Some Remarks on Pro Death Penalty Arguments

Some Remarks on Pro Death Penalty Arguments March 6, 2015

..are the subject of today’s ruminations over at the Register.

"Whoever thought up the slur, that Mother Theresa was someone at odds with the Church ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Free will to resist grace, available to all, and to reject good. God loves us ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tom R

    King David was certainly guilty of adultery and abuse of power,
    but was he legally guilty of murder?

    David did something he was authorised to do (ie, order the
    deployment of troops in battle as Israel’s commander in chief) that was likely
    and expected to (and in this case, did – but would not inevitably) bring about
    a result he was not allowed to bring about directly by his own hand, ie the
    death of Uriah.

    This seems quite compatible with the Catholic version of
    Double Effect, eg, “using artificial contraception is wrong (a) because it
    is intrinsically wicked to want to enjoy recreational sex without pregnancy,
    and (b) also because NFP and other forms of strategically-timed selective
    celibacy are just as effective in enabling you to enjoy recreational sex
    without pregnancy.” The morally relevant factors in that view are whether
    you achieve your goal indirectly rather than directly.

    Mind you, if the Catholic version of Double Effect that’s
    used to justify NFP-Onlyism were applied consistently, euthanasia – sorry,
    “life-sacrificing by a willing victim” or some other process that is
    as utterly different from euthanasia as an annulment rota is from a divorce
    court – would be legitimate provided you did it by putting food and water
    beside the patient’s bed while they were asleep and then taking it away before
    they wake up.