I land in the compatability camp. And I think the Pope's writings on this issue in the very declaration in question establish the conditions for permissability.
If we consider the fact that, although capital punishment was always available to the State, it was not permitted under **any** circumstances. Like Jay walking. Or not waving hello at a given state representative. So, that would **require** the clearing of certain hurdles.
So, the argument is that practically those hurdles are too big, so to render the judgement universal--it can no longer be administered.
1) If there are never any conditions under which the death penalty is permissible, in what sense is it not intrinsically evil? Now, I don't think this is what you are saying, but this seems to be a position (utterly bizarre, in my opinion) that some have tried to adopt.
2) Historically—and this, I think, is critical—the death penalty was justified primarily as something legitimately deserved by the individual for heinous crimes committed. That is to say, it was a matter of justice first, with safeguarding the community as a secondary consideration. (Indeed, unless the individual truly deserved the death penalty, it’s difficult to see how it could be just to enact it purely as a safeguard!)
From what I understand there are only two teachings in recent centuries in the Catholic Church that are ex cathedra and they are (1) Immaculate Conception and (2) the Assumption.
So I don't believe anything about the death penalty would qualify.
Aside: I once argued in a classroom against the death penalty. The teacher was not a happy camper with me. I didn't necessarily win the argument. My argument was based on there may be future knowledge that would exonerate someone for something they we're convicted of.
I land in the compatability camp. And I think the Pope's writings on this issue in the very declaration in question establish the conditions for permissability.
If we consider the fact that, although capital punishment was always available to the State, it was not permitted under **any** circumstances. Like Jay walking. Or not waving hello at a given state representative. So, that would **require** the clearing of certain hurdles.
So, the argument is that practically those hurdles are too big, so to render the judgement universal--it can no longer be administered.
Two things to consider:
1) If there are never any conditions under which the death penalty is permissible, in what sense is it not intrinsically evil? Now, I don't think this is what you are saying, but this seems to be a position (utterly bizarre, in my opinion) that some have tried to adopt.
2) Historically—and this, I think, is critical—the death penalty was justified primarily as something legitimately deserved by the individual for heinous crimes committed. That is to say, it was a matter of justice first, with safeguarding the community as a secondary consideration. (Indeed, unless the individual truly deserved the death penalty, it’s difficult to see how it could be just to enact it purely as a safeguard!)
As to 1, of course I don't believe that. If the EMP pulse goes off I imagine it's back on the menu.
As to 2, we should consider *why* that satisfies justice.
From what I understand there are only two teachings in recent centuries in the Catholic Church that are ex cathedra and they are (1) Immaculate Conception and (2) the Assumption.
So I don't believe anything about the death penalty would qualify.
Aside: I once argued in a classroom against the death penalty. The teacher was not a happy camper with me. I didn't necessarily win the argument. My argument was based on there may be future knowledge that would exonerate someone for something they we're convicted of.