Baltimore: basilica illuminated in honor of death penalty repeal [CWN]

[Dranu]

…Yeah I really don’t follow what the point of it is though, or what this ultimately means. Not that I’m worried about it. I don’t see how the CCC can be any more clear on the matter, and seeing all this talk about “wording” and “earlier edition” and whatnot just comes off to me as people trying to find loop holes so they can find a way out of the teaching currently set forth in the CCC.

It may be tempting to see a malice behind such people’s actions (such as myself), and I hardly blame you with all the blatant heresy we have to deal with. Because of it, we often want clear exacting guidelines in everything and sometimes overcompensate by saying we need to follow the men of the Church even where the Church does not actually require it.

There is a legitimate debate (for the reason you say you “don’t follow…what this ultimately means”) on whether the current rendition of 2267 really lays down a new binding rule in regards to the death penalty.

 

[Debora123]

True, but I am talking about the rule itself. We both agree that the application of the rule is a matter of prudence and so faithful Catholics can disagree on its application. I am seeing whether you think this rule is more than just prudentially based, and if so, why.

Simply because there is a rule stated by the Church does not mean it is binding. It must be a matter of faith and morals. For example the Church weighing in economy, and setting rules on the well-functioning of it, while interesting, is not a matter that binds the faithful. Of course, in that same example, they may set down moral rules that involve the economy (e.g. respect human wage workers for the sake of morality rather than some other beneficial end, etc). Such would be binding under the right circumstances.

I really don’t understand what you are asking me. Yes, I think this condition is non negotiable if that’s what you mean.

 

[Debora123]

It may be tempting to see a malice behind such people’s actions (such as myself), and I hardly blame you with all the blatant heresy we have to deal with. Because of it, we often want clear exacting guidelines in everything and sometimes overcompensate by saying we need to follow the men of the Church even where the Church does not actually require it.

There is a legitimate debate (for the reason you say you “don’t follow…what this ultimately means”) on whether the current rendition of 2267 really lays down a new binding rule in regards to the death penalty.

Honestly, I’m not really interested in debating this. The CCC makes itself quite clear. I understand some people will straight up reject it, and others will reject it but try to twist it up and make it seem like they’re not rejecting it by trying to find loop holes to justify themselves. (“yeah, the CCC says _____, but it doesn’t actually mean _____, because… yadda yadda yadda.”)

Either you believe it or you don’t. Since I don’t believe there is some sort of “hidden meaning” behind 2267 that discredits it or changes it, I really don’t have much of anything to say. Rejecting something in the CCC is rejecting Church teaching, regardless of whether there is debate involved amongst those who want to support the DP without having to admit dissent.

 

[Ender]

God makes the killing legal in this passage in order that man understands through it the most sacred importance of blood as the symbol of life.

2260 presents a problem. That I disagree with your interpretation of this passage doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate your willingness to address it. What seems most likely to me is that the comment about blood is simply an explanation about the way the term was used, much like a footnote explaining an archaic term Chaucer might have used. The teaching that is “necessary for all time” is not the meaning of the word blood but the meaning of the Scriptural passages - the need to respect the sacredness of life.The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: “If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man”, is said in Genesis (9,6). (JPII, 2002)

In 2262, Jesus teachings on the Mount show the way of forgiveness and mercy in dealing with aggressors and we know we are clearly not to be driven by anger, hated and vengeance as we deal with each other.

Augustine said the same thing. Punishment must be applied but not in a spirit of hate.“But penalties must be applied.” I don’t deny it, I don’t forbid it; only let it be done in a spirit of love, a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming

Yet we have a grave duty and right to defend the life and common good of ourselves and others against aggressors, so we see this legitimate killing in defense as mans mandate to effect Gods reckoning.

I can agree with this as long as “killing in defense” is not limited merely to physical defense but also includes the defense of the common good.the judge has care of the common good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief’s death, which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate; (Aquinas)

In 2267 that gist; that is Gods desire that man know in this mystical sense, the importance of blood as the sacred symbol of life, emerges more vividly as the end goal of 2260…

I don’t think it is important to understand blood as a symbol of life; what is important is to understand the sacredness of life and 2260 makes that point in two ways: by noting that man is made in God’s image and by using that fact as the explanation of why the life of a murderer is forfeit. Gen 9:6 is not the only passage that says man is made in God’s image (see Gen 1:27), but 9:6 is the passage the church most regularly cites to emphasize the sacredness of life.

… in this era, the whole concept of legal killing has been usurped by the culture of death. ie. abortion, euthanasia and youth suicide etc ‘Legal’ killing no longer promotes in man, a sense of the sacredness of life through the symbol of blood shed for it. It is counter productive to the primary point made by 2260.

Although I disagree with significance of the symbol of blood, I do believe that this is pretty much the way JPII looked at what was going on in modern societies and why he was opposed to the use of capital punishment

So the death penalty, while not intrinsically evil, has been rendered counter to its goal by the conditions of today.

If your explanation is accurate then this would be a prudential (but nonetheless valid) objection to using capital punishment. I will only point out that, as this is a prudential judgment, a Catholic may validly disagree.*…prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that there has been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent times…

Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful. (Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)

If it be doubted that there has been such a radical shift, then one has only to compare paragraph 2267 with what, for example, Fathers Rumble and Carty (the ‘Radio Priests’) said in their celebrated Radio Replies…

It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation). (Prof. Steven A. Long, Univ. of St. Thomas)

Therefore, any attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty and is thus an outrage against God.

Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself! (Catechism of Trent)

the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man is one that has permanent relevance and continuing validity; for how can there be a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God; surely it remains as true today as it did Noah’s day?

It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2). (Fr. Hardon citing Pope Pius XII)

What men need to grasp today is that it is the sanctity of life that validates capital punishment for the heinous crime of murder.

Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? … How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? (J. Budziszewski)
Ender

 

[Ender]

The bible verse quoted in 2260 is addressed to the malefactor. It is not instruction directed toward the state. It does not give license to the state to carry out God’s punishment.

That mandate is given by Rom 13:4:*But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. *

The application to modern day capital punishment is that 2260 can be interpreted as a warning to the murderer that he will be punished by the hand on man, but it is also possible that the very same hand that inflicts that punishment is guilty of sin for doing so.

when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister,” as stated in Romans 13:4. (Aquinas)

The exact word is proportionate. But commensurate is a pretty good synonym.

One of the annoyances in these discussions is that we all believe we are using valid references yet nonetheless we find these discrepancies. My source is the Vatican web site and that site uses the word commensurate.

I know you are trying to link up 2260 with 2266 to show that the death penalty is the proportionate punishment, but that is not at all obvious. All that proportionate means is that more serious crimes warrant more serious punishment. But it does specify the proportionality factor. That is left up to the prudential judgement of the legitimate authority.

Objection 3: Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.

• On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law *(Aquinas ST II-II 108,3)

The best you can say is that 2266 permits (but does not require) capital punishment. So I disagree with your special emphasis of “must (not may)” in supporting capital punishment.

My position is that capital punishment ought to be the norm for the crime of murder but there may be justifiable reasons not to inflict it. There is room for prudential judgment but this does not alter the fact that the precept is the just punishment for murder is death.For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine)

Does he explicitly reject 2267? I think you are going further than he did.

You misunderstood my comment. Dulles interpreted 2267 as prudential and held that to disagree with prudential judgments was not to disagree with the church. I was responding to the charge that I was rejecting church teaching, a charge that is no more applicable to me than to the cardinal.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is quite a stretch to interpret Gen 9:6 as sanctioning the death penalty for all nations at all times.

*CCC 2260 … For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.

If you look at the context in Gen 9 you will see that God is speaking to Moses and giving instruction to the Jewish people at that time.

In Gn 9:6 God is speaking to Noah; this is part of his covenant and, unlike Mosaic Law, God’s covenants have not been revoked.

It could also be a warning to the malefactors about the consequences of such grave sin. And the fact that it says “by the hand of man shall their blood be shed” could be seen as a prediction, not a prescription.

For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St Bellarmine)

So you have not made your point that the death penalty is required by justice. The most you can say is that it is permitted.

How doth the Scripture teach that willful murder is revenged?
In most grievous manner doubtless, as Almighty God sheweth in these words, wherein he rebuked Cain the first man: What hast thou done? saith he*, the voice of the blood of thy brother crieth to me from the earth. Now therefore shalt thou be cursed upon earth.* And in another place God’s own voice doth testify. Whoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed also, for to the image of God was man made. The kingly psalmist singeth:* Men ** of blood shall not live half their days.* For this is a very heinous wickedness, and he doeth a most horrible injury to his neighbor, that bereaveth him of his life without lawful authority. For which cause, Christ himself saith also. *All that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. *(St. Peter Canisius)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Clearly the 3rd line of 2267 is prudential, but I will grant that the 2nd line is ambiguous between that an a moral/faith rule (which would be binding). Can you clarify to me how the 2nd line is a binding teaching?

I think the second part of 2267 is really the heart of the issue. That sentence bases its opposition to capital punishment on two reasons for why other means are better:*1- because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good *
*2 - [they] are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. *
The first reason is prudential; it is based on a belief about what is better for the common good. Are societies better off without executions than with them? Needless to say I am unpersuaded that they are.

The second reason, however, is troubling. If execution was an offense against human dignity then that would seem to make it intrinsically wrong, but we know that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil therefore how can it be against human dignity? What then does it mean for something to be less in conformity to that dignity? How would something like that be measured or determined?

We know the source of man’s dignity: he is made in God’s image. We also know - because God himself said it - that it is precisely because of that dignity that the life of a murderer is forfeit. That is, it is the dignity and sacredness of the innocent life that was unjustly taken that mandates and justifies the taking of the life of the person guilty of murder.

To say that we should not take the life of the guilty because such punishment does not accord with his dignity is to lessen the significance of the crime by lessening the significance of the loss of innocent life.

This is why I oppose 2267 … and where I see the most radical departure from what the church has always believed.*The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man *(Catechism of Trent)
This perception was lost well before 2267 was written but that section seems little more than a surrender to the modern perception about man’s inherent worth.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

2260 presents a problem. That I disagree with your interpretation of this passage doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate your willingness to address it. What seems most likely to me is that the comment about blood is simply an explanation about the way the term was used, much like a footnote explaining an archaic term Chaucer might have used. The teaching that is “necessary for all time” is not the meaning of the word blood but the meaning of the Scriptural passages - the need to respect the sacredness of life.

The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: “If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man”, is said in Genesis (9,6). (JPII, 2002)
​

There is a Hebrew term …

“the act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h “to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill”. This verb is used of both an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12. The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit n-k-h.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

Now as I’m contemplating Genesis 9 …

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.* I will demand an accounting from every animal.*** And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

… by God mentioning even animals being accountable for your lifeblood (or their own?), I’m more inclined to see the primary gist of the verses focused less on the punishment of bloodguilt, as on a techical accountability for the shedding of this sacred element to Gods creation.

To lessen the emphasis on that bloodguilt aspect and focus more on the sanctity of life which blood symbolises… puts the instruction in a light more in keeping with Pope John Pauls very adament insistings, to my mind.​

 

[Ender]

… by God mentioning even animals being accountable for your lifeblood (or their own?), I’m more inclined to see the primary gist of the verses focused less on the punishment of bloodguilt, as on a techical accountability for the shedding of this sacred element to Gods creation.

I think the church understands this differently.So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (Catechism of Trent)
If God commands that even a beast be put to death for killing a man how can we hold that man, who unlike the beasts is morally culpable for his acts, should be afflicted with a lesser penalty?

Ender

 

[Dranu]

Honestly, I’m not really interested in debating this. The CCC makes itself quite clear… I don’t believe there is some sort of “hidden meaning” behind 2267 that discredits it or changes it, I really don’t have much of anything to say.

Very well. I’ll add I agree it is very clear with what it says and I am not arguing it has a “hidden meaning”. I am arguing it is a prudential judgment (which is quite different). You agree that the 3rd line is prudential (as any reasonable person would) so just because it is in the Catechism does not mean its not prudential.

Let us be wary about accusing people of culpable “dissent.” If the nature of the ‘teaching’ has not been clearly established (like it has in regards to abortion for instance), many conclusions are faithfully possible. It may well be you who are unwittingly (I doubt you have any malice) the dissenter from the Church’s teachings.

 

[Dranu]

I think the second part of 2267 is really the heart of the issue.

Agreed.

Ender:

The first reason is prudential; it is based on a belief about what is better for the common good.

Agreed. The words ‘common good’ seem to demand this interpretation without more said.

The second reason, however, is troubling. If execution was an offense against human dignity then that would seem to make it intrinsically wrong

Again, agreed. I think this is where the legitimate debate is. All else is fairly clearly prudential, but the term ‘human dignity’ could be seen to lend itself to a moral or a matter of faith, and, despite what others often claim, I tend to think the CCC teaches authoritatively with the proper power of the Magisterium. Thus, if it contains a matter of faith and morals it would be binding (by my understanding).

Obviously teaching that the death penalty violates human dignity in itself cannot be what the CCC meant, for that seems to contradict clear Church teachings. It may be that it is less in keeping with the executed’s dignity, but so is our own future death and possible damnation which God imposes (as a necessary cause even if not sufficient). Thus this ‘dignity’ justification appears to state that where mercy is possible it ought to be sought. Since the suggestion is that society may be improved by not applying the death penalty (the ‘common good’), Blessed JPII and the CCC seem to state that because of prudential circumstances we may, and thus ought, to seek more merciful punishments. Thus if the first justification is not agreed to, the dignity condition might be foregone if prudence demands the execution.

At least that is what it seems to me, and I am far from certain here. I would love to see someone’s reading of this line from the pro-semi-abolition side.

Ender:

This is why I oppose 2267 … and where I see the most radical departure from what the church has always believed.*The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man *(Catechism of Trent)

I am not sure I agree here despite thinking the recent statement is not doctrine.

Let us suppose it was more than merely prudential. I myself could see how it does not radically depart from Church teachings from my historical analysis on a research project I did at my law school. Though a ‘**physical **safety’ limitation was never expressly stated as an ultimate limiting factor (though the Council of Trent could be seen as to come close), I do not see a clear teaching that denies such a limitation. There is some tradition from the saints, but nothing, as far as I can see, that is binding. That which is binding is decidedly vague on the subject in my opinion. For that reason it would seem to be novel if it were a teaching, but I could see arguments as to how this was just hidden in the deposit of faith.

Ender:

…[2267] seems little more than a surrender to the modern perception about man’s inherent worth.

I tend to agree here which is probably the primary reason I oppose its abolition. People seem to implicitly ignore the value of justice and the idea that there is a hereafter, while overemphasizing life this side of the grave as if it, and not eternal life, were the ultimate good.

 

[Ender]

Blessed JPII and the CCC seem to state that because of prudential circumstances we may, and thus ought, to seek more merciful punishments.

Mercy has always been appropriate and I really have a hard time interpreting this passage that way. After all, if this is what was meant, then that is what ought to have been said. Instead the inexplicable phrase that capital punishment is less “in conformity with the dignity” of the criminal was used.

Let us suppose it was more than merely prudential. I myself could see how it does not radically depart from Church teachings from my historical analysis on a research project I did at my law school. Though a ‘**physical **safety’ limitation was never expressly stated as an ultimate limiting factor (though the Council of Trent could be seen as to come close)

Others have argued that as the Catechism of Trent says: "The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life" this means that the objective of capital punishment is just that: the security of human life, but I disagree with this interpretation. Specifically, while the end of the (fifth) commandment may be the preservation of life, that is not the primary end of punishment and, in this sentence, Trent did not address the ends of punishment. In fact, the primary objective of punishment is retributive justice, not protection. To accept that physical safety is the primary objective of capital punishment would be to reject this teaching.

I do not see a clear teaching that denies such a limitation. There is some tradition from the saints, but nothing, as far as I can see, that is binding.

I think I pointed out that the men I cited were not merely saints but were given the title Doctors of the Church “on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine.” It questions the accuracy of the title to accept that all three of them were wrong on this particular point.

People seem to implicitly ignore the value of justice and the idea that there is a hereafter, while overemphasizing life this side of the grave as if it, and not eternal life, were the ultimate good.

If I am correct in asserting that retributive justice is the primary objective of punishment then it should be clear that justice is greatly devalued if it only serves the needs of protection. I see this as one of the major problems with 2267.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I think the church understands this differently.So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (Catechism of Trent)
If God commands that even a beast be put to death for killing a man how can we hold that man, who unlike the beasts is morally culpable for his acts, should be afflicted with a lesser penalty?

Ender

Even taking into account the more dramatic language of the 200 year old Catechism… it is qualified by *"**He did so for no other reason *than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide."

The retribution God reserves solely for the morally culpable does not seem to be the primary gist of this bit of catechises. It is the importance of respecting human life that shines through as the motivation for the passage. Again as I read these words that were spoken for the community of 200 years ago, I am not seeing that the death penalty is divinely qualified by anything other than Gods desire for man to know and experience his own dignity.

Catechisms are meant for the people of its age really. I can’t think that it serves the openness and maturation of faith to take the catechises of 200 years ago as the definitive end to all understandings of any teaching.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by Ender
…[2267] seems little more than a surrender to the modern perception about man’s inherent worth.

Romans 12 tells us that we are clearly to have a certain attitude in justice, that limits our instinctive impulse to avenge by means of ‘blood for blood’/‘eye for eye’. This is Gods right alone. What we are called to do with that natural impulse, which many commentaries have explained as the desire to “heap burning coals on an enemies head” (being a symbol of divine justice), is something quite counter-instinctive… feed him, give him a drink. By this we take no part in the primal accounting system that’s built into our nature, we entrust them over to Gods judgement.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

This in no way diminishes the right to punish an unjust aggressor or even kill him if he continues to threaten lives and the common good.

By this attitude, the value of justice in not ignored… it is more fully honoured.

 

[Ender]

Catechisms are meant for the people of its age really. I can’t think that it serves the openness and maturation of faith to take the catechises of 200 years ago as the definitive end to all understandings of any teaching.

The Catechism of Trent was the official teaching of the church for over 400 years and was not officially replaced until the 1992 version of the new catechism. No catechism is meant just for the people of that age; they are all expressions of the totality of church doctrine and you are way too casual to accept that church doctrines change from one time to another. I put this belief on the list with a number of other harmful, unintended consequences that 2267 has wrought.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Romans 12 tells us that we are clearly to have a certain attitude in justice, that limits our instinctive impulse to avenge by means of ‘blood for blood’/‘eye for eye’.

The church does not interpret this passage as you do.when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,”* He does not condemn that law**, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis … For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; *(St Bellarmine)

This is Gods right alone.

This church has always taught that the magistrate has this authority. This is how the church understands Rom 13:4.He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Aquinas)

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.

What is being denied the individual - revenge - is the obligation of the state. You don’t appreciate the distinction in roles. The individual is forbidden to exact revenge but it is the duty of the state to punish the wicked.
2266* Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty *to inflict penalties …

By this attitude, the value of justice in not ignored… it is more fully honoured.

I’m not sure how to take this. Is justice honored by failing to punish criminals justly? A just punishment is one that is commensurate with the severity of the crime. A punishment that is not commensurate with that severity is unjust whether it be too harsh or too lenient. If you mean the attitude assumed by the judge should not be one of hate then I would agree, but the degree of punishment is still set by the nature of the crime.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The Catechism of Trent was the official teaching of the church for over 400 years and was not officially replaced until the 1992 version of the new catechism. No catechism is meant just for the people of that age; they are all expressions of the totality of church doctrine and you are way too casual to accept that church doctrines change from one time to another. I put this belief on the list with a number of other harmful, unintended consequences that 2267 has wrought.

Ender

No, I’m not in the least suggesting that Church doctrines ‘change’ from one time to another. I’m saying that the Catechism of Trent sprang forth from the Council of Trent as a resource for catechesis in the renewal of faith. The Second Vatican Council in the interests of the renewal of faith in the pilgrim church on earth, speaks to a post Vatican 2 community and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church accurately and faithfully imparts to people of our time, the whole of Church teaching in summary as illuminated by Vat2 for the Church in our time.

17.Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?
By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center. A major catechism, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings.

18.Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to the documents of the Second Vatican Council?
Just as the Catechism contains the most solemnly defined dogmas of the Church, it also contains the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. The worldwide consultation of the bishops that preceded the promulgation of the Catechism gives it a collegial character. It is, as Pope John Paul II said, “the result of a collaboration of the whole episcopate.” It would seem, however, that the Catechism did not have the benefit of the complete exercise of effective collegiality that accompanies the writing, disputation, revision, consensus, agreement and eventual promulgation of documents of an ecumenical council. But it must be noted that the form of a catechism is distinct from the form of conciliar documents. They are complimentary, but they are not identical.

19.Does this mean that the Catechism can be disregarded?
No. The Catechism is part of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority. Pope John Paul II placed his apostolic authority behind it. Its doctrinal authority is proper to the papal Magisterium. In Fidei Depositum John Paul II termed the Catechism a “sure norm for teaching the faith” and “a sure and authentic reference text.” He asked “the Church’s pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life.”."

 

[LongingSoul]

… continued

44.Why does the Church need the Catechism at this time?
The Second Vatican Council re-defined and re-affirmed the Church’s traditional teachings for the contemporary world. Just as in the cases of previous Ecumenical Councils, after the Second Vatican Council, there was a need to consolidate those teachings and re-present them in a compelling and inviting way. In addition, today many people are looking for a clear and coherent presentation of the Church’s teaching. The Catechism provides such an intelligent and complete presentation.

45.How does the Catechism strengthen the Church’s bond of unity rather than cause division within the Church?
Pope John Paul II said that the Catechism provides “the service of supporting and confirming the faith of all the disciples of the Lord Jesus, as well as to strengthen the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith.” The Catechism, then, is intended to “carefully guard the unity of the faith and fidelity to Catholic doctrine.” The Catechism sets forth what Catholics believe throughout the world without regard for their particular cultural situations. It seeks to foster the unity of the faith as it is lived distinctively throughout the universal Church. In addition, the “In Brief” summaries especially offer a common language of faith for diverse believers to express and celebrate the one Catholic faith. The Catechism has a great potential to diminish division within the Church and draw believers closer to one another and to Christ.

47.Does the Catechism assist in what Pope John Paul II has called the “new evangelization?”
Yes. Pope John Paul II has termed the Catechism “an instrument for the new evangelization.” The “new evangelization” which the Pope consistently proclaimed involves both the transformation of contemporary culture and the personal, ongoing conversion of the individual believer. The Catechism presents the message of Christ in its entirety. It presents the message of Christ faithfully. It consistently offers the teachings of the Church in relationship to the person of Christ who is at the heart of the Church’s beliefs. These three elements make up the energizing center of the “new evangelization.”

Pope John Paul II said, “The new evangelization, however, requires first of all a catechesis that, presenting the plan of salvation, can call people to conversion and to hope in God’s promise on the basis of certitude about the true resurrection of Christ, the first proclamation and root of all evangelization, the foundation of all human development and the principle of every Christian culture.”

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm

 

[LongingSoul]

This is Gods right alone

This church has always taught that the magistrate has this authority. This is how the church understands Rom 13:4.He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Aquinas)

….and to complete that passage… *“If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God’s and therefore sins.”

“Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another’s evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Romans 12:21): “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.” - Aquinas

If, however, the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed*.”

Now to me, this could not more clearly state that man is not to primarily address the evil in another, in and of itself, when administering punishment. His intention should be directed only to the good that will be obtained by that punishment… either the medicinal effect for the sinner or the medicinal effect for the common good . Only then is punishment lawful.

To be honest, I do not understand the objections to 2267 at all based on Aquinas instruction.

What is being denied the individual - revenge - is the obligation of the state. You don’t appreciate the distinction in roles. The individual is forbidden to exact revenge but it is the duty of the state to punish the wicked.

You’ll have to point out exactly how that distinction is made because I don’t see it.