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

[Ender]

The death penalty is addressed by the CCC in the same breath as war is addressed and I think for very sound reasons.

Church catechisms have always addressed killing in war, self defense, and executions together and always withing the context of the fifth commandment as they are all exceptions to that law.

The Old Testament finds God telling the wandering Israelites to conquer Canaan and make it their own also, but we don’t (hopefully) defend *conquest *as the primary end of war (anymore).

Whatever may be made of the Israelites, the church’s just war teaching, presented at least 800 years ago, has nothing to do with rationalizing wars of conquest.

The way one contemplates the Old Testament has to be necessarily different to the way we contemplate the New.

If by this you mean we may reject something in the Old Testament simply because it is in the Old Testament rather than the new then this goes too far. That some things, like the Law of Moses, are no longer applicable cannot mean that no teaching from those times are applicable.

God had His plan for His ‘chosen people’ back then, but by virtue of adoption, Jesus shows we are all God’s chosen people. That distinction no longer existed after the resurrection. We necessarily have to regard each other differently.

The passage at issue here is Gen 9:5-6 and that is part of God’s covenant with Noah; it had absolutely nothing to do with the Israelites if for no other reason than there were none.

There is no longer a ‘them and us’ and the laws made within the old Covenant, which you could say had the primary end of ‘retribution’ or ‘conquest’ in establishing the sacred nature of mans life… now have a primary end of ‘common good’ (bearing in mind there is no ‘them and us’ anymore ) in establishing the sacred nature of mans life.

Punishment has four ends: retribution, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence. The primary end is defined in 2266: *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”*What is meant by “redressing the disorder” is retribution. This is what the church teaches today and is true of all punishment including capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I don’t agree that the way of doctrinal development begins with an official Vatican ‘press release’.

No one believes this nor have I seen anyone suggest otherwise.

It so happens that human experience at the ‘coal face’ leads the way and Pope John Paul II was a great example of this, having lived through communism in Poland and through nazi occupation during WW2. Human experience is really the only way that man and God communicate. There is no direct hotline between the Vatican press office and God in the way you seem to be suggesting.

I have no idea where you’re going with this. You have apparently read something into my comments that isn’t there.

I’m in Queensland, Australia and the death penalty was a gross abuse of human dignity 100 years ago in the environment of racial, religious and class inequality. It was abolished in 1922 for that very reason.

Whatever the reason for its abolition it had nothing to do with the Catholic church. Britain, and by extension its major colonies, actually weren’t too sympathetic to Catholicism and were surely not swayed by her beliefs. You claimed that church teaching helped lead your country away from capital punishment in 1922. That claim is incorrect.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m in Queensland, Australia and the death penalty was a gross abuse of human dignity 100 years ago in the environment of racial, religious and class inequality. It was abolished in 1922 for that very reason.

It was exactly that anti-clerical environment that inspired movements that would eventually be known as Catholic Action in countries like Australia. The Pope of the time, Leo XIII had begun to develop Church social teaching and the gist was that Catholics become more influencial on all levels of life within their own environments. To that end, the Queensland Church brought in ship loads of Irish Catholics and continued to be more deeply involved with class and racial injustice towards the poor (of whom most Catholics belonged then), aboriginals and also the Asian immigrants who were treated just as poorly. These were the groups over-represented in the criminal system of the time by virtue of their race or status. The Australian Labour Party actually grew out of a Catholic action initiative to have a voice for the workers and marginalised.

All these things, (despite the ever presences of what we now call ‘traditionalists’), were very much within the scope of the Vatican and Pope Leo’s vision for Catholicism in anti-clerical countries.

If you want to continue to quote paragraphs that make it impossible that any Catholic in any place or time, make judgements on the use of the death penalty, that’s your prerogative, but it seems like a dangerously insular attitude for a Catholic to hold in my opinion.

 

[LongingSoul]

Punishment has four ends: retribution, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence. The primary end is defined in 2266: *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”*What is meant by “redressing the disorder” is retribution. This is what the church teaches today and is true of all punishment including capital punishment.

Ender

No, I do not see that passage as giving the State the divine power to effect retribution. 2266 says…

1. 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. (This sets the scope of the states powers)

2.Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. (This behooves and limits the state to measure sentences against the crime which had also in extreme circumstances permitted the death penalty)

3.Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation.
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.67 (This lists possible expiation dependent on the attitude of the guilty party. Defending public order. Protecting people’s safety. And possible medicinal effect on the guilty. No divine retribution mentioned within the scope of the states mandate.)

Certain things belong to God alone. We are given a tool (states power) to effect the ends He wants, but the scope of the tool is limited to what serves the common good as we, inferior, ignorant, fallen man… know it.

 

[Dranu]

And yet there are still some within the Church that see this as a contradiction.

My only point was to illustrate that this so called re-formulation of salvation outside of the Church is not so new. I intended to distinguish it from the new statements on the death penalty both on grounds of the form of the teaching and its relative antiquity. I would also add that the Church has had a lot more to say on that issue in a more formal way as well (e.g. Inquisitorial condemnation of the opposite; Consequently, I agree some people think otherwise ).

The Old Testament finds God telling the wandering Israelites to conquer Canaan and make it their own also, but we don’t (hopefully) defend *conquest *as the primary end of war (anymore).

Depends what you mean. Traditionally, war has been justified on a retributivist grounds in the Church. For example: newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm Interestingly enough in the modern era the Church does not seem to discuss this justification much, and perhaps for very good reason (look at what devastation we can bring to bear in the modern world!) Nevertheless, this move away from retribution would thus only be prudential.

LongingSoul:

Dranu:

If doctrine, it is simply a moral truth that the death penalty ought never be applied except for the safety of persons, yet many of the Old Testament death penalties clearly do not seem to contemplate this limitation.

…There is no longer a ‘them and us’ and the laws made within the old Covenant, which you could say had the primary end of ‘retribution’ or ‘conquest’ in establishing the sacred nature of mans life… now have a primary end of ‘common good’ (bearing in mind there is no ‘them and us’anymore ) in establishing the sacred nature of mans life. The concept of a ‘common good’ had no relevance in the Old Testament whatsoever.

My point still applies because morals do not change with time. Prudential judgments do, but not binding moral ones. If it is immoral to seek the death penalty except to protect the physical safety of persons, then it would appear God commanded the Israelites to do evil in establishing death penalties for things other than the safety of individuals.

I would add that it also SEEMS God is unjust in damning, since that penalty is far greater than death (the greater penalty would thus seem to include the lesser). That is, it seems this way if 2267 is more than just prudential.

 

[LongingSoul]

My point still applies because morals do not change with time. Prudential judgments do, but not binding moral ones. If it is immoral to seek the death penalty except to protect the physical safety of persons, then it would appear God commanded the Israelites to do evil in establishing death penalties for things other than the safety of individuals.

I would add that it also SEEMS God is unjust in damning, since that penalty is far greater than death (the greater penalty would thus seem to include the lesser). That is, it seems this way if 2267 is more than just prudential.

I only see this as a conundrum when we conflate the moral truth with the means of effecting it. For example, Jesus had to defend His disciples when they plucked corn on the Sabbath against the law. He had to defend the showing of mercy against the law in letting the adulterous woman go free. He gave new impetus to the dietary law in saying “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” (Matthew 15:11)

All these were summarily qualified by His two primary principles…

“Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:35-40

Love your neighbour as yourself. That is… put the common good first in dealing with the laws of God. The mission of the new Covenant. That was His teaching when we are faced with this seeming conundrum of reconciling the tenets of our faith under the old and new Covenants. In that light, CCC 2267, the guide to faith for the living… doesn’t need to be explained as a ‘prudential judgement’. It can be trusted in the same manner as all else in the CCC can be trusted.

 

[Dranu]

Dranu:

My point still applies because morals do not change with time. Prudential judgments do, but not binding moral ones. If it is immoral to seek the death penalty except to protect the physical safety of persons, then it would appear God commanded the Israelites to do evil in establishing death penalties for things other than the safety of individuals.

…Love your neighbour as yourself. That is… put the common good first in dealing with the laws of God. The mission of the new Covenant. That was His teaching when we are faced with this seeming conundrum of reconciling the tenets of our faith under the old and new Covenants.

I am sorry I do not quite understand your argument here. I assume you are saying the following:
1.) The second line of 2267 is a matter of moral teaching.
2.) I agree that the Old Testament allowed for the death penalty for things that would be considered immoral under 2267.
3.) Despite this contradiction, it is explainable by the maxim ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’.

Is that a correct assessment? If so could you elaborate on 3?

CCC 2267, the guide to faith for the living… doesn’t need to be explained as a ‘prudential judgement’.

With the above to the side there is legitimate debate as to the second line of 2267 not being prudential, but is it really reasonable to doubt the third line is prudential? I do not really understand how that is possible. My argument has been to the second line of 2267, at any rate, that sets down a rule.

 

[Ender]

The Pope of the time, Leo XIII had begun to develop Church social teaching and the gist was that Catholics become more influencial on all levels of life within their own environments.

Leo XIII died in 1903. The next pope was Pius X who came out with a catechism that contained the Traditional teaching on capital punishment. That is, that states were morally justified in employing it. However Australian opposition to capital punishment appeared, it was not driven - or even supported - by the teaching of the Catholic church.

If you want to continue to quote paragraphs that make it impossible that any Catholic in any place or time, make judgements on the use of the death penalty, that’s your prerogative, but it seems like a dangerously insular attitude for a Catholic to hold in my opinion.

I’m not sure what you mean by “judgments” on the use of the death penalty. We may surely oppose it for practical reasons and make judgments about its effectiveness or usefulness. We may not, however, reject it for moral reasons without repudiating the Traditional teaching of the church.

Ender

 

[Ender]

No, I do not see that passage as giving the State the divine power to effect retribution.

The passage that confers that authority on the state is Rom 13:4.For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
That is not my personal interpretation; this is the passage the church refers to. Besides, if the state had no authority to impose retribution then it would have no authority to punish at all. This argument would render not only capital punishment inappropriate but all punishment of any kind.

Certain things belong to God alone.

What is valid for God is also valid for his ministers.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Love your neighbour as yourself. That is… put the common good first in dealing with the laws of God. The mission of the new Covenant. That was His teaching when we are faced with this seeming conundrum of reconciling the tenets of our faith under the old and new Covenants. In that light, CCC 2267, the guide to faith for the living… doesn’t need to be explained as a ‘prudential judgement’. It can be trusted in the same manner as all else in the CCC can be trusted.

The problem with this argument is that if it is correct then the church failed to understand this most basic command correctly for nearly 2000 years. Given that she always acknowledged the right of states to use capital punishment, if capital punishment is wrong based on God’s law, then what are we to make of the church having been so badly mislead for so long?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I am sorry I do not quite understand your argument here. I assume you are saying the following:
1.) The second line of 2267 is a matter of moral teaching.
2.) I agree that the Old Testament allowed for the death penalty for things that would be considered immoral under 2267.
3.) Despite this contradiction, it is explainable by the maxim ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’.

Is that a correct assessment? If so could you elaborate on 3?

What is the Catechism if not a trustworthy echo of Catholic teaching? Why would 2267 be included in the Catechism if it were so controversial as some are claiming? It is in the Catechism for a reason and that is that Catholics everywhere, accept it.

This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. – CCC11

I presented some examples of how seeming conundrums like this one where the laws established under the old Covenant are to be considered in the light of the new, were explained by Jesus Himself. The Jewish people were affronted by what seemed to be a flipping off of the laws but Jesus explained that He had not come to dispense with the law, but to fulfil it.

I quoted the passage where Jesus is asked about the most important law. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ***On these two commandments hang all the law ***and the prophets." Matthew 22:35-40

I see this as Jesus establishing by that second law, the ‘common good’ as we know it today. The old divisions, race/tribe/those ‘chosen’ and those not/ even family groupings… no longer separate people definitively. Every persons eyes are now opened to a common bond through Christs life and death. We inevitably and necessarily, behold the laws of the old Covenant in a different light and that is how I see the the second line of 2267 having evolved.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
No, I do not see that passage as giving the State the divine power to effect retribution

Even Cardinal Dulles writes of the difference in how the authorities under the old law and authorities under the new Covenant consider the retributive aspect of a death penalty.

***"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.

The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four ends of punishment. It does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about salutary repentance. It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society against the criminal. Whether it serves to deter others from similar crimes is a disputed question, difficult to settle. Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt."***

firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

 

[LongingSoul]

We may surely oppose it for practical reasons and make judgments about its effectiveness or usefulness. We may not, however, reject it for moral reasons without repudiating the Traditional teaching of the church.

That is only a conundrum if you incorrectly behold a death penalty as an institution in itself. Chocolate cake has no intrinsic moral value. Sometimes it is a justifiably good. Birthdays, special occasions, PMS. There are times when is isn’t justifiable though. Lent, dieting, diabetes. Rejecting it doesn’t render it an intrinsically evil product. But on the other hand it shouldn’t be defended as a dietary staple. It is a special occasion product just like the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

Even Cardinal Dulles writes of the difference in how the authorities under the old law and authorities under the new Covenant consider the retributive aspect of a death penalty.

His comments didn’t address those points at all. He was talking about how retribution is perceived in modern societies which have lost a belief “in the existence of a transcendent order of justice” and therefore “the retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.”

This is, I believe, why Dulles agreed with JPII that capital punishment ought not be used. It is also a completely prudential reason for avoiding it.

Ender

 

[Dranu]

Dranu:

I am sorry I do not quite understand your argument here. I assume you are saying the following:
1.) The second line of 2267 is a matter of moral teaching.
2.) I agree that the Old Testament allowed for the death penalty for things that would be considered immoral under 2267.
3.) Despite this contradiction, it is explainable by the maxim ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’.
Is that a correct assessment? If so could you elaborate on 3?

What is the Catechism if not a trustworthy echo of Catholic teaching? Why would 2267 be included in the Catechism if it were so controversial as some are claiming? It is in the Catechism for a reason and that is that Catholics everywhere, accept it.

The Catechism makes prudential statements. I think that is far beyond reasonable doubt. If the third line of 2267 is not prudential I would have you tell me your reasoning (I am not trying to be argumentative here, I truly see it as beyond rational). Now ‘prudential’ does not mean false, it just means what it says, and the Church does not speak doctrinally on the sciences quo sciences.

But anyhow back to the question I asked you and quoted (as I think the second line of 2267 is reasonably debatable)

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ***On these two commandments hang all the law ***and the prophets." Matthew 22:35-40

I see this as Jesus establishing by that second law, the ‘common good’ as we know it today. The old divisions, race/tribe/those ‘chosen’ and those not/ even family groupings… no longer separate people definitively. Every persons eyes are now opened to a common bond through Christs life and death. We inevitably and necessarily, behold the laws of the old Covenant in a different light and that is how I see the the second line of 2267 having evolved.

Please don’t take me as meaning offense when I say this, but it sounds like many of my contemporaries who say “Jesus shows God is love, thus that is false because it is unloving” to anything they do not like of the Faith. I just mean to say it to help you see my confusion in this particular argument. So back to my question:

I assume you are saying the following:
1.) The second line of 2267 is a matter of moral teaching.
2.) I agree that the Old Testament allowed for the death penalty for things that would be considered immoral under 2267.
3.) Despite this contradiction, it is explainable by the maxim ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’.
Is that a correct assessment? If so could you elaborate on 3?

By ‘elaborate on 3’ I mean to ask if you could give me a deductive argument as to how 1 and 2 can be true. I am not denying that the New Covenant is more about the common good, I just don’t see how that reconciles 1 and 2.

 

[LongingSoul]

The Catechism makes prudential statements. I think that is far beyond reasonable doubt. If the third line of 2267 is not prudential I would have you tell me your reasoning (I am not trying to be argumentative here, I truly see it as beyond rational). Now ‘prudential’ does not mean false, it just means what it says, and the Church does not speak doctrinally on the sciences quo sciences.

I have to first say that I feel you are downplaying the significance of the CCC by portraying the term prudential judgement as a benign ‘opinion’. In Fidei Depositum, Pope John Paul II declared that the Catechism of the Catholic Church was "a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith…”

The Catholic Dictionary defines the virtue of prudence as…

Correct knowledge about things to be done or, more broadly, the knowledge of things that ought to be done and of things that ought to be avoided. It is the intellectual virtue whereby a human being recognizes in any matter at hand what is good and what is evil. In this sense, it is the moral virtue that enables a person to devise, choose, and prepare suitable means for the attainment of any purpose or the avoidance of any evil. Prudence resides in the practical intellect and is both acquire by one’s own acts and infused at the same time as sanctifying grace. It may be said to be natural as developed by us, and supernatural because conferred by God.** As an act of virtue, prudence involves three stages of mental operation: to take counsel carefully with oneself and from others; to judge correctly on the basis of the evidence at hand; and to direct the rest of one’s activity according to the norms determined after a prudent judgment has been made**.

Now not being a Scripture scholar or theologian, or a Priest or Pope, the most prudent judgement I can make concerning the Catechism based on the above and other facts, is that Pope John Paul deeply under the grace of God meant exactly what he wrote concerning the doctrinal value of the CCC.

But anyhow back to the question I asked you and quoted (as I think the second line of 2267 is reasonably debatable)
Please don’t take me as meaning offense when I say this, but it sounds like many of my contemporaries who say “Jesus shows God is love, thus that is false because it is unloving” to anything they do not like of the Faith. I just mean to say it to help you see my confusion in this particular argument.

It has to continually be reminded here in this debate, I’m not on the side of rejecting Church teaching here. I’m on the side of defending what is spoken in 2267.

So back to my question:

I assume you are saying the following:
1.) The second line of 2267 is a matter of moral teaching.
2.) I agree that the Old Testament allowed for the death penalty for things that would be considered immoral under 2267.
3.) Despite this contradiction, it is explainable by the maxim ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’.
Is that a correct assessment? If so could you elaborate on 3?

By ‘elaborate on 3’ I mean to ask if you could give me a deductive argument as to how 1 and 2 can be true. I am not denying that the New Covenant is more about the common good, I just don’t see how that reconciles 1 and 2.

But I’ve done so already to the best of my ability. 45 years ago, I wasn’t allowed to cross the road by myself. If I tried to do that, I would have been severely punished. Today I can. I don’t find that irreconcilable. I don’t find that a rejection of my parents authority. I don’t think they were immoral or unjust. I just find it …. natural. No contradiction exists and really no explanations are needed because its all just a matter of …. common sense.

 

[Ender]

I have to first say that I feel you are downplaying the significance of the CCC by portraying the term prudential judgement as a benign ‘opinion’.

You are evading the question. The claim has been made that the third sentence in section 2267 is prudential. That claim is either true or false and no claim made about the nature of the catechism changes the answer. There is in fact no reasonable argument to be made that the statement is not in fact prudential.

The Catholic Dictionary defines the virtue of prudence as…

And this is the meaning of prudential:“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. (Cardinal Dulles)

Now not being a Scripture scholar or theologian, or a Priest or Pope…

You may not be one but Cardinal Dulles surely was and this is his opinion on the matter:The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

It has to continually be reminded here in this debate, I’m not on the side of rejecting Church teaching here. I’m on the side of defending what is spoken in 2267.

The difficulty is finding an argument that defends 2267 that doesn’t at the same time repudiate the traditional teaching of the church. I am aware of only one that meets both criteria: 2267 is prudential.

Ender

 

[universityprof]

I’ll accept your apology.

this isn’t a joke.

I’m not going to play word games with you, the CCC allows the DP in certain instances, whether you call this balancing test “consequentialist” or “Susan” doesn’t matter to me. that’s a high school level debate trick.

2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends, shows that prison gang leadership order murders and runs narcotics distribution from inside prison.

Lynn Stewart was an attorney who passed messages from the first WTC bomber to a terrorist gang causing more deaths in spite of extraordinary measures to prevent this from happening.

you pretend these things don’t happen or have no concern for future victims, and think that buzzwords like “Consequentialist” are supposed to have us shaking in our boots? really?

so again, why do you personally believe the CCC doesn’t say exactly what it says?

The CCC does not read there is room for debate on the DP. In essense, it instructs that in these modern days the need for capital punnishment is non-existant. If it did not insturct that way what kind of message would it send for the church’s pro life stance. The way i see it, the fifth commandment states “thou shalt not kill.” It does say that you can kill with the expection of ______.

 

[LongingSoul]

Now not being a Scripture scholar or theologian, or a Priest or Pope…

If several Popes, the USCCB, Cardinal Dulles and every other Christian country in the world is in sync on this point, what the question is, is why do lay US Catholics dismiss it as an imprudent judgement? This is what I don’t understand.

 

[Ender]

If several Popes, the USCCB, Cardinal Dulles and every other Christian country in the world is in sync on this point, what the question is, is why do lay US Catholics dismiss it as an imprudent judgement? This is what I don’t understand.

Mostly what I dispute are the bad arguments presented in support of 2267. Almost no one simply accepts 2267 as opinion and moves on. Rather most try to defend it on moral principles but the arguments presented almost inevitably involve a repudiation of the Traditional teaching of the church … see the argument just presented by universityprof as an example of what I mean.

Ender