[Catholic Caucus] Death Penalty Debacle: Our Lady of Fatima called it

aka Catholic ^ | August 2, 2018 | Louie Verrecchio

[Hieronymus]

I would still argue that my three counter-examples disprove your example in post 71—but I see now that the example was actually ebb’s example carried over from 68.

Good luck on reaching a precisely hammered out common vocabulary. I like you both.

It seems to me that someone, who is not a poster on this thread, is trying to create chaos by offering a counsel in such a way that it appears to be a commandment while still technically being a counsel. To figure out what is going on one needs thorough training in the right field or the help of the Spanish Inquisition.

A very jesuitical tactic. Or the tactic of he who urges that yes not mean yes and no not mean no.

[Hieronymus]

Does that mean it would be unjust for me to carry through on my fantasy of selling T-shirts with Honorius’ image and the caption “Do you miss me yet?”

[vladimir998]

“Does that mean it would be unjust for me to carry through on my fantasy of selling T-shirts with Honorius’ image and the caption “Do you miss me yet?””

I think more people would get the humor if it was Pope Benedict XVI saying it.

[Hieronymus]

Yes, but there the answer is obvious, doesn’t provoke reflection, and isn’t as much of a put-down. It is the difference between putting W on a t-shirt and putting Carter on a t-shirt.

[stonehouse01]

Thank you for the synopsis - much appreciated.

[Marchmain]

I meant on more of a collective unconscious level of awareness of inviobility, instead of voting or political position, if that makes sense.

[Campion]

Also, it would be inadmissible morally for Catholics because the CCC would effectively ban it. That does not mean it is intrinsically immoral.”

The language added to the CCC says that the death penalty is an offense against human dignity. It permits no exceptions; in particular, it is not claiming that the death penalty is only "wrong for Catholics" nor that the prohibition is a matter of church discipline like not eating meat on Friday.

Nor does it make sense to say that the death penalty in every possible case is an offense against human dignity today, but it wasn't such an offense 3000 years ago. Human dignity hasn't changed because it pertains to human nature.

If something is immoral in every possible case or circumstance, it cannot be anything but intrinsically immoral.

[vladimir998]

The text, however, says: “Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.”

The text’s use of “Today” and “increasing” indicates that prior uses of the death penalty could not be considered intrinsically evil. Abortion was always intrinsically evil. Period. Whether or not a culture understood it or not did nothing to change its intrinsically evil standing. The death penalty was not, and is not, intrinsically evil. If it was intrinsically evil, then “Today” and “increasing” would not have appeared in the text. They denote something that is not intrinsic.