|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 26, 2018 15:19:43 GMT
I'm currently reading By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defence of the Death Penalty by Edward Feser and Joseph Besette. I'm a very big admirer of Edward Feser and I've just finished his Five Proofs for the Existence of God. His book the Last Superstition was a huge influence in my acceptance of theism.
Until I started reading Edward Feser's blog posts on this subject, and even more so with this book (though I'm not finished it), I was opposed to the death penalty. I've been pretty much convinced by Feser's arguments towards support of the death penalty, at least for the most egregious murders and where there is no possible doubt of guilt. (I say "pretty much" because I'm not completely there yet.)
The thesis of the book is twofold; first, that the legitimacy of the death penalty in principle is irreformable Catholic teaching, firmly established in the previous teaching of Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and the Popes right up to Pope Pius XII.
The authors make the further argument that the death penalty should in fact be used in practice. They make a very detailed case and I can't synopsise it easily.
Here are some of the arguments:
Anti-death penalty Catholics often argue that the death penalty is contrary to a "culture of life". But Feser and Bessette point out that support for the death penalty was HIGHER when there was greater public opposition to abortion and euthanasia. In fact, supporters of abortion and euthanasia will nearly always be opponents of the death penalty. They make a clear distinction between INNOCENT human life and the lives of those guilty of heinous crimes.
Again, abolitionist Catholics argue from the story of the woman taken in adultery, and the injunction to turn the other cheek. But this has traditionally never been seen, by Catholic philosophers and catechists, as cancelling out the requirements of justice. Feser cites the principle of proportionality whereby the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. It seems ridiculous to suppose that the Catholic tradition only discovered the idea of mercy in the 1980s.
Opponents of the death penalty often claim that it's contrary to human dignity. But the authors make a convincing argument that death penalty UPHOLDS human dignity-- the dignity of the murdered person, and the dignity of the murderer, who is treated as a moral agent.
The authors point out that RETRIBUTIVE punishment has always been embraced by the Catholic tradition, right up to the latest Catechism. This means that the authorities punish offenders, not only to deter other offenders or to promote the reform of the offender, but to exact retribution. Revenge in itself is not an evil, when not motivated by hatred.
Catholic opponents of the death penalty claim that the death penalty curtails the criminal's ability to repent. But Feser and Bessette argue (after Aquinas) that a short time before execution is more likely to lead to repentance and reconciliation with God. He presents many case studies, taken from recent years, to support this.
There is much more in the book-- in fact, I haven't finished it. I encourage everybody to read it.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 26, 2018 17:02:02 GMT
I'm currently reading By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defence of the Death Penalty by Edward Feser and Joseph Besette. I'm a very big admirer of Edward Feser and I've just finished his Five Proofs for the Existence of God. His book the Last Superstition was a huge influence in my acceptance of theism. Until I started reading Edward Feser's blog posts on this subject, and even more so with this book (though I'm not finished it), I was opposed to the death penalty. I've been pretty much convinced by Feser's arguments towards support of the death penalty, at least for the most egregious murders and where there is no possible doubt of guilt. (I say "pretty much" because I'm not completely there yet.) The thesis of the book is twofold; first, that the legitimacy of the death penalty in principle is irreformable Catholic teaching, firmly established in the previous teaching of Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and the Popes right up to Pope Pius XII. The authors make the further argument that the death penalty should in fact be used in practice. They make a very detailed case and I can't synopsise it easily. Here are some of the arguments: Anti-death penalty Catholics often argue that the death penalty is contrary to a "culture of life". But Feser and Bessette point out that support for the death penalty was HIGHER when there was greater public opposition to abortion and euthanasia. In fact, supporters of abortion and euthanasia will nearly always be opponents of the death penalty. They make a clear distinction between INNOCENT human life and the lives of those guilty of heinous crimes. Again, abolitionist Catholics argue from the story of the woman taken in adultery, and the injunction to turn the other cheek. But this has traditionally never been seen, by Catholic philosophers and catechists, as cancelling out the requirements of justice. Feser cites the principle of proportionality whereby the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. It seems ridiculous to suppose that the Catholic tradition only discovered the idea of mercy in the 1980s. Opponents of the death penalty often claim that it's contrary to human dignity. But the authors make a convincing argument that death penalty UPHOLDS human dignity-- the dignity of the murdered person, and the dignity of the murderer, who is treated as a moral agent. The authors point out that RETRIBUTIVE punishment has always been embraced by the Catholic tradition, right up to the latest Catechism. This means that the authorities punish offenders, not only to deter other offenders or to promote the reform of the offender, but to exact retribution. Revenge in itself is not an evil, when not motivated by hatred. Catholic opponents of the death penalty claim that the death penalty curtails the criminal's ability to repent. But Feser and Bessette argue (after Aquinas) that a short time before execution is more likely to lead to repentance and reconciliation with God. He presents many case studies, taken from recent years, to support this. There is much more in the book-- in fact, I haven't finished it. I encourage everybody to read it. The big problem with the retribution argument is that if justice was the cardinal virtue above all else, then God was wrong to send His Only Son to die for us so that we could have the possibility of eternal life. Considering that this is Holy Week, maybe we should reflect on this. Justice should be a factor certainly, but it is not the sole factor in punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 21:26:14 GMT
The Magisterial trajectory has been moving away from any sanctioning of the Death Penalty. Evangelium Vitae effectively repositioned so that capital punishment is only permissible but when its a guaranteed measure of protecting human life (not to end a life as an administration of justice.)
The argument that curtailing opportunity for repentance is more likely to lead to repentance seems a weak one to me, from a Christian perspective, because it is tantamount to using the threat of extreme violence to expedite/coerce repentance which seems a very non-Christian thing to do. Evil can not be done to bring about a good end.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 27, 2018 1:47:22 GMT
Evil can not be done to bring about a good end. No, an intrinsically evil act cannot be committed to bring about good. But the destruction of life isn't an intrinsically evil act, only the destruction of innocent life. This argument would apply just as much to self-defence against an assailant and any number of other things. Also, the purpose of prompt execution is not to achieve repentance, but justice-- the question of repentance is an answer to an objection. The argument about a "magisterial trajectory" is a troubling one....as Feser puts it, either the CHurch was wrong all those centuries and is right now, or the Church was right all those centuries and is wrong now. Either way it undermines the moral authority of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 27, 2018 8:41:12 GMT
I'm currently reading By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defence of the Death Penalty by Edward Feser and Joseph Besette. I'm a very big admirer of Edward Feser and I've just finished his Five Proofs for the Existence of God. His book the Last Superstition was a huge influence in my acceptance of theism. Until I started reading Edward Feser's blog posts on this subject, and even more so with this book (though I'm not finished it), I was opposed to the death penalty. I've been pretty much convinced by Feser's arguments towards support of the death penalty, at least for the most egregious murders and where there is no possible doubt of guilt. (I say "pretty much" because I'm not completely there yet.) The thesis of the book is twofold; first, that the legitimacy of the death penalty in principle is irreformable Catholic teaching, firmly established in the previous teaching of Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and the Popes right up to Pope Pius XII. The authors make the further argument that the death penalty should in fact be used in practice. They make a very detailed case and I can't synopsise it easily. Here are some of the arguments: Anti-death penalty Catholics often argue that the death penalty is contrary to a "culture of life". But Feser and Bessette point out that support for the death penalty was HIGHER when there was greater public opposition to abortion and euthanasia. In fact, supporters of abortion and euthanasia will nearly always be opponents of the death penalty. They make a clear distinction between INNOCENT human life and the lives of those guilty of heinous crimes. Again, abolitionist Catholics argue from the story of the woman taken in adultery, and the injunction to turn the other cheek. But this has traditionally never been seen, by Catholic philosophers and catechists, as cancelling out the requirements of justice. Feser cites the principle of proportionality whereby the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. It seems ridiculous to suppose that the Catholic tradition only discovered the idea of mercy in the 1980s. Opponents of the death penalty often claim that it's contrary to human dignity. But the authors make a convincing argument that death penalty UPHOLDS human dignity-- the dignity of the murdered person, and the dignity of the murderer, who is treated as a moral agent. The authors point out that RETRIBUTIVE punishment has always been embraced by the Catholic tradition, right up to the latest Catechism. This means that the authorities punish offenders, not only to deter other offenders or to promote the reform of the offender, but to exact retribution. Revenge in itself is not an evil, when not motivated by hatred. Catholic opponents of the death penalty claim that the death penalty curtails the criminal's ability to repent. But Feser and Bessette argue (after Aquinas) that a short time before execution is more likely to lead to repentance and reconciliation with God. He presents many case studies, taken from recent years, to support this. There is much more in the book-- in fact, I haven't finished it. I encourage everybody to read it. The big problem with the retribution argument is that if justice was the cardinal virtue above all else, then God was wrong to send His Only Son to die for us so that we could have the possibility of eternal life. Considering that this is Holy Week, maybe we should reflect on this. Justice should be a factor certainly, but it is not the sole factor in punishment. It's not the sole factor, but it's a big one. Even the current Catechism, which is very anti-death penalty, says: "Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense." The thing is, it's very easy to forgive offences and show mercy when the offence wasn't done to you or to someone close to you. Feser and Bessette (analysing American executions in the most recent years with information available) reproduce many of the statements from the relatives of those who were murdered, on the occasion of the murderer's execution. Most of them express satisfaction at the execution and frustration that death row lasts so long, which prolongs their sense of injustice and suffering. Many of them explictly say that they are not seeking revenge but justice, that they have actually forgiven the perpetrator but still believe that justice should be carried out. Many add that they hope for his salvation. We have reached a stage now where it seems mercy trumps everything, to the extent that there is a push in the highest echelons of the Catholic chuch for unrepentant adulterers to receive Communion on the grounds of "mercy", and many Christians and Catholics now argue for euthanasia on the grounds of mercy. It this progress, or is it decadence? It's hard not to see Catholic abolitionism as a stage on the same road. It seems that moral reasoning has abandoned the goal of seeking the good of the other, and now seeks simply to minimise suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 16:12:24 GMT
I haven't read all of Feser's work, so can't really comment on his conclusions, and don't really have the time to delve into his work, but a good article on the questions of moral theology you raised can be found here: catholicmoraltheology.com/the-death-penalty-and-the-development-of-doctrine-part-i/In short, the death penalty is deemed morally permissible if done to save and protect lives. Nevertheless, I can see why the option of a death penalty for civil authorities can never be fully removed, because there are extreme cases that may arise in which it may be needed in order to protect lives. But in our times of a technological, globalized society, at relative peace, there are morally preferable options available: lifelong incarceration (or removal to another jurisdiction with incarceration facilities), psychiatric treatments, etc. These can be used to prevent further loss of life.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 28, 2018 9:37:34 GMT
Shadle tentatively puts forward four different arguments in these two posts, each of which he sees as a possible line of defence for Pope Francis's claim that the death penalty is "contrary to the Gospel".
I really see nothing to distinguish the first two arguments; perhaps someone else could read them and see if there is a substantial difference. The argument is basically that the death penalty is permissible as a form of self-defence, but that this condition doesn't apply to modern society and is therefore impermissible. The problem with this is that the Church has consistently taught that capital punishment has a retributive aspect as well as an aspect of self-defence or defence of the state, and the quotation from the Roman Catechism in the second article makes this clear.
The third argument is that previous teachings on the matter were not authoritative.
The fourth argument (paraphrasing a bit) is that the Church cannot make authoritative statements on such a prudential matter.
Personally I find all of these arguments ad hoc and worrying. As the writer acknowledges, the second two arguments are a double-edged sword. If even a Catechism is not authoritative, why should a change in the current Catechism be considered any more authoritative? There is an element of "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" to these.
I fervently hope Pope Francis restraints himself in this matter.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 28, 2018 18:35:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 6, 2018 19:48:08 GMT
My own views on this are prudential. I don't think the death penalty is inherently wrong, because the precedents are just too strong, but I do think it is not a serious possibility under present circumstances so I prefer not to discuss it when I could be doing something else. BTW some prominent Irish Catholic lawyers in the C19 were already arguing for abolition on the grounds that it did more harm than good when society is deeply divided so that significant numbers of people don't accept the justice of the sentence (and state authorities are tempted to assume the defendant's guilt and therefore pursue conviction at any price - an accusation often made against contemporary US prosecutors BTW. The hanging of Myles Joyce for the Maamtrasna Murders is a classic example of the dangers involved at a time of political crisis.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maolra_Seoighe
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 11, 2018 18:29:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 28, 2018 14:50:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 2, 2018 13:15:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Aug 3, 2018 23:09:58 GMT
I'm quite disturbed at the apparent change in doctrine, though. You are not alone. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R0HZ34jvS8 (5min 40sec in) and at 8min: "It should be changed back to the old teaching." The Amoris Laetita controversy over a footnote will seem like a storm in a teacup in comparison to the reaction to this, and the ramifications (over time) of those reactions could be deeply significant.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 4, 2018 10:51:02 GMT
I'm quite disturbed at the apparent change in doctrine, though. You are not alone. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R0HZ34jvS8 (5min 40sec in) and at 8min: "It should be changed back to the old teaching." The Amoris Laetita controversy over a footnote will seem like a storm in a teacup in comparison to the reaction to this, and the ramifications (over time) of those reactions could be deeply significant. No, I think the Amoris Laetitia controversy is still more serious, because the indissolubility of marriage comes straight from the mouth of our Lord himself. The only mention of the death penalty is a New Testament is a rather vague one, while our Lord's words on marriage could not be more explicit. And because the marriage bond is an image of Christ and his Church.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 18:02:44 GMT
No, I think the Amoris Laetitia controversy is still more serious, because the indissolubility of marriage comes straight from the mouth of our Lord himself. The only mention of the death penalty is a New Testament is a rather vague one, while our Lord's words on marriage could not be more explicit. And because the marriage bond is an image of Christ and his Church. I was referring more to the signifance for the magisterium of the church of the change, rather than the relative seriousness of the particular teaching in question. A change made to the Cathechism is harder to hide behind or ignore, especially if (as it more clearly appears to) it does contradict previous doctrine. A formal correction - by a successive Pope if not the college of cardinals - would seem to be more likely now. Interesting times.
|
|