I think this explains why little progress has been made. If everything is personal opinion then arguing about what is moral is senseless as the term itself has no meaning. Arguing over executing or not executing would be no more meaningful than arguing over who makes the better shoes, Nike or Adidas.Everything you’re posting is your personal opinion. “The death penalty as it exists today in the U.S. is moral because the Catholic Church says blah blah blah” = your opinion.
Executing innocent people is immoral. Agree or disagree?I think this explains why little progress has been made. If everything is personal opinion then arguing about what is moral is senseless as the term itself has no meaning. Arguing over executing or not executing would be no more meaningful than arguing over who makes the better shoes, Nike or Adidas.
Ender
I believe you are viewing the 2nd part too narrowly and without honouring Church Tradition properly. Unlike Sola Scripturists, we receive Bible teachings through the Tradition of the Church in the age we live in. God spoke directly to Abraham and Moses and the Israelites and when we say we have the Bible, we are actually saying we have the Word told by God directly to His Chosen people. In other words, the Bible didn’t just fall out of heaven per se, it is really a book of the Truth, that’s been dictated by God to the Israelites. Then Jesus was born and He spoke the Truth directly to the Apostles and disciples of the time. Then after He ascended into Heaven, He sent the Holy Spirit to speak through the Holy men and women of this age. God hadn’t finished speaking about His will for us when Jesus ascended. He’s going to continue messing it up until the end of time. And just as the Pharisees were ticked because Jesus was ‘upturning the old rules’. The Sola Scripturists are ticked because the Catholics are ‘upturning the old rules’. The Council of Trentists (I’m just making up words now) are ticked because the Vatican twoists are ‘upturning the old rules’. We have to expect that God works by seeming to ‘upturn the old rules’ … but we can work to be discerning about the words that are truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and those which are coming from an ungodly source (and I personally discern that Pope John Paul II was a man devoted completely to Gods word in this matter.)Here is how I understand 2267:
1st part: The first clause is accurate; the clause beginning with “when this is…” is not. The church has never had the caveat that capital punishment be limited to its necessity for protection.
2cd part: This presents two reasons for not using capital punishment: because it “better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good” and other punishments are *“more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” *The first is prudential, the second is troubling. Gn 9:6 explains that the life of a murderer is forfeit because of the dignity of the life of the victim. 2267 reverses that and holds that the life of a murderer is protected because of the dignity of his life.
3rd part: This is prudential.
But when you keep saying that ‘retribution’ is the primary justification, are you really meaning ‘basic’ justification? Afterall, the retributive nature of justice is, through natural law, infused into our nature and we can experience it firstly in our authoritative role over our children. Sometimes you can see the understanding error when a parental authority explains “… because I’m the parent!” rather than “… because it’s the right thing to do”. The basic justification for authority is in upholding ‘right’ behaviour … for the wellbeing of the child and those around him who are affected by his behaviour. We can’t make our anger feelings divine. Zeal of any sort to be good, has to be powered by our concern for the good of everyone concerned, not by our righteous anger feelings, which are only good in the good God alone. When we stand the two justifications side by side, they aren’t like two halves of a key that authorise human justice. They have different natures. The one; retributive justice, is the door. The other; concern for the common good, is the key. They are both legitimate ends but being apples and oranges, we can’t say one is ‘primary’ over the other. Simple that the light of the times may illuminate one over the other.Capital punishment has always been justified by the church as a matter of retributive justice and that is a condition that cannot change with time or circumstances.
First, while this comment acknowledges the benefit to society of executing dangerous criminals (safeguarding the common good), nowhere does Aquinas say that this is the only or even the primary reason for executing them. Protection has always been a legitimate objective of punishment but it has never been the primary justification.Take Thomas Aquinas famous words…
Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
Second, if you interpret the phrase “to safeguard the common good” as meaning physical protection only you interpret it much too narrowly and certainly not the way Aquinas understood it, for he also said:*…*because 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 (ST I-II 19,10)
The question is meaningless without a basis on which make judgments; in fact the concept of morality is meaningless if it is assumed to be merely subjective. If the basis of morality is personal opinion then choosing to murder is no more or less moral than choosing chocolate over vanilla. The term would mean nothing other than “I prefer this to that.”Executing innocent people is immoral. Agree or disagree?
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2606202/turk-walk-away-o.gifThe question is meaningless without a basis on which make judgments; in fact the concept of morality is meaningless if it is assumed to be merely subjective. If the basis of morality is personal opinion then choosing to murder is no more or less moral than choosing chocolate over vanilla. The term would mean nothing other than “I prefer this to that.”
Ender
I agree with this and think it is exactly what JPII had in mind, that the use of capital punishment in modern societies* “ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.”* (Dulles)Reading the whole passage in context, with the last part informing the first and the first informing the last, it shows us that the ‘good’ or ‘common good’ is a vulnerable entity, that has to be taken into account in applying the death penalty to the wicked. He clearly warns that the death penalty, in a certain environment (probably what the Popes call a ‘culture of death’), could involve ‘many good men in their ruin’. The ‘key’ that is the common good, must be the exact key that fits the ‘door’ of retributive justice, otherwise human justice becomes something other than conformed to Gods will.
When I keep saying that “retribution” is the *primary *justification of punishment I do so for no other reason than this is what the church teaches and I mean no more than that.2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.But when you keep saying that ‘retribution’ is the primary justification, are you really meaning ‘basic’ justification?
I have not addressed the basic justification for authority, only the objectives of punishment and of these there are four: retribution, rehabilitation, defense, and deterrence. Of these four, according to the church, the primary objective is retribution … retributive justice.The basic justification for authority is in upholding ‘right’ behaviour … When we stand the two justifications side by side, they aren’t like two halves of a key that authorise human justice. They have different natures. The one; retributive justice, is the door. The other; concern for the common good, is the key. They are both legitimate ends but being apples and oranges, we can’t say one is ‘primary’ over the other. Simple that the light of the times may illuminate one over the other.
I would rather 99 guilty go free as opossed to convicting one innocent person.Lol, dude if you’re out of arguments just tap out and admit it. Everything you’re posting is your personal opinion. “The death penalty as it exists today in the U.S. is moral because the Catholic Church says blah blah blah” = your opinion.
You have no way of knowing who will murder again. You have no way of knowing if a guilty convict who’s locked up for life without the possibility of parole will kill again. You also have no way of knowing with certainty if every convict actually committed the crime of which they were convicted. There are many horrible things we could do to prevent folks from getting killed, such as exterminate every HIV positive person in Africa, but the ends don’t justify the means and the plight of few isn’t necessarily outweighed by the good of the many.
The difference between a convict shanking another convict in prison and the state executing an innocent is that the judicial system is per definition the vehicle by which ***justice ***is carried out. If my state risks executing an innocent by putting a man or woman to death, the integrity of that vehicle has been permanently defaced. And that disgrace is carried by the entirety of every citizen in my state, as we allowed this to happen. That innocent was executed in our name. If a dude shanks another prisoner, that’s his crime and his alone.
There are people in this world who, because of my own personal shortcomings, I would be happy to see die. But I don’t go and kill them myself, because I don’t want that potential sin on my hands, and because I might be completely wrong about them. Why then should I ask the state to do something I’m not willing to do myself?
The death penalty as it exists today is immoral. We know that we have executed innocents, we know that the guilty often go free, and it’s often because of the size of their bank accounts and the quality of lawyers they can afford. The death penalty is the most glaring, undisguised example of class warfare that exists in our society. We don’t need it, it harms the integrity of the state, and it should be done away with.
The question is not whether you would rather see 99 go free but whether you would rather see 99 murdered rather than have one innocent person inadvertently executed.I would rather 99 guilty go free as opposed to convicting one innocent person.
You would be naïve to think that Thomas Aquinas wasn’t by his work, developing and unfolding doctrine left, right and centre. If that’s not how it worked, we wouldn’t need new philosopher’s and theologians or new Popes to do that work, we’d just need translators to keep updating the old language. So when John Paul II advises that the death penalty is ‘cruel and unnecessary’ and not in keeping with mans dignity and when he says that traditional teaching does not exclude recourse to it ‘if its the only possible way to defend human life’… he is not attacking and condemning the death penalty, he is, with the light of our times, explaining its nature more fully to us. He’s gone to lengths to stress that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil and by these words, he shows us that it is not ‘intrinsically’ good either. It’s like any other instrument of death. In the hands of evil men it’s rendered evil. In the hands of good men it’s rendered good. Aquinas and John Paul II were addressing two very different sorts of justice systems and cultures about a law that at it’s heart, is invested in the dignity of human beings.I agree with this and think it is exactly what JPII had in mind, that the use of capital punishment in modern societies* “ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.”* (Dulles)
This understanding is in complete agreement with church tradition as was nicely illustrated by the citation from Aquinas you used.** Note, however, this explanation says nothing new about capital punishment itself and leaves in place everything the church has taught for two millennia. All other explanations even as they attack and condemn the death penalty attack and condemn church Tradition.**
That’s where you keep making your error… I did one semester of Philosophy at Uni (but I sucked at it) but I do know you are trapped in some sort of logical fallacy. ie. Retribution is the primary justification of punishment. The death penalty is a punishment. Therefore the primary justification of the death penalty is retribution. I’d have to dig out some old notes to find the specific Latin name for that, but I can tell you… it’s where you’re tripping up. The grab you’ve posted from the USCCB, goes on to explain how your problem can be reconciled.When I keep saying that “retribution” is the *primary *justification of punishment I do so for no other reason than this is what the church teaches and I mean no more than that.2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
The third justifying purpose for punishment is* retribution or the restoration of the order of justice ***which has been violated by the action of the criminal. (USCCB 1980)
All A is B (All punishment [A] has retribution as its primary objective ** )I do know you are trapped in some sort of logical fallacy. ie. Retribution is the primary justification of punishment. The death penalty is a punishment. Therefore the primary justification of the death penalty is retribution. I’d have to dig out some old notes to find the specific Latin name for that, but I can tell you… it’s where you’re tripping up.
**Let’s not lose sight of this point: retribution justifies punishment.We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment.
Bad start. Those passages refer to the responsibilities of the individual and in no way address the responsibilities of the state. The individual is obligated to forgive; the state has a duty to punish.We must not remain unmindful of the example of Jesus who urges upon us a teaching of forbearance in the face of evil (Matthew 5:38-42) and forgiveness of injuries (Matthew 18:21-35).
This disparages the motivation of those who would impose the death penalty. It does not address whether the punishment is proportionate to the crime.the forms and limits of punishment must be determined by moral objectives which go beyond the mere inflicting of injury on the guilty. Thus we would regard it as barbarous and inhumane for a criminal who had tortured or maimed a victim to be tortured or maimed in return. Such a punishment might satisfy certain vindictive desires that we or the victim might feel, but the satisfaction of such desires is not and cannot be an objective of a humane and Christian approach to punishment.
Both of these are valid objectives but they are both secondary. The fundamental objective, however, cannot be ignored in order to secure a lesser objective.We believe that the forms of punishment must be determined with a view to the protection of society and its members and to the reformation of the criminal and his reintegration into society (which may not be possible in certain cases).
Here they assert more than they can prove. As we’ve already seen, Aquinas has said a great deal on this subject, and here the bishops glide past the meaning of “the good of society” with the implication that this means protection when in fact he means justice.This position accords with the general norm for punishment proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas when he wrote: “In this life, however, penalties are not sought for their own sake, because this is not the era of retribution; rather, they are meant to be corrective by being conducive either to the reform of the sinner or the good of society, which becomes more peaceful through the punishment of sinners.”
Clearly this is a prudential judgment.We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.
What considerations - are they practical or moral? What evils are present now that were not present when the church herself employed capital punishment? What values are involved now that were unknown for the previous 20 centuries of church teaching?Furthermore, we believe that there are serious considerations which should prompt Christians and all Americans to support the abolition of capital punishment. Some of these reasons have to do with evils that are present in the practice of capital punishment itself, while others involve important values that would be promoted by abolition of this practice.
No, in the US we were founded on the rule of law. None other but the rule of law. That is jurisprudence plain and simple. That’s the underpinning of our criminal justice system. Which, by the way, is the best in the world.The question is not whether you would rather see 99 go free but whether you would rather see 99 murdered rather than have one innocent person inadvertently executed.
Ender
There are two basic options for punishing murderers: execute them or imprison them. You object to executing them because of the possibility of executing an innocent person; I made the point that there is a down side to not executing them in that innocent people will be murdered by recidivist killers. It is assumed that a small number of innocent people have been executed since capital punishment was reinstituted in 1976 - worst case would be about a half dozen. We also know, however, that there are over 100 times more recidivist murders than that.No, in the US we were founded on the rule of law. None other but the rule of law. That is jurisprudence plain and simple. That’s the underpinning of our criminal justice system. Which, by the way, is the best in the world.
Dear universityprof,No, in the US we were founded on the rule of law. None other but the rule of law. That is jurisprudence plain and simple. That’s the underpinning of our criminal justice system. Which, by the way, is the best in the world.
[/QUOTE]Bad start. Those passages refer to the responsibilities of the individual and in no way address the responsibilities of the state. The individual is obligated to forgive; the state has a duty to punish.Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
I do know you are trapped in some sort of logical fallacy. ie. Retribution is the primary justification of punishment. The death penalty is a punishment. Therefore the primary justification of the death penalty is retribution. I’d have to dig out some old notes to find the specific Latin name for that, but I can tell you… it’s where you’re tripping up.
Your interpretation makes the state some unaccountable entity separate from the individuals that administer it. The institutional Church is suffering greatly now for having that same attitude of unaccountability. There is no Church if there is no group of individuals and there is no state if there is no group of individuals.
(USCCB)the forms and limits of punishment must be determined by moral objectives which go beyond the mere inflicting of injury on the guilty. Thus we would regard it as barbarous and inhumane for a criminal who had tortured or maimed a victim to be tortured or maimed in return. Such a punishment might satisfy certain vindictive desires that we or the victim might feel, but the satisfaction of such desires is not and cannot be an objective of a humane and Christian approach to punishment.
This disparages the motivation of those who would impose the death penalty. It does not address whether the punishment is proportionate to the crime.
Those who would impose the death penalty are individuals and their motives determine if authority is legitimate or illegitimate. Nothing else determines that. God alone is legitimately vengeful in imposing judgement. Our right to authority is voided by experiencing vengeance in imposing judgement.
(USCCB)This position accords with the general norm for punishment proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas when he wrote: “In this life, however, penalties are not sought for their own sake, because this is not the era of retribution; rather, they are meant to be corrective by being conducive either to the reform of the sinner or the good of society, which becomes more peaceful through the punishment of sinners.”
Here they assert more than they can prove. As we’ve already seen, Aquinas has said a great deal on this subject, and here the bishops glide past the meaning of “the good of society” with the implication that this means protection when in fact he means justice.
What Aquinas says here couldn’t be more clear. I’d be interested to hear how you explain it away? ‘Penalties are not sought for their own sake, because this is not the era of retribution.’ How would you have answered him in your own words?
… to be continued…
What considerations - are they practical or moral? What evils are present now that were not present when the church herself employed capital punishment? What values are involved now that were unknown for the previous 20 centuries of church teaching?quote Furthermore, we believe that there are serious considerations which should prompt Christians and all Americans to support the abolition of capital punishment. Some of these reasons have to do with evils that are present in the practice of capital punishment itself, while others involve important values that would be promoted by abolition of this practice.
The death penalty is a type of punishment just as a Granny Smith is a type of apple. Whatever is true of the broader category (apples, punishment) is true of the specific type (Granny Smith, execution) but the reverse is not true. Nor does it matter to me whether you use the term objective or justification. Finally, the argument about the nuns is logically valid. The conclusion is wrong not because it is illogical but because one of your premises is wrong. The form of the argument is correct.No matter how you state the premise, it’s still an invalid argument since ‘punishment’ as is being used here as an ‘institution’, and the death penalty aren’t of the same nature.
I think you misunderstood the argument. The state is surely composed of individuals but, as ministers of the state, they have different responsibilities than private persons. Duly appointed judges have a responsibility to punish criminals; individuals are prohibited from doing so. There is no lack of accountability; what there is is a different set of obligations between public and private roles.As God Himself punishes crime and as lawful authority comes from Him, such authority has the right to punish, though individuals should forgive the injuries done to themselves personally. (Baltimore Catechism #817)Your interpretation makes the state some unaccountable entity separate from the individuals that administer it. The institutional Church is suffering greatly now for having that same attitude of unaccountability. There is no Church if there is no group of individuals and there is no state if there is no group of individuals.
Legitimate authority is given to the good and to the bad. The authority is legitimate even if it is misused.*Thirdly, from St. Augustine, who says, “Since this is the case, let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven only to the good, but the kingdom of earth both to the good and bad, as is pleasing to Him to Whom nothing unjust is pleasing.” *(Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 8)Those who would impose the death penalty are individuals and their motives determine if authority is legitimate or illegitimate. Nothing else determines that.
You misunderstand the nature of vengeance.God alone is legitimately vengeful in imposing judgement. Our right to authority is voided by experiencing vengeance in imposing judgement.
I would say that comment inadequately expresses Aquinas’ thoughts on the subject. *The punishments of this life are medicinal rather than retributive. For retribution is reserved to the Divine judgment which is pronounced against sinners “according to the truth” (Rom. ii, 2). Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity. *(ST II-II 66,6)What Aquinas says here couldn’t be more clear. I’d be interested to hear how you explain it away? ‘Penalties are not sought for their own sake, because this is not the era of retribution.’ How would you have answered him in your own words?
Then by your own reasoning, you should be acquiescing to the authority of the Pope when he says that the death penalty is ‘cruel and unnecessary, should only be used as a last resort defence of human life and not in keeping with human dignity’. Why do you believe that your personal opinion would trump the teaching of the legitimate authority of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?Legitimate authority is given to the good and to the bad. The authority is legitimate even if it is misused.