically possible). It suffices, I think, for the Pope to use his ordinary magisterium to condemn the death penalty as gravely wrong when applied to a person who no longer poses a threat and whose crime was in the past. This already is the teaching of the ordinary papal magisterium because Pope Francis’s 2015 Letter is in the A.A.S. Moreover, Pope Francis, in Amoris laetitia, 83, teaches that the Church “firmly rejects the death penalty.” While certain specifications might still need to be developed, I think the teaching of the Church against the death penalty is now quite clear. Catholics should give religious assent to what Pope Francis teaches, viz., the death penalty is inadmissable when carried out on a person who is no longer free, who no longer poses a threat, and whose crime was in the past.
His comments can be found under the article. It seems to be his opinion that Pope Francis has taken us beyond Pope Bendict's 2004 memo that Catholics can legitimately disagree with the Pope on application of the death penalty.
These is going to be a key theses of the anti-DP crowd. Namely: Even if the DP is not intrinsically immoral, Catholics are not permitted to support the practice in our modern time. They must submit with mind and will to the modern Popes.
What should be our answer to this sentiment?
I find this highly problematic. If he said that the state could abstain from applying capital punishment as a supererogatory act of mercy, I'd be okay with it. But to suggest that carrying out capital punishment would be gravely wrong in this case is just too much.
DeleteBut what is left to be said? Natural law disagrees with them, and so does Catholic tradition. Dr. Feser did a good job in his response.
I agree that Dr. Feser does a fantastic job in the response to Fastiggi. However, his main task there was defending that capital punishment is legitimate in principle and cannot be taught as intrinsically immoral. He shows this well.
DeleteHowever, one can detect what Dr. Fastiggi and his followers are saying (or might say) in reply. And it's this thesis:
Even if capital punishment is legitimate in principle, Catholics must submit to the ordinary magisterium of Pope Francis when he teaches that the death penalty should not be carried out in our time. Catholics can discuss the theoretical application of the death penalty, but they cannot in good conscience support it since that would be to dissent from the legitimate Pope in his ordinary magisterium.
I don't agree with that, I'm just posing that this is where they are going, and we need to have a good response ready.
What exactly should be our response?
"They must submit with mind and will to the modern Popes."
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to that sort of sentiment should be something along the lines of what Nietzsche would say: "As soon as a religion comes to dominate it has as its opponents all those who would have been its first disciples."
And I repeat that as a Catholic myself
"Catholics should give religious assent to what Pope Francis teaches, viz., the death penalty is inadmissable when carried out on a person who is no longer free, who no longer poses a threat, and whose crime was in the past."
ReplyDeleteAs a Catholic, I cannot give religious assent to a teaching of the ordinary magisterium that directly contradicts previous magisterial teaching.
Also, I would point out that Fastiggi has not responded to Dr. Feser's reply to him, which was devastating. Yet Fastiggi still maintains that a papal condemnation of the death penalty as intrinsically evil is "theoretically possible."
What is he smoking? In multiple instances in the Old Testament, God positively commands that the death penalty be enforced. How can God command something that is intrinsically evil?
The Roman Catholic Church has already contradicted itself in at least two ways:
Delete1. It taught that birth control is wrong. Then Paul VI taught that it is okay as long as it's not artificial.
2. They claim to teach the truth, but they don't teach that 'God' is incoherent and hence does not exist.
I would just like to point out, also, that the anti-intellectualism fostered by this Pope and his defenders is unprecedented. He and they consistently refuse to engage their critics in any meaningful way. They reply to argument with rhetoric, and when that rhetoric is exposed as rhetoric, they respond with either silence or force.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed a travesty.
For the next ten days, I will be laying down the gauntlet on Edward Feser. He can't ignore the strongest arguments against his new book just because I don't have a philosophy degree. Here is a link to my refutation of his book:
ReplyDeletehttp://acidtriponpluto.webs.com/Feserfatality.pdf
I would encourage everyone else (especially my fellow non-theists) to comment, posting the link to my refutation. Let's get Feser's attention so he can't angrily delete my comments.
J.L. Mackie will be vindicated.
There are plenty of threads where he discusses his book Five Proofs. The fact that you are insisting on this on this thread here and now is just trolling.
DeleteThat does not mean your arguments are no good. It just means this isn't the right venue.
Hello JohnD,
DeleteI already sent Feser an email. He didn't respond to it. I've made comments on at least one other thread. The only way my gauntlet will be successful is by posting it on the most recent threads, where Ed Feser will be most likely to read it.
You are not entitled to someone else's time.
DeleteI don’t have time to go into it right now, but I can assure you that your objections have already been dealt with, whether it’s the regarding the unity of transcendentals or the false “fact/value” distinction.
DeleteI haven’t read Five Proofs yet so I can’t comment on that, but Feser gives in depth defenses of classical metaphysics elsewhere. I see no serious attempt to actually refute Thomism in your “gauntlet”. All I see is assertion, question-begging and snark.