The question is whether the death penalty is necessary for proportionate retribution, which is the primary aim of punishment. Proportionate punishment is not, in fact, against human dignity, but quite the opposite: the ability to be punished flows from human dignity.
Being "punishable" is proper to human beings precisely as human beings, because it is our human dignity, as made in the image and likeness of God (i.e, having intellect and free choice) that (1) gives us agency and makes us morally responsible for our choices . . .
. . . and (2) orders us toward the human community and society, being a part of which is a part of how we flourish precisely as human beings.
Arguments like the one in the OP prove too much because it is not clear what makes capital punishment uniquely against human dignity, while other forms of punishment are not against human dignity. So, you are kind of forced to say that all punishment is against human dignity.
But then you have to say that sometimes it is okay for the state to violate human dignity if it has a good enough reason to punish you. Which defeats the whole purpose of defending human dignity as involable.
So the whole approach of arguing against capital punishment as if it were against human dignity is wrong-headed from the get go. As St. Thomas says, a small error in the beginning leads to major errors further on.
If you are going to argue for the inadmissibility of capital punishment, you have to do it on the grounds either (1) that it not necessary for proportionate retribution in this case or (2) the side-effects of capital punishment on society outweigh the good of punishment.
It might sound weird at first blush to say that our human dignity as created in the image and likeness of God is precisely what makes us "punishable" -- until you consider the kinds of people and things that we don't punish.
We don't punish the insane. We don't punish small children or animals, for instance. On this latter group, we might use negative reinforcement to train or condition them in a certain pattern of behavior, but we don't punish them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
DBH is to smart to not be mendacious here when he pulls out this shopworn and oft-refuted old chestnut. All you have to do is literally read to the end of the very question that DBH cites to see why he thinks that it was the Word that became incarnate.
In today's gospel, Jesus answer to the question, "Will only a few be saved?" is to tell the disciples to focus about working out their own salvation in fear and trembling, rather than vainly speculating on questions that you don't know enough to answer.
Because if you neglect the task of working out your own salvation and waste your time speculating, then others are going to enter the kingdom and you will be shut out of it.
Also, speculating about what percentage of the human race will be saved is not *hoping* for anything. It just amounts to using non-revealed and dubious philosophical premises to justify what you think would do if you were God. A dangerous endeavor.
Pointing out that the Church does not require us to believe (or disbelieve) in evolution and then concluding that we are "free" to believe in it or disbelieve in it is to completely misunderstand what doctrine is and its relation to truth.
Catholic doctrine is one way of coming to know the truth about some aspects of reality; so is modern science. "God is one nature subsisting in three persons" is true in exactly the same sense as "Human beings evolved from lower primates."
And assent to Catholic doctrine is not an act of obedience of the will by which we commit ourselves to an ideology. It is an act of judgment by the intellect which conforms our mind to reality -- just like modern science.
I'm finishing up a novena to St. Ann in my hometown (the parish has been doing it for 106 years!). I have been preaching on Mary, and I have to recommend Aidan Nichols, "There Is No Rose" as a short but deep Mariology.
Aidan Nichols has a gift for finding the truly decisive points of an issue and explaining them lucidly. So, Nichols book is short, nut surprisibgly deep for its length.
Haucke's "Introduction to Mariology" is a really good comprehensive survey with a complere bibliigraphy. However, its breadth means that it is not very deep.
Mary doesn't mediate in the sense that we go to her instead of going to Jesus directly, the way we deal with a front-office secretary to have access to the big boss. Rather, Mary is like someone who makes an introduction to a friend -- she in no way gets in between us and Jesus.
And there is no reason to suppose that this type of mediation is unbiblical, or that the Bible somehow teaches us that these kinds of mediators don't exist when it comes to Jesus.
In fact, it's quite the opposite: in the Bible, people introduce each other to Jesus, and there is nothing to prevent the saints from doing this as well, because we believe that the Church is one communion of saints -- of those in heaven and on earth.
So, someone on here was asking me about what Bañez says about whether God's antecedent will to save all is in him formally (and analogically) or merely eminently (and metaphorically). I can't find the tweet, so I am responding here.
Banez' argues for and against both sides of the question, but comes down on the latter side of the question. God wills all be saved is his will of expression, not his will of good pleasure. God wills all be saved means that God enjoins on us the precept to will that all be saved.