Ed, in theory, yes, there can be justice in capital punishment. But in practical terms, there is no justice in way capital punishment is administered in the criminal justice system of the U.S.
First, the essay explicitly declines to address the question of whether capital punishment should actually be used today. It is confined to addressing the question of why it is just at least in principle.
But second, your assertion about how capital punishment is applied in the U.S. is false, as Joe Bessette and I show at length in our book on the subject.
I would argue that if capital punishment is unjust the way it is administered in the United States (in the most painless way possible and only to the most vicious of criminals, and extremely sparingly), then it is intrinsically evil. But capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, therefore the way it is administered in the United States is just.
I would argue that the only injustice is the amount to which it is not used. We can barely muster up the love for justice to execute the Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers of the world, let alone lesser murderers.
Well if it is true that "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end.(CCC 2258)" then there cannot be justice in Capital Punishment. I am well aware that article 2258 goes further and also says, "no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being," but that is a contradiction. If the fist part of the article is correct and human life is indeed sacred and God alone is the lord of Life, then this cannot apply merely to "innocent" human beings. In that case, the CCC should have said "Innocent human life is sacred", which it doesn't.
"In that case, the CCC should have said "Innocent human life is sacred", which it doesn't."
Then it was just a slip. It should have said *innocent* human life is sacred. It's just that when we generally speak of humans like that, we are often implicitly talking about ordinary innocent humans, not e.g. murderers and whatnot.
Not that it matters much because Catholic teaching has already effectively contradicted itself on this matter (if Feser is to be believed). The pope, in the position of the vicar of Christ, has unequivocally taught (teaching a proposition about morals) that the death penalty is ALWAYS unacceptable, and has even explicitly ordered a revision of the Catechism on this point. And the revision is unquestionably to teach that the DP is intrinsically immoral, since the Catechism's position (which is being changed now) was already very specific and quite opposed to capital punishment: it taught that although the DP was not intrinsically immoral, it should nevertheless never be put to use unless required to protect people, AND that in modern societies with modern prison systems there was no longer any justification for applying the death penalty. This is what the pope now wants to change. So there is no dancing around this issue, the pope is seriously and consistently teaching that the death penalty is NOT acceptable in principle, and he's even ordered changes to the Catechism's (already very anti-DP) position, to the effect that the DP is never ever to be applied.
This is plain contradiction in teaching. By the POPE. Under PAPAL AUTHORITY. Teaching about MORALS. Inserting it into the CATECHISM.
Yet some Catholics will still have to dance around the issue and pretend that it's not really a case of infallibility somehow ("you see, the pope was making a serious teaching about faith and morals, even making it official in the catechism, and consciously changing doctrine, BUT he didn't explicitly say it was ex cathedra right, so it doesn't count!" I don't even think the explicit "this is ex cathedra!" argument works if you really look into infallibility, but oh well, they gotta make sure they avoid falsifying their faith)
Of course, it's better than having to adopt straight up crazy and ultra-fringe positions like sedevacantism or radtradism (which also effectively mean God abandoned the Church in a way), and they'd rather not question their religion, so...
So, did God order an intrinsically evil act in Genesis 9, when he ordered that, for one who sheds the blood of man, "by man shall his blood be shed"? Or when He required the death penalty for many of the crimes to be punished under the Mosaic law? Did St. Paul condone murder when he acknowledged that the state has its authority from God and under that authority "does not wield the sword in vain"?
It would be so much easier if you added a name, even an alias, because with all the anonymouses here, it may become difficult to know who exactly I am replying to. Tom Cohoe, e.g. does this and it makes things much easier.
If it is just "a slip", I can't help wondering how many other "slips" there migjht be in the CCC. But it is not a slip. The absolute sanctity of human life is consistently used by the Catholic Church to condemn abortion, euthanasia and suicide. Nobody has the right to take his own life because human life is sacred. If that is true, Capital Punishment cannot possibly be just, because if you cannot take your own life, you cannot take somebody else's life either.
If the fist part of the article is correct and human life is indeed sacred and God alone is the lord of Life, then this cannot apply merely to "innocent" human beings.
We have been down this road before with Walter, and it doesn't get any better with the repetition.
@Walter: it is not for YOU to decide what the Catholic Church means by applying the term "sacred" to human life, but rather it is for the Catholic Church to decide. Different religions mean different things by the term.
And the Catholic Church has been utterly clear that in applying the term "sacred" to all human life, SHE does not mean to indicate that capital punishment inherently violates the sacredness of the life of the criminal who has committed a capital crime.
Pope Pius XII made an important clarification for the Catholic Church's explanation of punishment in general, and capital punishment in particular: the criminal himself, by his malicious, voluntary choice, rids himself of the normal protection that the sacredness of life bears for human persons: it's not that his life isn't sacred any more, it's that he has himself violated its sacredness by soiling his will with a grave crime, and in doing so he has called upon his person a grave just punishment. The punishment of death - in his case - is the due and proper treatment of one whose life bears the image of God, distorted by the grave malice of a capital crime. The sacred image of a rational mind and will bear responsibility for voluntary actions, and this implies also just punishment.
There might, possibly, be some different answer if, in putting the criminal to death, we also snuffed out his soul, so that he no longer had any existence at all. But of course, such a hypothetical is ultimately an oxymoron, because it is precisely the immortal soul by which God says that we are made "in His image", and by which we bear responsibility for our human choices - by which we can come under a doom of just punishment at all. The immortality of the soul is inextricably linked to the responsibility borne for choices made.
Whatever you think of the Catholic Church's thinking on her own teaching, and the way she has delivered it, Walter, you cannot claim the right to force her to expound her own teachings to her own people in a manner that you find more consistent with your own sense of terminology. If she uses the term "sacred" in this context differently than you would use it, that's her choice. She has in fact clarified that she uses the term in a manner that does not preclude capital punishment. Therefore, what she means by saying all human life is sacred is something that allows for capital punishment. The fact that this is not what YOU mean by sacred is neither here nor there.
Yes, we have indeed been on this road before and your reply then simply begged the question, as it does now.. It's not about what I mean by 'sacred', it's about what thé Catholic Church means by it in every other context. The fact that you and others ascribe to it a very special meaning in the context of (capital) punishment proves the inconsistency in Catholic Teaching on this matter. That's crystal clear up anybidy who looks at this in an objective way. Of course if you are already convinced that Catholic Teaching must he consistent, you can explain away all inconsistencies. BTW, I am not arguing against Capital Punishment hete, I am simply observing that someone who advocates its justice may be correct, but that person is not pro life.
"Pope Pius XII made an important clarification for the Catholic Church's explanation of punishment in general, and capital punishment in particular: the criminal himself, by his malicious, voluntary choice, rids himself of the normal protection that the sacredness of life bears for human persons: it's not that his life isn't sacred any more, it's that he has himself violated its sacredness by soiling his will with a grave crime, and in doing so he has called upon his person a grave just punishment. The punishment of death - in his case - is the due and proper treatment"
Then a logical consequence would be that a serious criminal has the right (and perhaps even the duty) of committing suicide. And yet the church would teach suicide is intrinsically wrong. His life's sacredness has already been violated and he is deserving of death. Why would it be wrong for him to kill himself in that situation? The proper finality is there, and the means are there too (in fact they are the same in the application of the DP. You are killing the person, and that's what the suicidal criminal does).
Also, no word on Catholic doctrine contradicting itself with the recent changes/infallibility being falsified
And the revision is unquestionably to teach that the DP is intrinsically immoral, since the Catechism's position (which is being changed now) was already very specific and quite opposed to capital punishment: it taught that although the DP was not intrinsically immoral, it should nevertheless never be put to use unless required to protect people,
I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you, Anonymous of 10:25am, but it most certainly IS NOT the case that the Catholic Church, in the person of Pope Francis, has "unquestionably" taught that CP is intrinsically immoral. I have two reasons to say this:
(1) The pope knew all about language like "intrinsically disordered" and "intrinsically immoral" - after all, Pope John Paul II had issued a couple of encyclicals identifying abortion as intrinsically evil. The fact is, the pope chose not to USE any phrase of that sort, electing to go with different phrasing. Indeed, the MOST COMMON comment, after the CCC was changed by Francis, was that the term he used, "inadmissible", does not have a solid, confirmed, known sense as applied to moral teachings. This comment was made both by supporters and detractors of the change. Hence all of these commenters would most vigorously disagree that the change "unquestionably" meant to say that CP is intrinsically evil.
(2) In his letter to bishops explaining the Pope's change to the Catechism, Cardinal Ladaria (the Prefect for the Congregation for the Faith), expressly said that the pope was NOT changing prior teaching. And his letter was approved by the Pope.
All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.
There is also the revelation of a mysterious, though real, drama concerning these angelic creatures, without anything escaping divine Wisdom, which strongly (fortiter) and at the same time gently (suaviter) brings all to fulfilment in the kingdom of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We recognize above all that Providence, as the loving Wisdom of God, was manifested precisely in the creation of purely spiritual beings, so as to express better the likeness of God in them who are so superior to all that is created in the visible world including man, who is also the indelible image of God. God who is absolutely perfect Spirit, is reflected especially in spiritual beings which by nature, that is by reason of their spirituality, are nearer to him than material creatures, and which constitute as it were the closest "circle" to the Creator.
In this he follows St. Thomas, who said (Q 93, A 3):
First, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. Thus the image of God is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (I:58:3; I:79:8).
He goes on to clarify:
Secondly, we may consider the image of God in man as regards its accidental qualities, so far as to observe in man a certain imitation of God, consisting in the fact that man proceeds from man, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, and again, in every part, as God is in regard to the whole world. In these and the like things the image of God is more perfect in man than it is in the angels. But these do not of themselves belong to the nature of the Divine image in man, unless we presuppose the first likeness, which is in the intellectual nature; otherwise even brute animals would be to God's image. Therefore, as in their intellectual nature, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, we must grant that, absolutely speaking, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, but that in some respects man is more like to God.
"Then a logical consequence would be that a serious criminal has the right (and perhaps even the duty) of committing suicide. And yet the church would teach suicide is intrinsically wrong. His life's sacredness has already been violated and he is deserving of death. Why would it be wrong for him to kill himself in that situation? The proper finality is there, and the means are there too (in fact they are the same in the application of the DP. You are killing the person, and that's what the suicidal criminal does)".
Just passing by, but the criminal cant kill himself on this case because he has no authority to punish itself, this is the State job. I mean, if i steal a car and then repent can i decide to go to a certain jail for like ten years and just enter there and stay for the time i choose as a just punishment? Nah.
Now, if the State was ordering the murderer to play Socrates them things might be diferent.
@Tony Traditional Christian theology has always held that angels are not made in the image of God, which is why they can't be redeemed when they sin. (Hebrews 2:16) Only man of all beings is made in God's image and likeness, and therefore is basically good.
@InfiniteLite Is St. Thomas Aquinas not considered a traditional Christian theologian? https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1093.htm#article3
I've never heard that reason given by anyone for why the angels can't repent, though I'm scarcely encyclopaedic in my knowledge. The reason I've always heard given is that intellects are so much more penetrating than man's, and experience time in such a different way, that their free will once engaged toward or against God is unalterable.
The same will be true for us after death - as several Fathers say, "What the Fall was to the angels, death is to man." We also won't be able to repent after this life. That surely doesn't mean we'll lose the image of God!
Speaking of crimes deserving death, apparently the Nashville Presbyterian school shooter was a biological woman who began "transitioning" into a man.
It's confusing to me why some women want to be men. To any such women reading this: as a man, I can confidently assure you it is not better on this team!
People have thousands of intentions every day. It's immoral to follow through with a malevolent intention. But thinking that intentions can be sin like Buddhism does will drive you crazy. Irregular motions of the flesh will always cause intentions of dubious quality to pop into your mind.
Your use of 'punished' begs the question. Punishment can be correction or retribution. The latter intends harm for the sake of harm. Many would consider someone evil who sought to harm another solely for the sake of inflicting harm.
Demons cannot be corrected yet are punished. Damned souls suffer the same fate. You miss the point if you think punishment is just harm for the sake of harm, it’s for the purpose of giving retribution and restoring a balance of goods. Harm for harms sake is psychopathic.
Worse for your argument, it’s evident that evil deserves punishment. If it were true that punishment was only corrective, then an evil person doesn’t deserve to be harmed because no one would ever deserve to be harmed. But you cannot harm someone who doesn’t deserve it. Therefore you could not punish just to correct him. The evil person must merit punishment for it to be a legitimate option for correction.
We, no doubt, disagree on more than the death penalty. I think both demons and ‘damned’ souls can (and will) be corrected. I also think it is never just to intentionally harm anyone, and hence that no one deserves harm. For retribution, in all its forms, just is harm for the sake of harm, and so it is, as you say, psychopathic. And I’d prefer a God and a magistrate who aren’t psychopaths.
Journey 516: Yes, anyone who believes that evil doers should be punished (so that includes God) believes it is not always evil to intend harm toward someone.
Anon: Your use of 'punished' begs the question. Punishment can be correction or retribution. The latter intends harm for the sake of harm....I also think it is never just to intentionally harm anyone, and hence that no one deserves harm. For retribution, in all its forms, just is harm for the sake of harm, and so it is, as you say, psychopathic.
Anon, it seems to me that you would be willing to admit to a (moral and psychological) difference between a psychopath who really does do harm "for the sheer sake of harm, alone", with no further end in mind, from that of a judge who puts a criminal away for life as the proportionate punishment for his grievous crime.
The judge, like God in his numerous declarations in both the Old and New Testament, intends justice in directing the application of proportionate punishments. St. Thomas makes what is, I think, a metaphysical point of this, saying: The order of justice is the order of the universe. If the universe did not have rational beings with free will, all beings in it would in all cases follow God's will directly, and "justice" would not be relevant. In making instead a universe with rational beings capable of good or bad choices, God intends that justice ultimately prevail, and this implies rewards for good and punishments for bad choices. The good intended is the good of the entire economy of the created order as a whole, that it reflect Godliness insofar as in it lies, of which "justice" is a critical component. (Somewhat analogously to this: God intended a biological order in which the good of some animals is met by their eating other animals: God intends the "harm" to the prey animals insofar as he intends the good of the predatory animals, but what he primarily intends is the good of the WHOLE order.)
The judge who wills the good of the larger order that includes, as a component element, the "harm" of a penal imposition on a criminal, is intending something beyond "harm to the criminal". This is, clearly, different from what the psychopath intends.
I think both demons and ‘damned’ souls can (and will) be corrected.
Of course, in this you distance yourself from what the Catholic Church teaches, so you and we are working from different assumptions. But let me point out that Aquinas introduces a reason - from a separate base - for saying that demons will not be corrected: metaphysically, they are not the sort of thing that can change their minds. That is, being purely spiritual beings, (unlike us, who are spiritual and bodily beings), they have no intrinsic part of them that is designed to undergo change over time. Their intellects, also (unlike ours) are not discursive: instead of running from point to point to point, one after the other (as we do), they perceive the entire train of points as a single act. Hence they do not make choices in the way we do, and in them their first choice in front of them (to love or reject God) was for them a permanent fixing of their wills. There is nothing in their makeup that allows a change in that choice. Being unable to change their minds, they cannot repent, they are not even the sort of thing that might repent.
". . . a judge who puts a criminal away for life as the proportionate punishment for his grievous crime . . ."
To know whether such a judge is seeking more than harm requires more details. It seems to me that there is no justification for a life sentence. It may be the case that efforts to correct the prisoner continue to be unsuccessful for the duration of his life, in which case he would spend the rest of his life in prison. But a life sentence that is independent of correction cannot be anything other than harm for the sake of harm. And calling it 'justice' once again begs the question. For their is both corrective and retributive 'justice'.
I have always found curious the Thomistic account of angels and their cognition. For one, it is highly speculative and seems contrary to scripture, where angels are not at all portrayed as purely incorporeal beings. What's more, it seems to make God unjust. If the fallen angels initially rejected God, they did so out of ignorance. And if that ignorance is now invincible, how could eternal damnation be a just penalty for that?
Pray tell, then, WHAT ON EARTH was Francis changing, then? If we are going down the disingenuous route of pretending he didn't contradict past teaching ("HE SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTS IT, BUT NOT REALLY. WHAT IS THE TEACHING THEN? NO IDEA"), then are we also going to say he isn't changing anything?
The past teaching, the one that was in the Catechism which Francis has explicitly ordered to be changed - and justifying it in saying that the Church BETTER UNDERSTANDS things now, there is a development of doctrine, etc. (And all these things imply change: bettering, development of doctrine, etc) - was already that the DP is not intrinsically evil, but was inadmissible in every occasion in the modern world.
The past teaching in the Catechism was that, although not intrinsically evil, the DP would only be justifiable if it were used to protect society against violent offenders etc., BUT that when prisons are available, the DP is no longer justifiable for use, and therefore States should all seek to make DP illegal. That was past teaching.
How on earth do you change that and make it more anti-DP without saying the DP is intrinsically evil? It already said the DP was never to be used in today's world and that States should abolish it.
Now what is Francis teaching, then? What is the Church teaching through the Pope in his papal authority, and enshrined it in the Catechism? Pray tell how is this development of the Church's doctrine on the DP any different from the last one.
The pope literally says it is NEVER to be used, that it is intrinsically inadmissible, and all you guys are doing gymnastics to pretend that he isn't teaching it is intrinsically evil. Because you have to, basically. Guess what, saying "PAST TEACHING IS NOT CONTRADICTED OKAY?" Isn't enough when past teaching is prima facie being contradicted AND there is no available interpretation that would make it meaningful.
1- According to the Church's new understanding of the DP, under Francis' papal teaching, is there any possible world in which the DP can be used? It seems not. But then that would make it intrinsically evil. It would literally be illicit in every situation, and as such it would be intrinsically evil.
2- And again, what could be any different from the last Catechism's teaching ("DP is not intrinsically evil, but should never be used today now that prisons are available, and States should all make it illegal") to make it a development of doctrine, WITHOUT just making the DP intrinsically illicit?
If we are going down the disingenuous route of pretending he didn't contradict past teaching
Anon: first, if there is a "disingenuous route of pretending" involved, then surely it began with Cardinal Ladaria (with Pope Francis's approval) claiming that he wasn't contradicting prior teaching. I don't think the rest of us can be held to blame for crediting Cardinal Ladaria's comment as having as much weight as the Catechism's changed phrasing. Surely the normal course is to read each assertion in light of the other, and come to a resolution that allows both to mean something reasonable. That is, to qualify the meaning of what is in the Catechism so as to comport with what Ladaria asserted.
Now what is Francis teaching, then?
There are at least 3 plausibly reasonable theories about this. And, precisely because Francis chose to use a phrase that has no history in Catholic theology, those theories cannot be dismissed, off-hand, as being ridiculous attempts to eviscerate the effort.
(1) That the pope intended to remove the "very rarely" from JP II's formulation that DP would be used legitimately "very rarely, or not at all", which left room for either result. If this is the correct reading, Francis was saying "it's the 'not at all' part that holds, the 'very rarely' part can now be judged non-applicable." This reading would put Francis's comment into the same framework as JP II's, i.e. as a prudential judgment of the pope. It is well known that such teachings by a pope (or the bishops) requires our respect but does not require our religious assent: we are allowed to disagree with the pope's prudential judgment, and the Church does not hold that the Holy Spirit protects such papal judgments from all error.
(2) That Francis intended to assert that under current conditions, the DP is evil in a way that mimics being "intrinsically evil", without ACTUALLY being intrinsically evil. While being plausible, it has difficulties. The problems are (a) that it is not at all clear that there really can exist a moral category that qualifies an action as being "like to intrinsically evil 'in these current circumstances' ", and certainly the Church has not explained such a category before; and (b) even if there could be such a thing, it is unclear that it would effectively be different from a prudential judgment of circumstances, which resolves to (a).
(3) The pope meant to direct Catholics to act in such a way that all uses of DP are wrong in today's circumstances (e.g. to require Catholic judges to impose lesser punishments, if the law gives them the power to decide), regardless of whether there might be room to legitimately judge that the DP in a specific case might be moral: a juridical act of requiring certain actions rather than a teaching regarding what we are to hold / believe. This would not require us to believe that the pope is right, merely to act in concert with his directive, as is generally true of juridic acts. This theory too is not free from difficulty.
The point is not that one of these must be the right answer. The point is that since THERE ARE possible ways of reading the change in such a way as allowing that Card. Ladaria wasn't simply lying through his teeth, we would be allowed (or even required) to prefer such a reading of the change over one that simply says that Ladaria knew that the change did in fact contradict earlier teaching, that the pope meant to do exactly that, and that he (Ladaria) meant to lie about that.
To distinguish my questions about judges and angels from the other anonymous's rant about Francis and other things I don't care about, I'll be signing future comments thusly . . .
To know whether such a judge is seeking more than harm requires more details.
@ Anon S. Universalist: I agree that to know in the concrete whether such a judge is seeking more than merely to harm the criminal would require seeking more details. But that's not a critical need: In general, the judge may be presumed to have the intentions that are encapsulated and conformed to the justice and penal system in general. And, in general (including, for these purposes, punishments lesser than life in prison), the state intends them for several purposes other than harm of the criminal, including reform of the criminal's will, deterrence of other criminals, and training of the citizenry to respect law and just order, certainly. And protecting society from the criminal's further acts. But primarily to redress the injustice that persists after the criminal action has been committed, i.e. the disorder resident in the criminal having willingly chosen to act against the just public order.
It seems to me that there is no justification for a life sentence. It may be the case that efforts to correct the prisoner continue to be unsuccessful for the duration of his life, in which case he would spend the rest of his life in prison. But a life sentence that is independent of correction cannot be anything other than harm for the sake of harm.
It seems unlikely that penal sentences serve all those other purposes I stated above, but life imprisonment cannot. First, while reform of the criminal is laudable, it is surely the case that there could be some criminals who have spent their entire lives as evil-doers (say, hit-men who have worked for organized crime for 30 years), for which it is deemed unlikely that prison will reform them, however much the state would hope so. Protecting society from the criminal's further crimes is worthy in its own right. But deterrence, and helping to train citizenry to respect law and just order via proportionate punishments are others that equally apply.
If the fallen angels initially rejected God, they did so out of ignorance.
On the contrary, St. Thomas is absolutely clear that the angels who rebelled knew with full clarity who God is and their own relation to Him, and that this knowledge was present to them in their act of choice to rebel.
One might indeed object to St. Thomas's theories about the angels as being "speculative". But granted his own premises about what they are and how they operate, his position does not at all represent the angels rebelling out of ignorance.
This is the best reply to Feser's death penalty position. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/further-reflections-on-capital-punishment-and-on-edward-feser/
Egad, not DBH again! As Prof. Feser says, it's pretty bad. Just to take one quick example, DBH asserted:
I do, however, point out that the attempt made by Feser and Bessette to reconcile their enthusiasm for the death penalty with Christ’s repeated prohibitions against retributive justice (the Sermon on the Mount, the woman taken in adultery,...”
The problem is that the case of the women taken in adultery is in no way a case of Christ announcing a prohibition against retributive justice. In about 6 different ways it isn't, but the most substantive reason is that when Christ to her, at the end "neither do I condemn you", he was doing nothing other than simply and strictly following the Mosaic Law. The Law required that the witnesses be the ones to denounce her and (after the trial, if the judge found her guilty) to throw the first stones. Since Christ did not witness the crime - and the so-called "witnesses" had walked away - he could not condemn her under the Law. Given such, DBH should have known perfectly well that the case has NOTHING to say against retributive justice. Worse, because the Law did explicitly uphold retributive justice, Jesus strictly complying with the Law in this case cannot be taken in any other sense than, at a minimum, a general confirmation of the Law and therefore (at least remotely) of retributive justice.
Even though we've abolished the death penalty out of "mercy", it seems that the world had gotten more merciless and unforgiving since. Now every offense is unforgivable and meriting eternal shame, with no path for redemption and little room for understanding.
I wonder if the two are related. That is, if the social change resulting in the state where "every offense is unforgivable and meriting eternal shame, with no path for redemption" is due to people erroneously thinking that getting rid of "harsh" legal punishments is ideal and "merciful", but that just drove the need underground, so to speak, where the social need to punish is not carried out by civil authorities after a just trial, but by social justice warriors upon their mere preferences.
Interesting thought. R. Girard did argue that a form of "good" violence*, one that breaks the cycle of revenge, is necessary in order that the desire for retribution of harms do not weakens the social harmony. When there is no good violence, then offenses and harms create a desire for punishment that is not satisfied.
*on our case, it is the State punishment of criminals
The Catechism of the Catholic Church now states that the death penalty is " inadmissible." End of story. Your book is irrelevant.
That's silly: Ed never said anything against the death penalty being "inadmissible" in his book. Did you read it? he never mentioned "inadmissible" at all.
What's that you say? "Inadmissible" means that the death penalty is intrinsically evil? Maybe yes, maybe no, but there are plenty of people who claim not. Can you point to other places where the Church declared a species of action "inadmissible" where what the Church meant it was intrinsically evil?
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church now states that the death penalty is " inadmissible.""
That fits well with the way the two more recent popes took the death penalty, actually, which is confirmed by Cardinal Ladaria comment on the catechism change.
So you kinda have to show that there is a contradiction here.
Prof. Feser, Ok, so we see that your essay is there in the mix of 35 chapters. From the looks of the chapter titles, at least a few of them, maybe as many as half, not only are not written from a Judeo-Christian model of morality, they (maybe) are written as if such a model of morality doesn't even need to be recognized as having something to contribute to the discussion.
I have read essays that take issue with Judeo-Christian moral principles, and argue against them. These I can stand: I won't agree with them (usually), but at least they take the J-C position seriously and account for people who accept it. But I have also read essays about punishment-theory that start so far away from even the ball-park of J-C morality that their discussion seems almost like gibberish: for example, they talk from deterministic or other non-free-will positions in such a way that they don't even grant room for the alternative position that humans have free will, nor leave any space for attempting to meld any of their approach with a J-C position.
So, I have a question: have you read this whole volume? And can you recommend it as a whole, in the sense that by and large its essays can be read with benefit even when the author clearly does not fully agree with the primary Judeo-Christian principles like free will, moral responsibility, etc? I am not going to even CONSIDER shelling out $200 on a book for which most of the essays are (to my purposes) unreadable junk.
address the question of whether capital punishment should actually be used today. It is confined to addressing the question of why it is just at least in principle."
Capital punishment is only just if it is administered justly. We might remember when in Ohio, half the prisoners sitting on death row proved to be innocent.
I am down here in Texas. We have a long history in Texas of an often unjust judicial system. Public defenders who are often, not given resources to adequately defend clients. A state that tolerates far too much prescutorial misconduct. Hiding exculpatory evidence for example. A systematic dislike of DNA examination in legal cases. We have been fighting Texas for years for refusing to apply DNA tests that could demonstrate innocence of a prisoner.
And other judicial incompetence. Capital punishment only can be just if that is applied in a just manner. With zero tolerance of prosecutorial malfeasance, common sense procedures like using DNA testing rather than fighting that. And other similar issues. Without that, capital punishment becomes oppression. Not as the Bible commands, justice and compassion. Arguing how capital punishment is biblically just without a commitment to end possible legal abuses that might send an innocent person to their deaths, or decades spent on death row is not acceptable.
Rememer Ohio.
I myself have no real objection to CP in principle, but having witnesed how our nation all to often tolerates poor quality and lazy justice administration, that I object to and hate. This is a BIG issue that theologians should be aiming efforts at.
Ed, in theory, yes, there can be justice in capital punishment. But in practical terms, there is no justice in way capital punishment is administered in the criminal justice system of the U.S.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the essay explicitly declines to address the question of whether capital punishment should actually be used today. It is confined to addressing the question of why it is just at least in principle.
DeleteBut second, your assertion about how capital punishment is applied in the U.S. is false, as Joe Bessette and I show at length in our book on the subject.
I would argue that if capital punishment is unjust the way it is administered in the United States (in the most painless way possible and only to the most vicious of criminals, and extremely sparingly), then it is intrinsically evil. But capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, therefore the way it is administered in the United States is just.
DeleteI would argue that the only injustice is the amount to which it is not used. We can barely muster up the love for justice to execute the Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers of the world, let alone lesser murderers.
You and your essay are not listed in the table of contents.
ReplyDeleteYes they are. You'll see "Page 1 of 3" at the bottom of the contents page. You need to click to page 3:
Deletehttps://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-11874-6?page=3#toc
Well if it is true that "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end.(CCC 2258)" then there cannot be justice in Capital Punishment.
DeleteI am well aware that article 2258 goes further and also says, "no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being," but that is a contradiction. If the fist part of the article is correct and human life is indeed sacred and God alone is the lord of Life, then this cannot apply merely to "innocent" human beings. In that case, the CCC should have said "Innocent human life is sacred", which it doesn't.
"In that case, the CCC should have said "Innocent human life is sacred", which it doesn't."
DeleteThen it was just a slip. It should have said *innocent* human life is sacred. It's just that when we generally speak of humans like that, we are often implicitly talking about ordinary innocent humans, not e.g. murderers and whatnot.
Not that it matters much because Catholic teaching has already effectively contradicted itself on this matter (if Feser is to be believed). The pope, in the position of the vicar of Christ, has unequivocally taught (teaching a proposition about morals) that the death penalty is ALWAYS unacceptable, and has even explicitly ordered a revision of the Catechism on this point. And the revision is unquestionably to teach that the DP is intrinsically immoral, since the Catechism's position (which is being changed now) was already very specific and quite opposed to capital punishment: it taught that although the DP was not intrinsically immoral, it should nevertheless never be put to use unless required to protect people, AND that in modern societies with modern prison systems there was no longer any justification for applying the death penalty.
This is what the pope now wants to change. So there is no dancing around this issue, the pope is seriously and consistently teaching that the death penalty is NOT acceptable in principle, and he's even ordered changes to the Catechism's (already very anti-DP) position, to the effect that the DP is never ever to be applied.
This is plain contradiction in teaching. By the POPE. Under PAPAL AUTHORITY. Teaching about MORALS. Inserting it into the CATECHISM.
Yet some Catholics will still have to dance around the issue and pretend that it's not really a case of infallibility somehow ("you see, the pope was making a serious teaching about faith and morals, even making it official in the catechism, and consciously changing doctrine, BUT he didn't explicitly say it was ex cathedra right, so it doesn't count!" I don't even think the explicit "this is ex cathedra!" argument works if you really look into infallibility, but oh well, they gotta make sure they avoid falsifying their faith)
Of course, it's better than having to adopt straight up crazy and ultra-fringe positions like sedevacantism or radtradism (which also effectively mean God abandoned the Church in a way), and they'd rather not question their religion, so...
So, did God order an intrinsically evil act in Genesis 9, when he ordered that, for one who sheds the blood of man, "by man shall his blood be shed"? Or when He required the death penalty for many of the crimes to be punished under the Mosaic law? Did St. Paul condone murder when he acknowledged that the state has its authority from God and under that authority "does not wield the sword in vain"?
DeleteAnonymous 1
DeleteIt would be so much easier if you added a name, even an alias, because with all the anonymouses here, it may become difficult to know who exactly I am replying to.
Tom Cohoe, e.g. does this and it makes things much easier.
If it is just "a slip", I can't help wondering how many other "slips" there migjht be in the CCC.
But it is not a slip. The absolute sanctity of human life is consistently used by the Catholic Church to condemn abortion, euthanasia and suicide.
Nobody has the right to take his own life because human life is sacred. If that is true, Capital Punishment cannot possibly be just, because if you cannot take your own life, you cannot take somebody else's life either.
If the fist part of the article is correct and human life is indeed sacred and God alone is the lord of Life, then this cannot apply merely to "innocent" human beings.
DeleteWe have been down this road before with Walter, and it doesn't get any better with the repetition.
@Walter: it is not for YOU to decide what the Catholic Church means by applying the term "sacred" to human life, but rather it is for the Catholic Church to decide. Different religions mean different things by the term.
And the Catholic Church has been utterly clear that in applying the term "sacred" to all human life, SHE does not mean to indicate that capital punishment inherently violates the sacredness of the life of the criminal who has committed a capital crime.
Pope Pius XII made an important clarification for the Catholic Church's explanation of punishment in general, and capital punishment in particular: the criminal himself, by his malicious, voluntary choice, rids himself of the normal protection that the sacredness of life bears for human persons: it's not that his life isn't sacred any more, it's that he has himself violated its sacredness by soiling his will with a grave crime, and in doing so he has called upon his person a grave just punishment. The punishment of death - in his case - is the due and proper treatment of one whose life bears the image of God, distorted by the grave malice of a capital crime. The sacred image of a rational mind and will bear responsibility for voluntary actions, and this implies also just punishment.
There might, possibly, be some different answer if, in putting the criminal to death, we also snuffed out his soul, so that he no longer had any existence at all. But of course, such a hypothetical is ultimately an oxymoron, because it is precisely the immortal soul by which God says that we are made "in His image", and by which we bear responsibility for our human choices - by which we can come under a doom of just punishment at all. The immortality of the soul is inextricably linked to the responsibility borne for choices made.
Whatever you think of the Catholic Church's thinking on her own teaching, and the way she has delivered it, Walter, you cannot claim the right to force her to expound her own teachings to her own people in a manner that you find more consistent with your own sense of terminology. If she uses the term "sacred" in this context differently than you would use it, that's her choice. She has in fact clarified that she uses the term in a manner that does not preclude capital punishment. Therefore, what she means by saying all human life is sacred is something that allows for capital punishment. The fact that this is not what YOU mean by sacred is neither here nor there.
Tony
DeleteYes, we have indeed been on this road before and your reply then simply begged the question, as it does now.. It's not about what I mean by 'sacred', it's about what thé Catholic Church means by it in every other context.
The fact that you and others ascribe to it a very special meaning in the context of (capital) punishment proves the inconsistency in Catholic Teaching on this matter. That's crystal clear up anybidy who looks at this in an objective way. Of course if you are already convinced that Catholic Teaching must he consistent, you can explain away all inconsistencies.
BTW, I am not arguing against Capital Punishment hete, I am simply observing that someone who advocates its justice may be correct, but that person is not pro life.
"Pope Pius XII made an important clarification for the Catholic Church's explanation of punishment in general, and capital punishment in particular: the criminal himself, by his malicious, voluntary choice, rids himself of the normal protection that the sacredness of life bears for human persons: it's not that his life isn't sacred any more, it's that he has himself violated its sacredness by soiling his will with a grave crime, and in doing so he has called upon his person a grave just punishment. The punishment of death - in his case - is the due and proper treatment"
DeleteThen a logical consequence would be that a serious criminal has the right (and perhaps even the duty) of committing suicide. And yet the church would teach suicide is intrinsically wrong. His life's sacredness has already been violated and he is deserving of death. Why would it be wrong for him to kill himself in that situation? The proper finality is there, and the means are there too (in fact they are the same in the application of the DP. You are killing the person, and that's what the suicidal criminal does).
Also, no word on Catholic doctrine contradicting itself with the recent changes/infallibility being falsified
And the revision is unquestionably to teach that the DP is intrinsically immoral, since the Catechism's position (which is being changed now) was already very specific and quite opposed to capital punishment: it taught that although the DP was not intrinsically immoral, it should nevertheless never be put to use unless required to protect people,
DeleteI hate to be the bearer of bad news to you, Anonymous of 10:25am, but it most certainly IS NOT the case that the Catholic Church, in the person of Pope Francis, has "unquestionably" taught that CP is intrinsically immoral. I have two reasons to say this:
(1) The pope knew all about language like "intrinsically disordered" and "intrinsically immoral" - after all, Pope John Paul II had issued a couple of encyclicals identifying abortion as intrinsically evil. The fact is, the pope chose not to USE any phrase of that sort, electing to go with different phrasing. Indeed, the MOST COMMON comment, after the CCC was changed by Francis, was that the term he used, "inadmissible", does not have a solid, confirmed, known sense as applied to moral teachings. This comment was made both by supporters and detractors of the change. Hence all of these commenters would most vigorously disagree that the change "unquestionably" meant to say that CP is intrinsically evil.
(2) In his letter to bishops explaining the Pope's change to the Catechism, Cardinal Ladaria (the Prefect for the Congregation for the Faith), expressly said that the pope was NOT changing prior teaching. And his letter was approved by the Pope.
All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ladaria-ferrer/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180801_lettera-vescovi-penadimorte_en.html
So, while there are plenty of people who would like to read the change as turning the old stance upside down, the Pope didn't intend it that way.
@Tony
Deletebecause it is precisely the immortal soul by which God says that we are made "in His image"
Correction: angels have immortal souls, but are not made in God's image. What "made in God's image" means does not have a simple answer.
On the contrary, Pope St. John Paul II said:
DeleteThere is also the revelation of a mysterious, though real, drama concerning these angelic creatures, without anything escaping divine Wisdom, which strongly (fortiter) and at the same time gently (suaviter) brings all to fulfilment in the kingdom of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We recognize above all that Providence, as the loving Wisdom of God, was manifested precisely in the creation of purely spiritual beings, so as to express better the likeness of God in them who are so superior to all that is created in the visible world including man, who is also the indelible image of God. God who is absolutely perfect Spirit, is reflected especially in spiritual beings which by nature, that is by reason of their spirituality, are nearer to him than material creatures, and which constitute as it were the closest "circle" to the Creator.
In this he follows St. Thomas, who said (Q 93, A 3):
First, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. Thus the image of God is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (I:58:3; I:79:8).
He goes on to clarify:
Secondly, we may consider the image of God in man as regards its accidental qualities, so far as to observe in man a certain imitation of God, consisting in the fact that man proceeds from man, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, and again, in every part, as God is in regard to the whole world. In these and the like things the image of God is more perfect in man than it is in the angels. But these do not of themselves belong to the nature of the Divine image in man, unless we presuppose the first likeness, which is in the intellectual nature; otherwise even brute animals would be to God's image. Therefore, as in their intellectual nature, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, we must grant that, absolutely speaking, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, but that in some respects man is more like to God.
@Anon
Delete"Then a logical consequence would be that a serious criminal has the right (and perhaps even the duty) of committing suicide. And yet the church would teach suicide is intrinsically wrong. His life's sacredness has already been violated and he is deserving of death. Why would it be wrong for him to kill himself in that situation? The proper finality is there, and the means are there too (in fact they are the same in the application of the DP. You are killing the person, and that's what the suicidal criminal does)".
Just passing by, but the criminal cant kill himself on this case because he has no authority to punish itself, this is the State job. I mean, if i steal a car and then repent can i decide to go to a certain jail for like ten years and just enter there and stay for the time i choose as a just punishment? Nah.
Now, if the State was ordering the murderer to play Socrates them things might be diferent.
@Tony Traditional Christian theology has always held that angels are not made in the image of God, which is why they can't be redeemed when they sin. (Hebrews 2:16) Only man of all beings is made in God's image and likeness, and therefore is basically good.
Delete@InfiniteLite Is St. Thomas Aquinas not considered a traditional Christian theologian?
Deletehttps://www.newadvent.org/summa/1093.htm#article3
I've never heard that reason given by anyone for why the angels can't repent, though I'm scarcely encyclopaedic in my knowledge. The reason I've always heard given is that intellects are so much more penetrating than man's, and experience time in such a different way, that their free will once engaged toward or against God is unalterable.
The same will be true for us after death - as several Fathers say, "What the Fall was to the angels, death is to man." We also won't be able to repent after this life. That surely doesn't mean we'll lose the image of God!
Speaking of crimes deserving death, apparently the Nashville Presbyterian school shooter was a biological woman who began "transitioning" into a man.
ReplyDeleteIt's confusing to me why some women want to be men. To any such women reading this: as a man, I can confidently assure you it is not better on this team!
I take it you think the following claim is false: It is immoral to intend the harm of someone.
ReplyDeletePeople have thousands of intentions every day. It's immoral to follow through with a malevolent intention. But thinking that intentions can be sin like Buddhism does will drive you crazy. Irregular motions of the flesh will always cause intentions of dubious quality to pop into your mind.
DeleteYou seem to be confusing thoughts with intentions. Perhaps you should reread the Sermon on the Mount.
DeleteYes, anyone who believes that evil doers should be punished (so that includes God) believes it is not always evil to intend harm toward someone.
DeleteYour use of 'punished' begs the question. Punishment can be correction or retribution. The latter intends harm for the sake of harm. Many would consider someone evil who sought to harm another solely for the sake of inflicting harm.
DeleteDemons cannot be corrected yet are punished. Damned souls suffer the same fate. You miss the point if you think punishment is just harm for the sake of harm, it’s for the purpose of giving retribution and restoring a balance of goods. Harm for harms sake is psychopathic.
DeleteWorse for your argument, it’s evident that evil deserves punishment. If it were true that punishment was only corrective, then an evil person doesn’t deserve to be harmed because no one would ever deserve to be harmed. But you cannot harm someone who doesn’t deserve it. Therefore you could not punish just to correct him. The evil person must merit punishment for it to be a legitimate option for correction.
We, no doubt, disagree on more than the death penalty. I think both demons and ‘damned’ souls can (and will) be corrected. I also think it is never just to intentionally harm anyone, and hence that no one deserves harm. For retribution, in all its forms, just is harm for the sake of harm, and so it is, as you say, psychopathic. And I’d prefer a God and a magistrate who aren’t psychopaths.
DeleteJourney 516: Yes, anyone who believes that evil doers should be punished (so that includes God) believes it is not always evil to intend harm toward someone.
DeleteAnon: Your use of 'punished' begs the question. Punishment can be correction or retribution. The latter intends harm for the sake of harm....I also think it is never just to intentionally harm anyone, and hence that no one deserves harm. For retribution, in all its forms, just is harm for the sake of harm, and so it is, as you say, psychopathic.
Anon, it seems to me that you would be willing to admit to a (moral and psychological) difference between a psychopath who really does do harm "for the sheer sake of harm, alone", with no further end in mind, from that of a judge who puts a criminal away for life as the proportionate punishment for his grievous crime.
The judge, like God in his numerous declarations in both the Old and New Testament, intends justice in directing the application of proportionate punishments. St. Thomas makes what is, I think, a metaphysical point of this, saying: The order of justice is the order of the universe. If the universe did not have rational beings with free will, all beings in it would in all cases follow God's will directly, and "justice" would not be relevant. In making instead a universe with rational beings capable of good or bad choices, God intends that justice ultimately prevail, and this implies rewards for good and punishments for bad choices. The good intended is the good of the entire economy of the created order as a whole, that it reflect Godliness insofar as in it lies, of which "justice" is a critical component. (Somewhat analogously to this: God intended a biological order in which the good of some animals is met by their eating other animals: God intends the "harm" to the prey animals insofar as he intends the good of the predatory animals, but what he primarily intends is the good of the WHOLE order.)
The judge who wills the good of the larger order that includes, as a component element, the "harm" of a penal imposition on a criminal, is intending something beyond "harm to the criminal". This is, clearly, different from what the psychopath intends.
I think both demons and ‘damned’ souls can (and will) be corrected.
Of course, in this you distance yourself from what the Catholic Church teaches, so you and we are working from different assumptions. But let me point out that Aquinas introduces a reason - from a separate base - for saying that demons will not be corrected: metaphysically, they are not the sort of thing that can change their minds. That is, being purely spiritual beings, (unlike us, who are spiritual and bodily beings), they have no intrinsic part of them that is designed to undergo change over time. Their intellects, also (unlike ours) are not discursive: instead of running from point to point to point, one after the other (as we do), they perceive the entire train of points as a single act. Hence they do not make choices in the way we do, and in them their first choice in front of them (to love or reject God) was for them a permanent fixing of their wills. There is nothing in their makeup that allows a change in that choice. Being unable to change their minds, they cannot repent, they are not even the sort of thing that might repent.
". . . a judge who puts a criminal away for life as the proportionate punishment for his grievous crime . . ."
DeleteTo know whether such a judge is seeking more than harm requires more details. It seems to me that there is no justification for a life sentence. It may be the case that efforts to correct the prisoner continue to be unsuccessful for the duration of his life, in which case he would spend the rest of his life in prison. But a life sentence that is independent of correction cannot be anything other than harm for the sake of harm. And calling it 'justice' once again begs the question. For their is both corrective and retributive 'justice'.
I have always found curious the Thomistic account of angels and their cognition. For one, it is highly speculative and seems contrary to scripture, where angels are not at all portrayed as purely incorporeal beings. What's more, it seems to make God unjust. If the fallen angels initially rejected God, they did so out of ignorance. And if that ignorance is now invincible, how could eternal damnation be a just penalty for that?
Tony,
DeletePray tell, then, WHAT ON EARTH was Francis changing, then? If we are going down the disingenuous route of pretending he didn't contradict past teaching ("HE SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTS IT, BUT NOT REALLY. WHAT IS THE TEACHING THEN? NO IDEA"), then are we also going to say he isn't changing anything?
The past teaching, the one that was in the Catechism which Francis has explicitly ordered to be changed - and justifying it in saying that the Church BETTER UNDERSTANDS things now, there is a development of doctrine, etc. (And all these things imply change: bettering, development of doctrine, etc) - was already that the DP is not intrinsically evil, but was inadmissible in every occasion in the modern world.
The past teaching in the Catechism was that, although not intrinsically evil, the DP would only be justifiable if it were used to protect society against violent offenders etc., BUT that when prisons are available, the DP is no longer justifiable for use, and therefore States should all seek to make DP illegal. That was past teaching.
How on earth do you change that and make it more anti-DP without saying the DP is intrinsically evil? It already said the DP was never to be used in today's world and that States should abolish it.
Now what is Francis teaching, then? What is the Church teaching through the Pope in his papal authority, and enshrined it in the Catechism? Pray tell how is this development of the Church's doctrine on the DP any different from the last one.
The pope literally says it is NEVER to be used, that it is intrinsically inadmissible, and all you guys are doing gymnastics to pretend that he isn't teaching it is intrinsically evil. Because you have to, basically. Guess what, saying "PAST TEACHING IS NOT CONTRADICTED OKAY?" Isn't enough when past teaching is prima facie being contradicted AND there is no available interpretation that would make it meaningful.
1- According to the Church's new understanding of the DP, under Francis' papal teaching, is there any possible world in which the DP can be used? It seems not. But then that would make it intrinsically evil. It would literally be illicit in every situation, and as such it would be intrinsically evil.
2- And again, what could be any different from the last Catechism's teaching ("DP is not intrinsically evil, but should never be used today now that prisons are available, and States should all make it illegal") to make it a development of doctrine, WITHOUT just making the DP intrinsically illicit?
If we are going down the disingenuous route of pretending he didn't contradict past teaching
DeleteAnon: first, if there is a "disingenuous route of pretending" involved, then surely it began with Cardinal Ladaria (with Pope Francis's approval) claiming that he wasn't contradicting prior teaching. I don't think the rest of us can be held to blame for crediting Cardinal Ladaria's comment as having as much weight as the Catechism's changed phrasing. Surely the normal course is to read each assertion in light of the other, and come to a resolution that allows both to mean something reasonable. That is, to qualify the meaning of what is in the Catechism so as to comport with what Ladaria asserted.
Now what is Francis teaching, then?
There are at least 3 plausibly reasonable theories about this. And, precisely because Francis chose to use a phrase that has no history in Catholic theology, those theories cannot be dismissed, off-hand, as being ridiculous attempts to eviscerate the effort.
(1) That the pope intended to remove the "very rarely" from JP II's formulation that DP would be used legitimately "very rarely, or not at all", which left room for either result. If this is the correct reading, Francis was saying "it's the 'not at all' part that holds, the 'very rarely' part can now be judged non-applicable." This reading would put Francis's comment into the same framework as JP II's, i.e. as a prudential judgment of the pope. It is well known that such teachings by a pope (or the bishops) requires our respect but does not require our religious assent: we are allowed to disagree with the pope's prudential judgment, and the Church does not hold that the Holy Spirit protects such papal judgments from all error.
(2) That Francis intended to assert that under current conditions, the DP is evil in a way that mimics being "intrinsically evil", without ACTUALLY being intrinsically evil. While being plausible, it has difficulties. The problems are (a) that it is not at all clear that there really can exist a moral category that qualifies an action as being "like to intrinsically evil 'in these current circumstances' ", and certainly the Church has not explained such a category before; and (b) even if there could be such a thing, it is unclear that it would effectively be different from a prudential judgment of circumstances, which resolves to (a).
(3) The pope meant to direct Catholics to act in such a way that all uses of DP are wrong in today's circumstances (e.g. to require Catholic judges to impose lesser punishments, if the law gives them the power to decide), regardless of whether there might be room to legitimately judge that the DP in a specific case might be moral: a juridical act of requiring certain actions rather than a teaching regarding what we are to hold / believe. This would not require us to believe that the pope is right, merely to act in concert with his directive, as is generally true of juridic acts. This theory too is not free from difficulty.
The point is not that one of these must be the right answer. The point is that since THERE ARE possible ways of reading the change in such a way as allowing that Card. Ladaria wasn't simply lying through his teeth, we would be allowed (or even required) to prefer such a reading of the change over one that simply says that Ladaria knew that the change did in fact contradict earlier teaching, that the pope meant to do exactly that, and that he (Ladaria) meant to lie about that.
Tony,
DeleteTo distinguish my questions about judges and angels from the other anonymous's rant about Francis and other things I don't care about, I'll be signing future comments thusly . . .
Anonymous Southern Universalist
To know whether such a judge is seeking more than harm requires more details.
Delete@ Anon S. Universalist: I agree that to know in the concrete whether such a judge is seeking more than merely to harm the criminal would require seeking more details. But that's not a critical need: In general, the judge may be presumed to have the intentions that are encapsulated and conformed to the justice and penal system in general. And, in general (including, for these purposes, punishments lesser than life in prison), the state intends them for several purposes other than harm of the criminal, including reform of the criminal's will, deterrence of other criminals, and training of the citizenry to respect law and just order, certainly. And protecting society from the criminal's further acts. But primarily to redress the injustice that persists after the criminal action has been committed, i.e. the disorder resident in the criminal having willingly chosen to act against the just public order.
It seems to me that there is no justification for a life sentence. It may be the case that efforts to correct the prisoner continue to be unsuccessful for the duration of his life, in which case he would spend the rest of his life in prison. But a life sentence that is independent of correction cannot be anything other than harm for the sake of harm.
It seems unlikely that penal sentences serve all those other purposes I stated above, but life imprisonment cannot. First, while reform of the criminal is laudable, it is surely the case that there could be some criminals who have spent their entire lives as evil-doers (say, hit-men who have worked for organized crime for 30 years), for which it is deemed unlikely that prison will reform them, however much the state would hope so. Protecting society from the criminal's further crimes is worthy in its own right. But deterrence, and helping to train citizenry to respect law and just order via proportionate punishments are others that equally apply.
If the fallen angels initially rejected God, they did so out of ignorance.
On the contrary, St. Thomas is absolutely clear that the angels who rebelled knew with full clarity who God is and their own relation to Him, and that this knowledge was present to them in their act of choice to rebel.
One might indeed object to St. Thomas's theories about the angels as being "speculative". But granted his own premises about what they are and how they operate, his position does not at all represent the angels rebelling out of ignorance.
This is the best reply to Feser's death penalty position.
ReplyDeletehttps://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/further-reflections-on-capital-punishment-and-on-edward-feser/
Best? Maybe, but that's not saying much. And it's pretty bad, as I show here:
Deletehttps://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-hart-that-pumps-bile.html
Egad, not DBH again! As Prof. Feser says, it's pretty bad. Just to take one quick example, DBH asserted:
DeleteI do, however, point out that the attempt made by Feser and Bessette to reconcile their enthusiasm for the death penalty with Christ’s repeated prohibitions against retributive justice (the Sermon on the Mount, the woman taken in adultery,...”
The problem is that the case of the women taken in adultery is in no way a case of Christ announcing a prohibition against retributive justice. In about 6 different ways it isn't, but the most substantive reason is that when Christ to her, at the end "neither do I condemn you", he was doing nothing other than simply and strictly following the Mosaic Law. The Law required that the witnesses be the ones to denounce her and (after the trial, if the judge found her guilty) to throw the first stones. Since Christ did not witness the crime - and the so-called "witnesses" had walked away - he could not condemn her under the Law. Given such, DBH should have known perfectly well that the case has NOTHING to say against retributive justice. Worse, because the Law did explicitly uphold retributive justice, Jesus strictly complying with the Law in this case cannot be taken in any other sense than, at a minimum, a general confirmation of the Law and therefore (at least remotely) of retributive justice.
The feud between u and Hart is well known. On Universalism u are right. But on capital punishment Hart is right.
ReplyDeleteEven though we've abolished the death penalty out of "mercy", it seems that the world had gotten more merciless and unforgiving since. Now every offense is unforgivable and meriting eternal shame, with no path for redemption and little room for understanding.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the two are related. That is, if the social change resulting in the state where "every offense is unforgivable and meriting eternal shame, with no path for redemption" is due to people erroneously thinking that getting rid of "harsh" legal punishments is ideal and "merciful", but that just drove the need underground, so to speak, where the social need to punish is not carried out by civil authorities after a just trial, but by social justice warriors upon their mere preferences.
DeleteInteresting thought. R. Girard did argue that a form of "good" violence*, one that breaks the cycle of revenge, is necessary in order that the desire for retribution of harms do not weakens the social harmony. When there is no good violence, then offenses and harms create a desire for punishment that is not satisfied.
Delete*on our case, it is the State punishment of criminals
The Catechism of the Catholic Church now states that the death penalty is " inadmissible." End of story. Your book is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteEd, I must say, you do allow for a diversity of opinion, even when it is barbed.
DeleteThe Catechism of the Catholic Church now states that the death penalty is " inadmissible." End of story. Your book is irrelevant.
DeleteThat's silly: Ed never said anything against the death penalty being "inadmissible" in his book. Did you read it? he never mentioned "inadmissible" at all.
What's that you say? "Inadmissible" means that the death penalty is intrinsically evil? Maybe yes, maybe no, but there are plenty of people who claim not. Can you point to other places where the Church declared a species of action "inadmissible" where what the Church meant it was intrinsically evil?
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church now states that the death penalty is " inadmissible.""
DeleteThat fits well with the way the two more recent popes took the death penalty, actually, which is confirmed by Cardinal Ladaria comment on the catechism change.
So you kinda have to show that there is a contradiction here.
Prof. Feser, Ok, so we see that your essay is there in the mix of 35 chapters. From the looks of the chapter titles, at least a few of them, maybe as many as half, not only are not written from a Judeo-Christian model of morality, they (maybe) are written as if such a model of morality doesn't even need to be recognized as having something to contribute to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI have read essays that take issue with Judeo-Christian moral principles, and argue against them. These I can stand: I won't agree with them (usually), but at least they take the J-C position seriously and account for people who accept it. But I have also read essays about punishment-theory that start so far away from even the ball-park of J-C morality that their discussion seems almost like gibberish: for example, they talk from deterministic or other non-free-will positions in such a way that they don't even grant room for the alternative position that humans have free will, nor leave any space for attempting to meld any of their approach with a J-C position.
So, I have a question: have you read this whole volume? And can you recommend it as a whole, in the sense that by and large its essays can be read with benefit even when the author clearly does not fully agree with the primary Judeo-Christian principles like free will, moral responsibility, etc? I am not going to even CONSIDER shelling out $200 on a book for which most of the essays are (to my purposes) unreadable junk.
address the question of whether capital punishment should actually be used today. It is confined to addressing the question of why it is just at least in principle."
ReplyDeleteCapital punishment is only just if it is administered justly. We might remember when in Ohio, half the prisoners sitting on death row proved to be innocent.
I am down here in Texas. We have a long history in Texas of an often unjust judicial system. Public defenders who are often, not given resources to adequately defend clients. A state that tolerates far too much prescutorial misconduct. Hiding exculpatory evidence for example. A systematic dislike of DNA examination in legal cases. We have been fighting Texas for years for refusing to apply DNA tests that could demonstrate innocence of a prisoner.
And other judicial incompetence. Capital punishment only can be just if that is applied in a just manner. With zero tolerance of prosecutorial malfeasance, common sense procedures like using DNA testing rather than fighting that. And other similar issues. Without that, capital punishment becomes oppression. Not as the Bible commands, justice and compassion. Arguing how capital punishment is biblically just without a commitment to end possible legal abuses that might send an innocent person to their deaths, or decades spent on death row is not acceptable.
Rememer Ohio.
I myself have no real objection to CP in principle, but having witnesed how our nation all to often tolerates poor quality and lazy justice administration, that I object to and hate. This is a BIG issue that theologians should be aiming efforts at.
WCB