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

[shocktrooper]

I have been following this conversation and have a question, or an analogy I thought of that, I think, helps me understand Ender’s position.

The Church teaches that NFP is a morally acceptable practice (assuming the intentions of the practitioners), but since our culture has a poor understanding of life issues, practices contraception on a grand scale, and sees no difference between contraception and NFP, then the Church can prudential judge that the practice of NFP can/should be furloughed for the sake of scandal without claiming NFP is evil in itself.

If my analogy fails or I am missing something, please let me know.

God bless.

 

[Ender]

The Church teaches that NFP is a morally acceptable practice (assuming the intentions of the practitioners), but since our culture has a poor understanding of life issues, practices contraception on a grand scale, and sees no difference between contraception and NFP, then the Church can prudential judge that the practice of NFP can/should be furloughed for the sake of scandal without claiming NFP is evil in itself.

If my analogy fails or I am missing something, please let me know.

I think this is a reasonable analogy. The church teaches that capital punishment and NFP are both acceptable actions but, as circumstances alter all situations, there may be times when the bishops feel that those actions do more harm than good and therefore ought not be used. In the unlikely event the bishops ever took such a stance it would be a mistake to assume that the church disapproved of NFP itself rather than opposed merely its use in temporary circumstances.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It’s my understanding that the term ‘prudential judgement’ bridges a natural disjunct that occurs within the doctrine in its continuous life from age to age.

*“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. *…

The Church and the Bishops are much better positioned to make clear and strong judgements about the spiritual condition of the society.

• … 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. Their 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)

Again, the shedding of blood for the atonement of mans bloodlust crimes is morally nonnegotiable but having read reams of documents from the Fathers and Church, I don’t see anywhere where it says that the death penalty is morally nonnegotiable. What was the point of Christ’s sacrifice if some part of the Noahide covenant was not relieved by it?

Is it your position that this part of God’s covenant with Noah has been “relieved”? If no, then what is the objection to the use of capital punishment and if yes, then what is the meaning of the statement in 2260 that says this teaching (Gn 9:5-6) is “necessary for all time”? And what happened in 1995 that led to the abrogation of that part of God’s covenant?

Ender

 

[Portrait]

I don’t suggest that the sacrifice of Christ suppressed the law as in prohibiting it altogether. ie. making it an intrinsic evil. I believe Christs sacrifice relieved us of shedding blood for the primary purpose of atoning for the sins of mankind. (retribution) We are permitted to use the death penalty now for the purpose of justice “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Being relieved of the dire responsibility of killing for atonement, we now honour Gods requirement for a reckoning by bloodshed by receiving the body and blood of Jesus at the memorial of His death every Sunday (or everyday where many are so moved). There is no danger that man will not know the importance of blood shed for the atonement of sin whilst the Mass and Eucharist form the heart of the life of mankind.

Dear LongingSoul,

Hello again.

The plan of salvation, dear friend, is itself based upon divine standards of retributive justice. According to St. Paul, in a most important statement concerning the necessity of Christ’s atoning death upon the Cross, the death of Christ was a demonstration of God’s justice. The Cross proved God to be simultaneously just in punishing sin and merciful in forgiving those who have faith in Jesus Christ (see Rom. 3: 25, 26).

The necessity of Christ’s death on the Cross is, dear friend, grounded on the fundamental moral fact that in the sight of an all-holy God certain actions (sin, crime) are* inherently worthy of punishment*. The moral scales of the universe must be righted, irrespective of the age or changing times. The concept of retributive justice is rooted in the very heart of God’s character and even the Gospel itself. The good news is not that God has now finally disregarded formerly harsh standards of justice because they are supposedly not necessary, but that He Himself satisfied those standards for sinful men and has taken the punishment upon Himself in the person of His Beloved Son. Capital punishment is actually an application, albeit on the human plane, of the retributive justice demonstrated by God Himself in the Cross of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, dear friend, far from militating against the death penalty for murder, the Cross of Christ actually supports its continual use in so far as it upholds the principle of retributive justice in a fallen and wicked world.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[LongingSoul]

Being relieved of the dire responsibility of killing for atonement, we now honour Gods requirement for a reckoning by bloodshed by receiving the body and blood of Jesus at the memorial of His death every Sunday (or everyday where many are so moved).

No the responsibility being removed is not recent but the times require that it is reiterated in no uncertain terms. Even our Father Bishop of the fifth century, Augustine, emphasised this fact in his many letters and sermons addressing capital punishment. In his letter to the magistrate Macedonius he writes…

***“In no way, then, do we approve of the sins that we want to be corrected, nor do we want the wrongdoing to go unpunished because we find it pleasing. Rather, having compassion for the person and detesting the sin or crime, the more we are displeased by the sin the less we want the sinful person to perish without having been corrected. For it is easy and natural to hate evil persons because they are evil, but it is rare and holy to love those same persons because they are human beings. Thus, in one person you at the same time both blame the sin and approve of the nature, and for this reason you must justly hate the sin because it defiles the nature that you love. He, therefore, who punishes the crime in order to set free the human being is bound to another person as a companion not in injustice but in humanity. There is no other place for correcting our conduct save in this life. For after this life each person will have what he earned for himself in this life. And so, out of love for the human race we are compelled to intercede on behalf of the guilty lest they end this life through punishment so that, when it is ended, they cannot have an end to their punishment.” ***(Letter 153 to Macedonius, 1.3.)

Again in a sermon addressing the topic he says…

***“So do not condemn people to death, or while you are attacking the sin you will destroy the man. Do not condemn to death, and there will be someone there who can repent. Do not have a person put to death and you will have someone who can be reformed. As a man having this kind of love for men in your heart, be a judge of the earth. Love terrifying them if you like, but still go on loving. I don’t deny that penalties must be applied. I don’t forbid it. But let it be done in a spirit of love a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming.” ***(Sermon 13.8.)

In a letter to Marcellinus, the imperial commissioner charged with hearing the case of some Donatist clerics accused of murdering a Catholic Priest and torturing another… Augustine is again moved by Christian principles in asking for clemency from the death penalty.

***“I appeal through the mercy of Christ the Lord to the faith that you have in Christ that you not do this or allow it to happen at all. For, although we can deny any responsibility for the death of those who are seen to have been handed over for judgment, not due to the accusations of ours, but because of the indictment of those who have charge of the defense of the public peace, we still do not want the sufferings of the servants of God to be avenged by punishments equal to those sufferings, as by the law requiring an eye for an eye. It is not that we would prevent criminals from losing the freedom to commit crimes, but we want it rather to be sufficient either that, alive and with no part of the body mutilated, they be taken from their restlessness and steered to the peace of good health by the restraints of law or that they be assigned to some useful work away from their evil works. This is, of course, called condemnation, but who does not understand that it should be called a benefit rather than a punishment when their bold fierceness is restrained and the remedy of repentance is not withdrawn?” ***(Letter 133 to Marcellinus, 1.1.)

In another letter to Marcellinus, Augustine writes for clemency of criminals ***…“punishment of those people, though they have confessed to such great crimes, may not involve the death penalty both on account of our conscience and for the sake of emphasizing Catholic gentleness.” ***(Letter 139 to Marcelinus, 1)

***“We love our enemies and pray for them. Hence, we desire that, by making use of judges and laws that cause fear, they be corrected, not killed, so that they do not fall into the punishments of eternal condemnation. We do not want discipline to be neglected in their regard or the punishment they deserve to be applied. Repress their sins, therefore, in such a way that those who repent having sinned may still exist. . . . It is not, my honorable and most beloved son, something unworthy or contemptible when we ask you that they, whom we ask the Lord to correct, not be put to death.” ***(Letter 100 to Donatus, 1-2.)

… continued

 

[LongingSoul]

In the case of the murderous Donatist Cleric, Augustine writes in explanation of his pleas for clemency… ***“I as a Christian beg the judge and as a bishop warn a Christian….

If, then, there were no other means established to curb the malice of the wicked, extreme necessity might perhaps urge that such men be put to death, though, in our view, if no milder punishment could be imposed on them, we would prefer that they be released rather than the sufferings of our brothers be avenged by the shedding of their blood.” ***(Letter 134 to Apringius)

While Augustine accepted the moral lawfulness of applying the death penalty justly, his Christianity moved his tireless urgings to clemency except “If, then, there were no other means established to curb the malice of the wicked, extreme necessity” justifies its use.

The position of the Church today, is well and truly in keeping with the Catholic heart along the Churches journey through the ages.

 

[Ender]

No the responsibility being removed is not recent but the times require that it is reiterated in no uncertain terms. Even our Father Bishop of the fifth century, Augustine, emphasised this fact in his many letters and sermons addressing capital punishment.

What point are you making here? That Augustine recognized the validity of using capital punishment but implored various leaders not to employ it? What should we conclude from this - that capital punishment should not be used? If that is the case then why has it taken the church another 1500 years to come to that conclusion?

In a letter to Marcellinus, the imperial commissioner charged with hearing the case of some Donatist clerics accused of murdering a Catholic Priest and torturing another… Augustine is again moved by Christian principles in asking for clemency from the death penalty.

And did the church lose sight of those Christian principles in the intervening centuries when she not only supported monarchs who used capital punishment but actively used it herself? Is it your position that Augustine was right to oppose the application of capital punishment in those specific instances and that his position should have been the default position for the church throughout the ages? Has the church been wrong all those centuries?

***We do not want discipline to be neglected in their regard or the punishment they deserve to be applied. Repress their sins, therefore, in such a way that those who repent having sinned may still exist. ***(Letter 100 to Donatus, 1-2.)

Augustine here argues against capital punishment for “those who repent having sinned”. Does this not argue in favor of the death penalty at least for those who do not repent?

***If, then, there were no other means established to curb the malice of the wicked, extreme necessity might perhaps urge that such men be put to death, though, in our view, if no milder punishment could be imposed on them, we would prefer that they be released rather than the sufferings of our brothers be avenged by the shedding of their blood.” ***(Letter 134 to Apringius)

Since you approvingly present this comment am I justified in thinking you would have preferred that the man who murdered James Byrd had been set free rather than executed?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
No the responsibility being removed is not recent but the times require that it is reiterated in no uncertain terms. Even our Father Bishop of the fifth century, Augustine, emphasised this fact in his many letters and sermons addressing capital punishment.

I was responding to the claim that prior to 1995 the Church maintained that the death penalty was justified strictly by the terms of the first Covenant and not limited under the New Covenant, to its practical role of neutralising an aggressor who can not be neutralised with non lethal punishment. Augustine worked pretty hard to influence the justice system in his time with his Christian take on it.

And did the church lose sight of those Christian principles in the intervening centuries when she not only supported monarchs who used capital punishment but actively used it herself? Is it your position that Augustine was right to oppose the application of capital punishment in those specific instances and that his position should have been the default position for the church throughout the ages? Has the church been wrong all those centuries?

We know the church did and will I’m sure again lose sight of its Christian principles at times, especially during the medieval era of Papal States and the Inquisitions. Pope John Paul II apologised for many of those times. But I think when we admit only the strict letter of the law into our understanding of the early Church’s position, it’s bound to portray a hard line legalistic Church, that didn’t wear the overlay of Gods mercy in justice, that Augustine clearly displays.

We do not want discipline to be neglected in their regard or the punishment they deserve to be applied. Repress their sins, therefore, in such a way that those who repent having sinned may still exist. (Letter 100 to Donatus, 1-2.)

Augustine here argues against capital punishment for “those who repent having sinned”. Does this not argue in favor of the death penalty at least for those who do not repent?

I doubt very much Augustine is saying that only those repenting should be spared. That calls for the type of judgement over a mans soul that no one has. Sparing their lives allows for repentance that could be no longer possible after death.

If, then, there were no other means established to curb the malice of the wicked, extreme necessity might perhaps urge that such men be put to death, though, in our view, if no milder punishment could be imposed on them, we would prefer that they be released rather than the sufferings of our brothers be avenged by the shedding of their blood.” (Letter 134 to Apringius)

Since you approvingly present this comment am I justified in thinking you would have preferred that the man who murdered James Byrd had been set free rather than executed?

Ender

I’m guessing that is tragic US murder case… however I don’t believe that my personal feelings about a case should govern whether the death penalty should be applied or not. I think we need laws formulated on universal principles of justice and mercy and do whatever it takes to protect the community from these offenders.

 

[LongingSoul]

The plan of salvation, dear friend, is itself based upon divine standards of retributive justice. According to St. Paul, in a most important statement concerning the necessity of Christ’s atoning death upon the Cross, the death of Christ was a demonstration of God’s justice. The Cross proved God to be simultaneously just in punishing sin and merciful in forgiving those who have faith in Jesus Christ (see Rom. 3: 25, 26).

The necessity of Christ’s death on the Cross is, dear friend, grounded on the fundamental moral fact that in the sight of an all-holy God certain actions (sin, crime) are* inherently worthy of punishment*. The moral scales of the universe must be righted, irrespective of the age or changing times. The concept of retributive justice is rooted in the very heart of God’s character and even the Gospel itself. The good news is not that God has now finally disregarded formerly harsh standards of justice because they are supposedly not necessary, but that He Himself satisfied those standards for sinful men and has taken the punishment upon Himself in the person of His Beloved Son. Capital punishment is actually an application, albeit on the human plane, of the retributive justice demonstrated by God Himself in the Cross of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, dear friend, far from militating against the death penalty for murder, the Cross of Christ actually supports its continual use in so far as it upholds the principle of retributive justice in a fallen and wicked world.

I’m a fan of St Faustina and have been plodding through her diaries over the last year. Here are some of the things the Lord told her…

***“Proclaim that Mercy is the greatest attribute of God. All the works of My hands are crowned with Mercy.” (#301)

“All those souls who will glorify My Mercy and spread its worship, encouraging others to trust in My Mercy, will not experience terror at the hour of death. My Mercy will shield them in that final battle … Oh, if sinners knew My Mercy, they would not perish in such great numbers. Tell sinful souls not to be afraid to approach Me; speak to them of My great mercy.” (#1396)

“My secretary, write that I am more generous towards sinners than toward the just. It was for their sake that I came down from heaven; it was for their sake that My Blood was spilled. Let them not fear to approach Me; they are most in need of My Mercy.” (#1275)

“My mercy is greater than all the sins of the world… For you I descended from Heaven to earth; for you I allowed Myself to be nailed to the Cross; for you I let My Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come then with trust and draw graces from this fountain… I never reject a contrite heart … You will give Me pleasure if you hand over all your troubles and griefs. I shall heap upon you the treasures of My grace.” (#1485)

“To comfort you, My daughter, let Me tell you that there are souls living in the world who love Me dearly. I dwell in their hearts with delight. But they are few. In convents too, there are souls that fill My Heart with Joy. They bear My features; therefore the Heavenly Father looks upon them with special pleasure. They will be a marvel to angels and men. Although their number is very small, they are a defense for the world before the Justice of the Heavenly Father and a means of obtaining Mercy for the world. The love and sacrifice of these souls sustain the world in existence… The infidelity of a soul specially chosen
by Me wounds My heart most painfully. Such infidelities are swords which pierce My Heart.” (#367)***

All of these things tell me that as Christians, we are required to give ourselves to each other in love beyond justice. Something that we are freed and justified in doing by Jesus atoning sacrifice on our behalf.

 

[ATeNumquam]

In Australia the last hanging was in 1967, nearly 50 years ago, before abortion was even on the political landscape. Here, capital punishment was never juxtaposed with the abortion issue which is now of a scale not known back then.

Yes, this is how I look at the two issues.

In New Zealand the last hanging took place in 1957.

 

[Portrait]

I’m a fan of St Faustina and have been plodding through her diaries over the last year. Here are some of the things the Lord told her…

***“Proclaim that Mercy is the greatest attribute of God. All the works of My hands are crowned with Mercy.” (#301)

“All those souls who will glorify My Mercy and spread its worship, encouraging others to trust in My Mercy, will not experience terror at the hour of death. My Mercy will shield them in that final battle … Oh, if sinners knew My Mercy, they would not perish in such great numbers. Tell sinful souls not to be afraid to approach Me; speak to them of My great mercy.” (#1396)

“My secretary, write that I am more generous towards sinners than toward the just. It was for their sake that I came down from heaven; it was for their sake that My Blood was spilled. Let them not fear to approach Me; they are most in need of My Mercy.” (#1275)

“My mercy is greater than all the sins of the world… For you I descended from Heaven to earth; for you I allowed Myself to be nailed to the Cross; for you I let My Sacred Heart be pierced with a lance, thus opening wide the source of mercy for you. Come then with trust and draw graces from this fountain… I never reject a contrite heart … You will give Me pleasure if you hand over all your troubles and griefs. I shall heap upon you the treasures of My grace.” (#1485)

“To comfort you, My daughter, let Me tell you that there are souls living in the world who love Me dearly. I dwell in their hearts with delight. But they are few. In convents too, there are souls that fill My Heart with Joy. They bear My features; therefore the Heavenly Father looks upon them with special pleasure. They will be a marvel to angels and men. Although their number is very small, they are a defense for the world before the Justice of the Heavenly Father and a means of obtaining Mercy for the world. The love and sacrifice of these souls sustain the world in existence… The infidelity of a soul specially chosen
by Me wounds My heart most painfully. Such infidelities are swords which pierce My Heart.” (#367)***

All of these things tell me that as Christians, we are required to give ourselves to each other in love beyond justice. Something that we are freed and justified in doing by Jesus atoning sacrifice on our behalf.

Dear LongingSoul,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response and thankyou for that lovely passage above from St. Faustina, to which I say a hearty Amen.

In the Cross of Christ, dear friend, we behold both the mercy and severity of God, for in Christ’s death upon the Cross “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Ps. 85: 10). The Cross of Christ demonstrates perfectly the harmony of the divine attributes. In Jesus, our salvation and hope of final glory, mercy and truth have met together, which means that our all-holy God may have mercy upon sinners and yet be at peace with them, without any wrong or compromise to His truth and righteousness. Alas, with many contemporary Catholics, especially the youth, there is an imbalance in their thinking and they like to focus exclusively upon the mercy and compassion of God, to the detriment of His holiness and righteous wrath against sinners (see Rom. 1: 18). This is, I think, most unfortunate and must be down to poor catechesis, or perhaps, in some instances, no catechesis at all. If this is the case, then it is hardly surprising that many modern day Catholics have fallen victim to the maudlin ideology of secular humanism and have come to believe that the death penalty for murder is barbaric and unworthy of a civilised society.

St. Paul’s words almost immediately sprang to mind, dear friend, when I was thinking about how best I could best respond to your post: “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God…” (Rom. 11: 22). Here again we see that perfect harmony in the divine attributes of which I spoke in the preceding paragraph. Here, if ever, is an invitation for us to contemplate God in the character in which He has been pleased to reveal Himself. Not a few Catholics today seem to want the sort of Deity that is all mercy and all forgiveness and do not wish to consider His justice and His holy anger against sin. Is it any wonder that the whole concept of retributive justice is no longer in vogue? Men have formed in their minds the character of God according to their own distorted inclinations and mawkish sentimentality. We must, dear friend, take God’s character as it is given by Himself and that means beholding the goodness and the severity of God. It is a case not of either/or but both/and. In any event, His goodness is no evidence that He will not punish the guilty, and the most dreadful punishment of the guilty, including capital punishment, is consistent with the existence of supreme goodness in the divine character. This we certainly know to be true in the case of the death penalty for murder, since it was He who instituted it at the first - “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9: 6).

Justice and righteosness without love may indeed be brutal, but love and compassion without justice and righteousness is just flabby sentimentality and unworthy of a Catholic.

God bless and thankyou for a very charitable discussion, dear friend, it is so very good when we Catholics can disagree without rancour.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Yes, this is how I look at the two issues.

In New Zealand the last hanging took place in 1957.

Dear A TeNumquam,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The fact is, dear friend, a vast number of people here in Britain, where I live, continue to believe that the death penalty for murder is a fitting punishment and do not think it cruel or dehumanizing. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that in Britian, at least, the abolition of the death penalty offended every section of society, irrespective of age, sex, social class or political sympathies. In 1964 the opinion polls estimated public support for abolishing the rope to be no more than 23% and by June 1966, after the five-year suspension had commenced, this had fallen to 18%. The verdict of Peter Hitchens is, I would say, jolly accurate when he says that the abolition of capital punishment was “a victory for the elite over the people’s”. The abolition of capital punishment was foisted upon an unwilling British public, as indeed were many other things during that decade of decadence, including the decriminalization of homosexual vice (1967) and that debased sensory material rock/pop music, which was implicitly about rejecting restraint and celebrating freedom and sexuality.

As with many other permissive reforms of that era, dear friend, the politicians were choosing to ignore the wishes of the electorate and altering the law in a way directly opposed to the opinions and feelings of the vast majority of British subjects. The whole new climate of liberalism and cultural freedom certainly facilitated the passing of legislation to engender a more permissive and ‘touchy-feely’ society. Moreover, there was also this general and inflated confidence in the power of ‘experts’ to usher in social change by ‘educating’ the public to adopt a more enlightened viewpoint that chimed with the new progressive thinking. Alas, the intelligentsia did not care that what they were proposing, regarding capital punishment, homosexual depravity and abortion etc, was as variance with the great Christian consciousness, which had informed and moulded public thinking down through the ages. After all man was now supposedly emerging finally from the long dark ages and so no longer required outmoded religious ideas to influence the formation of his thinking. You now had a ‘whole generation with a new explanation’ and who arrogantly asserted that their new explanation regarding morals and divers social issues was superior and more humane with what had gone before. True, thought evolves and change is inevitable, but the problem arises when that change is decidedly not for the better and wrapped with rebellion against authority and a godless repudiation of God’s laws. Opposition to the death penalty for the heinous crime of murder is, I am afraid, just a part of the sad legacy of the permissive revolution of the Sixties. Those so called halcyon days of love, joy and peace have bequeathed to us a very unhappy and confused world where moral relativism has become the new religion and secular humanism thrives, especially in the irreligious West.

Our Church, dear friend, has never shied away from the concept of just retribution and has always believed the death penalty to be morally licit. Penalties should be commensurate with the gravity of the crime, for as our Church Catechism states: “The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offence” (para. 2266), which necessarily implies retributive justice. Moreover, earlier it cites Genesis 9: 5-6 (para. 2260) and then says "This teaching remains necessary for all time" (added emphasis mine). The death penalty for murder continues to be perpetually valid and is not subject to cultural variation, the 1960’s notwithstanding. Murderous violence will always be wrong in any age and so the death penalty will always be necessary to redress the disturbed moral balance occasioned by this wicked crime. Man is created in the image of God so that when violence in the form of murder is done to a man it is in effect an outrage against God that demands retributive justice in the form of capital punishment (Gen. 9: 6). If God did not deem this punishment to be cruel and unworthy when He mandated it, then neither should we, unless we consider ourselves wiser and more humane than God Himself.

God bless and may I take this opportunity to wish all contributors to this thread a jolly splendid weekend, whatever are your plans. Goodbye my dearly beloved friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[shocktrooper]

It seems that the delay between the guilty verdict and the carrying out of the criminal’s death makes the reasoning behind capital punishment cloudy to many. The delay detaches, via time, the crime from the punishment. Would it be imprudent to suggest a 72 hour delay for capital punishment once the person is found guilty of murder beyond all reasonable doubt? This would give time for reconciliation and be a clear sign of justice for this crime against the sacredness of human life and the dignity of mankind.

 

[LongingSoul]

In the Cross of Christ, dear friend, we behold both the mercy and severity of God, for in Christ’s death upon the Cross “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Ps. 85: 10). The Cross of Christ demonstrates perfectly the harmony of the divine attributes. In Jesus, our salvation and hope of final glory, mercy and truth have met together, which means that our all-holy God may have mercy upon sinners and yet be at peace with them, without any wrong or compromise to His truth and righteousness. Alas, with many contemporary Catholics, especially the youth, there is an imbalance in their thinking and they like to focus exclusively upon the mercy and compassion of God, to the detriment of His holiness and righteous wrath against sinners (see Rom. 1: 18). This is, I think, most unfortunate and must be down to poor catechesis, or perhaps, in some instances, no catechesis at all. If this is the case, then it is hardly surprising that many modern day Catholics have fallen victim to the maudlin ideology of secular humanism and have come to believe that the death penalty for murder is barbaric and unworthy of a civilised society.

It’s difficult to fully know what motivates every person who opposes the death penalty today, just as it is difficult to fully know what motivates every person who supports it. But we are specifically addressing here the words of the last two Popes prior to Francis, which had become increasingly direct and unambiguous appeals to the people, codified within the CCC.

St. Paul’s words almost immediately sprang to mind, dear friend, when I was thinking about how best I could best respond to your post: “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God…” (Rom. 11: 22). Here again we see that perfect harmony in the divine attributes of which I spoke in the preceding paragraph. Here, if ever, is an invitation for us to contemplate God in the character in which He has been pleased to reveal Himself.

Aquinas teaches that Gods antecedent will is that all men should be saved and for this purpose He is both just and merciful. His attributes have purpose aside from being Gods emotional reaction to our behaviour. Scripture and Aquinas tell us that God is immutable. He is unchangeable and His attributes aren’t a reflection of an emotional disposition. We attribute emotion to God because it’s the best expression of our limited understanding but He has but one unchanging motive; that all men should be saved. This defines Gods retributive justice.

Man on the other hand can only stretch his antecedent will to earthly ends. Safeguarding the common good is the primary goal and justice serves this goal. In doing this we experience as best we can the retributive nature of Gods avenging and merciful justice. This can be seen in Augustine’s words… “So do not condemn people to death, or while you are attacking the sin you will destroy the man. Do not condemn to death, and there will be someone there who can repent. Do not have a person put to death and you will have someone who can be reformed. As a man having this kind of love for men in your heart, be a judge of the earth. Love terrifying them if you like, but still go on loving. I don’t deny that penalties must be applied. I don’t forbid it. But let it be done in a spirit of love a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming.” (Sermon 13.8.)

Not a few Catholics today seem to want the sort of Deity that is all mercy and all forgiveness and do not wish to consider His justice and His holy anger against sin. Is it any wonder that the whole concept of retributive justice is no longer in vogue? Men have formed in their minds the character of God according to their own distorted inclinations and mawkish sentimentality. We must, dear friend, take God’s character as it is given by Himself and that means beholding the goodness and the severity of God. It is a case not of either/or but both/and. In any event, His goodness is no evidence that He will not punish the guilty, and the most dreadful punishment of the guilty, including capital punishment, is consistent with the existence of supreme goodness in the divine character. This we certainly know to be true in the case of the death penalty for murder, since it was He who instituted it at the first - “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9: 6).

Justice and righteosness without love may indeed be brutal, but love and compassion without justice and righteousness is just flabby sentimentality and unworthy of a Catholic.

The role of punishment in society is distorted but when we are searching for reasons as to why this has happened we need to stretch back further than the 60’s and acknowledge that history is littered with examples of punishment used by unworthy authorities swelled with a false sense of ‘divinity’. We are not immutable. We are prone to sin and will always be completely unworthy save for the sacrifice of Christ. God can and does console us by withdrawing His divine right in order to send us humbly and tearfully back to the foot of the Cross for regeneration and renewal. This is how I understand the teaching of the Popes and the CCC. God has withdrawn His gift and made it cruel and not in keeping with the dignity of man, in order that we fly straight back to the Cross of Christ.

 

[LongingSoul]

It seems that the delay between the guilty verdict and the carrying out of the criminal’s death makes the reasoning behind capital punishment cloudy to many. The delay detaches, via time, the crime from the punishment. Would it be imprudent to suggest a 72 hour delay for capital punishment once the person is found guilty of murder beyond all reasonable doubt? This would give time for reconciliation and be a clear sign of justice for this crime against the sacredness of human life and the dignity of mankind.

I agree. To live under a sentence of death for years and years must test the faith, especially the implicit faith of these condemned people, to doubt a God altogether. God bless Sr Helen!

 

[Portrait]

snip/

The role of punishment in society is distorted but when we are searching for reasons as to why this has happened we need to stretch back further than the 60’s and acknowledge that history is littered with examples of punishment used by unworthy authorities swelled with a false sense of ‘divinity’. We are not immutable. We are prone to sin and will always be completely unworthy save for the sacrifice of Christ. God can and does console us by withdrawing His divine right in order to send us humbly and tearfully back to the foot of the Cross for regeneration and renewal. This is how I understand the teaching of the Popes and the CCC. God has withdrawn His gift and made it cruel and not in keeping with the dignity of man, in order that we fly straight back to the Cross of Christ.

Dear LongingSoul,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

It admits of no doubt, dear friend, that when men oppose the death penalty for murder they are actuated by concerns respecting the innocent being wrongfully executed and/or a deeply held conviction that such a punishment is brutal and unnecessary, having no place in a progressive society. Certainly I would concede that the now small risk of the innocent being executed is a most powerful argument against capital punishment. However, it is a criticism, not a conclusive argument. Our society willingly accepts a number of innocent deaths a year as the price for policies or actions with which it approves. Mass car ownership leads to multitudes of deaths each year and many of our servicemen have died in wars as a consequence of ‘friendly fire’, which is, of course, sadly inevitable in any war. Moreover, here in Britian and unpredictable number are killed by those suffering with severe mental illness, released under the irresponsible ‘care in the community policy’. Notwithstanding, nobody seriously proposes that this danger should lead us to ban motor cars, abolish the Armed Forces or indefinitely cease waging wars. As for the dreadful ‘care in the community policy’, it remains a firm favourite of the very same liberal humanists who loathe the death penalty, which surely would suggest that they only care about ‘innocent’ deaths when it suits them. Moreover, it also must needs be remembered that every victim of murder is innocent and who can honestly deny that many of these poor souls might never have died had the death penalty still been available to act as a deterrent. Thus to those who contend that capital punishment is morally unacceptable because of the obvious risk that innocent men will surely die, I would say by way of reply that innocents will surely die if we do not inflict capital punishment. Rather than viewing the death penalty, instituted by God Himself (Gen. 9: 6), as an inhumane and unworthy punishment we should again see it as a very necessary weapon of civilisation in a fallen world of sinners.

It certainly true, dear friend, that God would have all men to be saved for he desires not the death and destruction of any (I Tim. 2: 4; Ezek. 33: 11), but that has reference to their eternal, not their temporal life, for the First Timothy passage speaks of their “coming to a knowledge of the Truth”, that is the truth as it is embodied in Christ and the Gospel (see S. Jhn. 14: 6; Eph. 4:21). In any event we know that not all men will be saved and that many will suffer eternal punishment in Hell on account of sins of omission as well as comission (S. Matt. 25: 41,46). Nevertheless, God delegated to fallen man the duty of putting to death those found guilty of murder in this world. Capital punishment merely refers the matter to a higher court, allowing the condemned man the opportunity of repentance in this life and salvation in the world which is to come. Unfortunately, in a post-Christian society, the idea of the death penalty is quite abhorrent, for a man’s greatest possession is deemed to be not his immortal soul, which does not exist, but his life, which is all that he supposedly has. In that case the very thought of execution is quite intolerable and barbaric. All this warped thinking is a consequence of the decline of the Christian consciousness within Western society and the increasing influence of maudlin and atheistic secular humanism since the permissive revolution of the 1960’s.

According the our Church Catechism, dear friend, “The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder cause by the offence” (CCC, para. 2266, added emphasis mine), which necessarily involves retributive justice. The Church has always held that the death penalty for murder is morally licit and that the civil authority, as the “minister of God” is “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13: 4), not excluding capital punishment, “for he beareth not the sword in vain”. What individual Church theologians and Fathers have said does not negate this teaching or render it unsound.

Finally, dear friend, the unworthy use of capital punishment does not render the punishment itself unworthy. God has not “withdrawn” the death penalty for murder because the whole rationale for it, namely man being made in God’s image, has not been abrogated. This is why our Church, after citing Genesis 9: 6, states that “This teaching remains necessary for all time” (CCC, para 2260, added emphasis mine). What teaching? the teaching of Genesis 9: 6 about man being made in God’s image and that murderous violence towards one’s fellow-man must result in the infliction of the death penalty - “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed: for God made man in his own image”.

It is actually man’s dignity and the sanctity of life that warrants the death penalty for murder and the reason why it can never be abolished.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

It seems that the delay between the guilty verdict and the carrying out of the criminal’s death makes the reasoning behind capital punishment cloudy to many. The delay detaches, via time, the crime from the punishment. Would it be imprudent to suggest a 72 hour delay for capital punishment once the person is found guilty of murder beyond all reasonable doubt? This would give time for reconciliation and be a clear sign of justice for this crime against the sacredness of human life and the dignity of mankind.

Dear shocktrooper,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Your suggestion is, dear friend, perfectly reasonable and it is inexcusable that men are detained on death row for an inordinate and unecessary period of time awaiting execution, once culpability has been indisputably established.

As a footnote, dear friend, the prospect of execution can have a most powerful and salutary effect, but this is now largely ignored/denied in this post-Christian age in which our lot is cast, I regret to say. Moreover, rather than foreclosing the possibility of salvation, the reality of the death penalty forces the condemned man to seriously ponder, perhaps for the very first time in his life, eternal realities and his final destiny. Surely, from a Catholic standpoint, this can be seen as something very beneficial, inasmuch as facing imminent death can bring a sinner to repentance and, one hopes, to eternal salvation. Perhaps another reason why God instituted the death penalty was for the benefit of the murderer to shock him into a state of deep penitential sorrow, even at the eleventh hour, by the immediate prospect of death and judgement to come. The death penalty reminds the murderer, in a way that life imprisonment cannot, of that grim and inescapable truth that “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement” (Heb. 9: 27).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ender]

I was responding to the claim that prior to 1995 the Church maintained that the death penalty was justified strictly by the terms of the first Covenant and not limited under the New Covenant…

The church has to my knowledge never made a distinction between the “first covenant” and the “new covenant” in teaching about this subject. Her position is based on scripture from both the old and new testaments.

… to its practical role of neutralising an aggressor who can not be neutralised with non lethal punishment.

The church has always recognized securing the safety of society as a valid objective of punishment. This is not at all the same as saying that safety is the primary objective or that it determines the level of severity of a just punishment.

Augustine worked pretty hard to influence the justice system in his time with his Christian take on it.

Yes he did. What he did not do, however, was to constrict the right of rulers to apply capital punishment. He asked that it not be used but he never said it was unnecessary or inappropriate and he never tied its use to the need for security.

We know the church did and will I’m sure again lose sight of its Christian principles at times, especially during the medieval era of Papal States and the Inquisitions.

Does this mean you repudiate the teaching in every catechism since the Catechism of St. Thomas, including the Catechism of Trent? I think you make more of Augustine’s opinion than appropriate if you put it in opposition to those of Aquinas and pretty much everyone else up until JPII.

I doubt very much Augustine is saying that only those repenting should be spared.

If this is not what he meant then there is no explanation for his comment. I think this goes to a common misconception about mercy: that it should be applied without reservation, but this is not accurate.

That calls for the type of judgement over a mans soul that no one has.

If a person is unwilling even to claim that he has repented then what reason is there to believe that he has?

Sparing their lives allows for repentance that could be no longer possible after death.

Yes, and this appears to be Augustine’s main concern and it is fair to ask whether this concern is valid.

I’m guessing that is tragic US murder case…

This is one of the starkest examples one could ask for. The murder was horrific and the killer, who was executed, was utterly unrepentant.

I don’t believe that my personal feelings about a case should govern whether the death penalty should be applied or not.

You approvingly cited Augustine’s comment (letter 134 to Apringius) that he would rather see a person released than executed. Does this position not commit you to conceding that you would have rather seen the murderer released in this case?

Ender

 

[Ender]

“Proclaim that Mercy is the greatest attribute of God. All the works of My hands are crowned with Mercy.” (#301) St. Faustina

It is not enough to simply quote someone without a context in which to interpret the words. How are we to understand this? Since we’re discussing punishment does this not imply that the more merciful the punishment is the better we have behaved, but if that is so then isn’t the most merciful punishment no punishment at all? Surely that isn’t what you believe but this quote gives us no direction in the application of punishment.

“My secretary, write that I am more generous towards sinners than toward the just. It was for their sake that I came down from heaven; it was for their sake that My Blood was spilled. Let them not fear to approach Me; they are most in need of My Mercy.” (#1275)

The need for mercy does not cancel the need for justice.
Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. (JPII)
Justice itself is diminished when its dismissal becomes a tactic in opposing capital punishment. Treating justice as being no more than following the “strict letter of the law” and portraying it as merely “hard line” and “legalistic” diminishes it as a virtue. It is a cardinal virtue - “the mother of all virtues” (Leo XIII) - and deserves more respect.

Ender

 

[Ender]

No the responsibility being removed is not recent but the times require that it is reiterated in no uncertain terms. Even our Father Bishop of the fifth century, Augustine, emphasised this fact in his many letters and sermons addressing capital punishment.

Emphasized what fact? Nowhere did Augustine say what is written in 2267. His emphasis was on rehabilitation; 2267 is concerned solely with protection. Nothing he said gives support to what the new catechism contains.

He, therefore, who punishes the crime in order to set free the human being is bound to another person as a companion not in injustice but in humanity. (Augustine)

I think your perception of Augustine’s position is too narrow. That was not all he said on the subject.What is more hideous than a hangman? What is more cruel and ferocious than his character? And* yet he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws, and he is incorporated into the order of a well-regulated state**; himself criminal in character, he is nevertheless, by others’ arrangement, the penalty of evildoers.* (On Order 2.4.12)
And what of expiation? Forgiveness does not cancel the debt of sin, however the acceptance of the punishment of death cancels it entirely.***403. *Punishment does not serve merely the purpose of defending the public order and guaranteeing the safety of persons; it becomes as well an instrument for the correction of the offender, a correction that also takes on the moral value of expiation when the guilty party voluntarily accepts his punishment. (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)

*- To go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory

• The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods. This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come.* (Romano Amerio, peritas, Vat II)

Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime (Aquinas ST II-II 25 - Charity)
How will dying of old age atone for the sin of murder and what will become of the man who does not atone for his sins? * - Augustine says: "Unless a man restore what he has purloined, his sin is not forgiven. "Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly.*
*- Wherefore when that which has been taken cannot be restored in equivalent, compensation should be made as far as possible *(Ibid II-II 62 - Restitution)
Ender