Abortion nay Capital Punishmant Yay? Hypocrasy

[cpayne]

The catechism does not call for repeating the crime of the criminal ever no theft for the thief, no lies to the liar, no raping the rapist, and no killing the killer. What the catechism advises is redressing the disorder, which is to correct the sinner on the reason of sin. It would seem quick killing of the killer would actually prevent the killer from ‘justice’ as referred to in the catechism.

I do believe in development of doctrine. However, I’m not sure that 2,000 years of biblical and catechistic interpretation on “justice” and the death penalty is now suddenly incorrect.

By the way, when the government locks away a kidnapper, is it kidnapping the kidnapper?

 

[catharina]

I guess it hard for me to imagine why we, who must turn to God for His mercy, would insist on applying harsh justice to offenders.

 

[cpayne]

I guess it hard for me to imagine why we, who must turn to God for His mercy, would insist on applying harsh justice to offenders.

Actually, I agree to an extent. We personally, although it may be excruciatingly difficult to do so, are commanded to forgive those who sin against us. The government, on the other hand, is to maintain peace and justice.

Put it this way: If a murderer killed a member of my family, Jesus commands I forgive that person, as God has forgiven me. (I honestly don’t think I could; it would have to be God’s gift. It’s always easier to forgive the murderer of someone else’s family member.) However, what the government now requires of that person is not up to me or my forgiveness. It is up to lawfully administered justice. The crime, in other words, is not ONLY against me, but against society as a whole.

 

[catharina]

Actually, I agree to an extent. We personally, although it may be excruciatingly difficult to do so, are commanded to forgive those who sin against us. The government, on the other hand, is to maintain peace and justice.

Put it this way: If a murderer killed a member of my family, Jesus commands I forgive that person, as God has forgiven me. (I honestly don’t think I could; it would have to be God’s gift. It’s always easier to forgive the murderer of someone else’s family member.) However, what the government now requires of that person is not up to me or my forgiveness. It is up to lawfully administered justice. The crime, in other words, is not ONLY against me, but against society as a whole.

Yet are we not to change society, to be the leaven in the bread, to be the followers of Christ in all things?

 

[catharina]

The fact is that we live in a society that gives us the right (and duty) to make law. We ARE the State.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Soooooo… he wasn’t killed? Whats the problem?

I’m totally appalled by the complete lack of empathy and compassion this post betrays. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.”

This man had his life threatened and was terrorized for no just reason whatsoever and we get a “So what? Who cares?” Such a total lack of compassion. This man would be just in suing his accusers to destitution, IMO!

 

[Ender]

I guess it hard for me to imagine why we, who must turn to God for His mercy, would insist on applying harsh justice to offenders.

Punishment should be neither harsher nor more lenient than is required by the crime, either is a deficiency of justice. Harsh punishment is an obligation for a harsh crime.

cpayne:

If a murderer killed a member of my family, Jesus commands I forgive that person. … However, what the government now requires of that person is not up to me or my forgiveness. It is up to lawfully administered justice. The crime, in other words, is not ONLY against me, but against society as a whole.

An excellent and generally overlooked point.
Texas Roofer:

One could look to the scriptures and the catechism. God refused the death penalty for the adulteries women, or should we say limited it to those free of sin? Would God’s standard not be higher than the catechism?

In general the catechism is God’s standard, at least as the Church understands it (2267 notwithstanding). If you’re going to appeal to the catechism (and the entire library of Church teachings of which it is a summary) then you cannot appeal to your own personal interpretation of scripture. The Church does not interpret that incident the way you do.

And what about justice; the catechism is clear requiring justice of the individual not society.

What cpayne said is correct: a crime against an individual is also a crime against society and justice must satisfy the claims of both. (Aquinas) *When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society.

*Ender

 

[cpayne]

Yet are we not to change society, to be the leaven in the bread, to be the followers of Christ in all things?

Good point, and one with which I wrestle a lot. How much of Christ’s teaching on interpersonal ethics is supposed to be made into civil law? And where is the dividing line between interpersonal ethics and societal ethics? For example, I don’t think the example of forgiveness shown to the woman caught in adultery is supposed to be written into the criminal code, as an end to all capital punishment—but I don’t have a clearly thought-out reason why I don’t think so. Anybody have any ideas on this?

 

[DaughterSorrow]

No part of the truth supersedes another part of the truth. They must be reconciled; you cannot simply choose one and ignore the other.

If this is true, then how can we ignore 2267? It seems like you are having 2266 supercede 2267.

In Peace,
DS

 

[Ender]

If this is true, then how can we ignore 2267? It seems like you are having 2266 supercede 2267.

Let me ask you: do you believe that one truth can supersede another truth? If something is true, can it ever be set aside? If it can be, how could we continue to call it true?

Regarding 2266 and 2267, I think they are clearly irreconcilable which indicates to me that they cannot both be true. Since I have already pointed out that 2267 is JPII’s opinion - while 2266 represents the consistent teaching of the Church - I have no difficulty accepting 2266 and rejecting 2267.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I do believe in development of doctrine. However, I’m not sure that 2,000 years of biblical and catechistic interpretation on “justice” and the death penalty is now suddenly incorrect.

When Jesus did not stone the adultery; that was ('um) roughly 1,980(?) yrs ago am I missing something?

By the way, when the government locks away a kidnapper, is it kidnapping the kidnapper?

technically no, but practically yes, excellent!

Actually, I agree to an extent. We personally, although it may be excruciatingly difficult to do so, are commanded to forgive those who sin against us. The government, on the other hand, is to maintain peace and justice.

Put it this way: If a murderer killed a member of my family, Jesus commands I forgive that person, as God has forgiven me. (I honestly don’t think I could; it would have to be God’s gift. It’s always easier to forgive the murderer of someone else’s family member.) However, what the government now requires of that person is not up to me or my forgiveness. It is up to lawfully administered justice. The crime, in other words, is not ONLY against me, but against society as a whole.

again excellent now think first----Did O.J. Simpsom, Alan Spector, and Robert Blake achieve justice in their trials? ( do not jump on the easy answer too quick) You may want to look up the definition of ‘justice’

 

[cpayne]

This whole discussion is making me think too hard. :juggle:

I’ll have to get back on this tomorrow.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Let me ask you: do you believe that one truth can supersede another truth? If something is true, can it ever be set aside? If it can be, how could we continue to call it true?

Regarding 2266 and 2267, I think they are clearly irreconcilable which indicates to me that they cannot both be true. Since I have already pointed out that 2267 is JPII’s opinion - while 2266 represents the consistent teaching of the Church - I have no difficulty accepting 2266 and rejecting 2267.

Ender

Let me explain it to you as there is no contradiction at all

2266
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.note: it does not say nor imply death or torture only punishment] Punishment has the primary aim of ***redressing the disorder ***introduced by the offense.[note the disorders may be many from a single event, the objective is to correct the crime, society, and the individual for example a thief may return the property plus 10% when caught, so would that redress the disorder? Not to society, or other individual victims, it only addressed a single victim and may well allow additional theft[/COLOR]] When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Note: the reference to the individual must except their punishment in order to redress their disorder] Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67again talking about redressing the order of the guilty]

2267
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, clearly saying we must know they are the offender which is not the same as knowing they were convicted] the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. clearly saying we use other options when available, fits right in with 2266 discussion of achieve “expiation” of the sin]

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.fits right in with 2266 discussion of achieve “a medicinal purpose”]

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."68

There is no contradiction at all.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

And what about justice; the catechism is clear requiring justice of the individual not society.

ender:

What cpayne said is correct: a crime against an individual is also a crime against society and justice must satisfy the claims of both. (Aquinas) When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society.

Ender

There is nothing wrong with Thomas Aquinas’ quote which can only be achieve (in the cause of crime) from the individual offender. Aquinas is not saying the offender can unmurder, or should create a replacement human, or be killed by the family of the murder victim. What he is saying is the offender has introduced more sin into society for which the offender is responsible, AND has harmed the family and friends of the murdered man. Only when the offender accepts that can the sin be absolved. Or as JPII tried to explain if we kill the murder quickly we may have prevented the sin from being absolved.

 

[Ender]

What {Aquinas} is saying is the offender has introduced more sin into society for which the offender is responsible, AND has harmed the family and friends of the murdered man. Only when the offender accepts that can the sin be absolved.

I think you are confusing two concepts: the necessity of redressing the effects of the sin and the desire of the sinner to obtain absolution. Even if the sinner repents of his sin the debt of sin still remains to be paid. The state has the obligation to impose punishment for a sin even on one who has repented of it. He was also making a point that a sin has a twofold injury, both to the individual against whom the crime was committed as well as to the society as a whole and both injuries need to be repaired - and repentance of the sin does not repair the injury.

Ender

 

[catharina]

I think you are confusing two concepts: the necessity of redressing the effects of the sin and the desire of the sinner to obtain absolution. Even if the sinner repents of his sin the debt of sin still remains to be paid. The state has the obligation to impose punishment for a sin even on one who has repented of it. He was also making a point that a sin has a twofold injury, both to the individual against whom the crime was committed as well as to the society as a whole and both injuries need to be repaired - and repentance of the sin does not repair the injury.

Ender

Maybe you are confusing two concepts. A sinner must repent of his sin/crime. With the death penalty in effect, how can one be certain that the sinner has received a maximum time living so that if repentence is slow in coming, it will still possibly. With the death penalty imposed on criminals, does the State shorten their opportunity for reflection, confession and repentance?

 

[Ender]

2267
the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. clearly saying we use other options when available, fits right in with 2266 discussion of achieve “expiation” of the sin]

Not at all; the two points are completely different. 2267 talks about “defending human lives” and 2266 talks about “achieving expiation.” 2267 is about preventing future harm to society, that part of 2266 is about obtaining future expiation for the sinner.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.fits right in with 2266 discussion of achieve “a medicinal purpose”]

This is closer, but the medicinal purpose of punishment is still not its primary justification, which is defined as the need of “redressing past harms.”

There simply is nothing at all in 2267 that addresses the primary purpose of punishment as it is defined in 2266. All of 2267 refers to future effects: protect society from a future crime, work to have the sinner at some future time repent of his sins. Only 2266 discusses what must be done in response to actions that have already occurred. 2266 is about justice; 2267 simply ignores the retributive demands of justice entirely.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think you are confusing two concepts: the necessity of redressing the effects of the sin and the desire of the sinner to obtain absolution. Even if the sinner repents of his sin the debt of sin still remains to be paid. The state has the obligation to impose punishment for a sin even on one who has repented of it. He was also making a point that a sin has a twofold injury, both to the individual against whom the crime was committed as well as to the society as a whole and both injuries need to be repaired - and repentance of the sin does not repair the injury.

Ender

Not confused at all. The concepts are not disconnected at all. If the offender never repents part of the “redressing the disorder” goes unfulfilled. The redressing the disorder is not limited to this action but is not excluded from this action either. An example: when fornication is the sin the redress to society is what? While the redressing of the disorder to the individuals is great and internal.

Not at all; the two points are completely different. 2267 talks about “defending human lives” and 2266 talks about “achieving expiation.” 2267 is about preventing future harm to society, that part of 2266 is about obtaining future expiation for the sinner.

This is closer, but the medicinal purpose of punishment is still not its primary justification, which is defined as the need of “redressing past harms.”

There simply is nothing at all in 2267 that addresses the primary purpose of punishment as it is defined in 2266. All of 2267 refers to future effects: protect society from a future crime, work to have the sinner at some future time repent of his sins. Only 2266 discusses what must be done in response to actions that have already occurred. 2266 is about justice; 2267 simply ignores the retributive demands of justice entirely.

Ender

wrong 2267 does not ignore justice at all. In fact all 2267 does is raise the standard for use of execution. The two are synchronized. Execution limits or stops a true “redressing of the disorder” but is allowed when it “is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”

 

[catharina]

Not confused at all. The concepts are not disconnected at all. If the offender never repents part of the “redressing the disorder” goes unfulfilled. The redressing the disorder is not limited to this action but is not excluded from this action either. An example: when fornication is the sin the redress to society is what? While the redressing of the disorder to the individuals is great and internal.

2267 does not ignore justice at all. In fact all 2267 does is raise the standard for use of execution. The two are synchronized. Execution limits or stops a true “redressing of the disorder” but is allowed when it “is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”

Exactly.

 

[Abbadon]

Not to be the person who starts a thread and doesn’t respond I’ve been busy with end of semester and all. But its definately been interesting and there are thing’s that i’d like to bring up and I’ll see if i can. But i thank everyone for there responses so far. It’s been interesting.