Tonight's discussion was about death penalty and the changes in the catechism regarding it. This is a quick report on it to share the discussion to those who were not able to make it.
It was a very challenging topic.
For those not familiar with the TFP's way of discussion, we like to take liberal arguments and really appreciate the logic behind them. This was one of the topics where logic and faith seemed to be on their side. The moderator provokes people to give their opinions and speak their thoughts by asking questions to everyone attending. It is a mixture of professionals and students. We make sure even the youngest one has a chance to give his opinion. The goal is to promote thinking about the topic in a very serious way. Men like to philosophize. This would be the ambiance to do it.
We definitely do not want to simplify our counterarguments a la Alex Jones style. We don't want to simply say; "They broke the law. They pay the price." Or, "Each inmate costs the tax payer $100,000 a year! Just kill them and save money for something more important like our vets, or the elderly." We want to dig deep into the argument presenting the other side's logic as clearly as possible.
 |
| The night's discussion carried over to the dinner table. We crammed 12 people into a table for 8. The company was very enjoyable, elevated and very catholic. |
We used Dr. Tobias Winright's article and the USCCB's statement regarding death penalty as the sources to extract arguments against the death penalty. Dr. Winright is an associate professor of theological ethics at St. Louis University. His article was published by americanmagazine.com. Yes, we do love our Jesuits.
The main arguments against death penalty can be divided into three: the argument of innocence, the argument that Lex Talionis is outdated, the argument of the 8th amendment and finally the argument of dignity.
Lex talionis is a law common with many civilizations. It's the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, blood for blood, life for life law. If you take someone's eye, according to this law, it's only just that your eye should be taken away as well.
One complicated argument was the way God treated Cain who killed his own brother. Instead of killing Cain, God banished him which could be construed that imprisonment (isolation from society) is preferable by God. The counterargument was simple. God is omnipotent. He has the capacity to balance all injustices in the afterlife. Human institutions do not have this ability. They are only able to correct injustices on earth.
The argument of innocence places distrust in the integrity of the justice system. It is corrupt. Completely innocent people are being convicted. Because this injustice can never be corrected once their life is taken away from them, it's better to preserve the life of those innocents.
 |
| The TFP St. Michael Center is honored to have a documented relic of the true cross. After dinner we adored the relic. The reliquary includes the relics of St. Anne, St. Mary Magdalene, St. James the lesser, veil of Our Lady and from the workshop of St. Joseph. Undocumented but with the Vatican's seal are the relics of the 12 apostles. |
Best comment of the night from one of the guests: "Our Lord confirmed the legitimacy of capital punishment by declaring that Pontius Pilate had the authority to condemn him to death."
Following the logic of the argument, the fact that you are taking away someone's life is cruel and unusual.
The argument of dignity was the hardest. We of course are all pro-life. So why wouldn't every Catholic follow Cardinal Bernardin's Seamless Garment principle. This states that if we are to be pro-life, we must defend the life of everybody, criminals, illegal immigrants, elderly, the terminally ill and the unborn. Since God made man into his image and likeness, and since Jesus incarnated into man elevating human nature to divine level, and since life is sacred, the argument goes that nothing, absolutely nothing can take away the mark of God's image and likeness from man. He will always be in God's image and likeness even when he is a sinner. Therefore, his life is sacred. Imprisonment is sufficient to satisfy justice and to protect society from danger.
The counterargument was in two stages. The first is that when we say life is sacred, it refers more to eternal life rather than earthly life. When we speak of the dignity of man, we speak more of the spiritual life as well. We are made to the image of likeness of God in the sense that we have reason and our soul is immortal. To the degree that we follow nature and grace, we not only maintain this likeness but increase it. The Incarnation elevated human nature to a higher plane by association. Then, the grace of baptism elevates man even higher by imparting a sacred mark. The dignity of a human person does not only take in consideration his nature but grace. The life of grace is the aspect that makes us more into the image and likeness of God. Everything must be done to ensure the sanctification and salvation of the person. Death is not an impediment to sanctification and salvation. To the contrary, seen properly it can be a cause for conversion. As St. Thomas Aquinas argues, if death itself is not incentive enough for conversion, then no other incentive will be sufficient.
The second stage is that all injustices can be repaired by God in the afterlife.
One point someone raised helped us find the counterarguments. This point was the legitimacy of self-defense. If it is absolutely justified to kill a person in order to prevent him from killing an innocent person, then the argument of the absoluteness of the dignity of life is not so absolute. Considering that self-defense or defense of others is preventative of a murder. This means, if a man comes to a school with a gun, it is perfectly it is a just and good act to remove the threat even to the point of killing him BEFORE HE HAS KILLED ANYBODY. In the act of attempting to kill others, his dignity of life is suspended. Why wouldn't be suspended after he has killed others?
There you have a very quick summary of last nights discussion. We hope you are able to join in the future.
 |
| After dinner conversation. Everyone is free to stay as long as they want. Normally, people break up into groups of conversations. |
