California bishops call for end of use of death penalty

[pnewton]

Except for the question of “closure” your other comments are directly counter to what the Church teaches today.

Really? You are the one who said you do not think as section of the Catechism is consistent with Church teaching. Since I have put up nothing but Church teaching, this rings a little of a playground retort.

 

[Ender]

Really? You are the one who said you do not think as section of the Catechism is consistent with Church teaching. Since I have put up nothing but Church teaching, this rings a little of a playground retort.

Let’s take your previous comment piece by piece:

if one believes in the death penalty for these reasons they are dissenting from the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue:

• • the death penalty “balances the scales”*

What is the primary objective of all punishment? It is retribution.

• (CCC 2266)* The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *
  *- *(USCCB - 1980) *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. *

How does retribution redress the disorder? - By applying a penalty with a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime … by balancing the scales.

• (CCC 2266)* Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty *to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

The primary objective of punishment is retribution which restores justice by imposing on the criminal a punishment that: *“is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments.” *(Aquinas) Not only is “balancing the scales” a valid objective, it is in fact the primary objective and the one that, whatever else, must be satisfied for the punishment to be just.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

The claim in the Catechism that “Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it…” is so obviously an opinion that it is not credible to suggest otherwise. This is not a moral question; the statement can only be supported or refuted by providing relevant numbers from something like the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Making a claim about the capabilities of various criminal justice systems is no less an opinion than making a claim about the capabilities of the New York Jets. So long as this statement is part of the Catechism it is simply irrational to claim that that book contains no opinions.

As you point out, this is not only an opinion but it appears to be one that is contradicted by the evidence.

Ender

It seems to me the Catechism statement leaves out a “mesne term”; that is, a society such as this one is (one assumes) capable of providing imprisonment sufficiently secure that the offender can no longer inflict severe harm on others. “Therefore”, the next portion should be, “it should do so and no longer rely on capital punishment.” But it seems to leave out the action (redoing prisons) necessary to achieve the desired end result.

 

[Ender]

Continued …

if one believes in the death penalty for these reasons they are dissenting from the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue:

• the death penalty deters crime

Deterrence is a valid objective of punishment, albeit a secondary one (along with the protection of society and rehabilitation).

• (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)* The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.*

Surely you are not claiming that it is Church doctrine that the death penalty has no deterrence effect? She would never say such a thing because that is not a moral question but one left to be answered by social scientists and criminologists. Besides, it seems counter to her own experience. (Salvian was a priest and monk.)

• (Salvian c. 450)* Homicide is rare among slaves because of their dread and fear of capital punishment, whereas among the rich it is constantly committed because of their confident hope of immunity*.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It seems to me the Catechism statement leaves out a “mesne term”; that is, a society such as this one is (one assumes) capable of providing imprisonment sufficiently secure that the offender can no longer inflict severe harm on others. “Therefore”, the next portion should be, “it should do so and no longer rely on capital punishment.” But it seems to leave out the action (redoing prisons) necessary to achieve the desired end result.

This might very well be a valid observation but if the Church were to act as you suggest I think she would simply be making a bad situation worse. It is proper for the Church to specify the ends we are to work toward but it is improper for her to specify the means we are to use; that is the responsibility of the laity as these are really prudential concerns. The Church cannot decide which societies are capable of providing “sufficient” security because it’s not clear one could even specify what such security would look like or what steps would have to be taken to achieve it. These are properly our problems to address.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

This might very well be a valid observation but if the Church were to act as you suggest I think she would simply be making a bad situation worse. It is proper for the Church to specify the ends we are to work toward but it is improper for her to specify the means we are to use; that is the responsibility of the laity as these are really prudential concerns. The Church cannot decide which societies are capable of providing “sufficient” security because it’s not clear one could even specify what such security would look like or what steps would have to be taken to achieve it. These are properly our problems to address.

Ender

I understand what you’re saying. Still, the way it is expressed could use clarification, since so many seem to conclude that the Church (and Pope JPII) oppose capital punishment as an absolute, even given the present situation.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Continued …

Deterrence is a valid objective of punishment, albeit a secondary one (along with the protection of society and rehabilitation).

• (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)* The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence*, and retribution.

Surely you are not claiming that it is Church doctrine that the death penalty has no deterrence effect? She would never say such a thing because that is not a moral question but one left to be answered by social scientists and criminologists. Besides, it seems counter to her own experience. (Salvian was a priest and monk.)

• (Salvian c. 450)* Homicide is rare among slaves because of their dread and fear of capital punishment, whereas among the rich it is constantly committed because of their confident hope of immunity*.

Ender

Three points;

Seems to me that Cardinal Dulles gave a whole comprehensive McGinley lecture on the death penalty.

Deterrence is effective. For example, drug gangs and urban gangs apply the death penalty very harshly and brutally against potential witnesses and as a result very few people testify against them.

We are not permitted to lock people up 24/7 and keep them in complete isolation.

 

[pnewton]

I posted this on another thread for any who was interested in learning about the Church’s position on the death penalty. It is from* This Rock* a few months back and is now available. It address whether or not John Paul II did or did not change the Church’s position on the death penalty.

catholic.com/thisrock/2010/1007fea4.asp

 

[Brendan]

However, they are not reference in the section on the death penalty. Why?

The Catholic Church recognizes development of doctrine.
The Catholic Church looks at the context, including the historical contex, instead of proof-texting.

But development of doctrine does not ever change Moral Law. What was Moral will always remain so, and what was immoral will continue to be so.

 

[Brendan]

I posted this on another thread for any who was interested in learning about the Church’s position on the death penalty. It is from* This Rock* a few months back and is now available. It address whether or not John Paul II did or did not change the Church’s position on the death penalty.

catholic.com/thisrock/2010/1007fea4.asp

Here is another very good article by Avery Cardinal Dulles. Pope John Paul II inducted him to the College of Cardinals on the basis of his theologic expertise.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

This is an interesting quote here, something that I see a lot of being presented

Some Catholics, going beyond the bishops and the Pope, maintain that the death penalty, like abortion and euthanasia, is a violation of the right to life.

Far too many here consider the Death Penalty to be a “right to life” issue, when Popes and Councils clearly have said that it is not.

 

[pnewton]

But development of doctrine does not ever change Moral Law. What was Moral will always remain so, and what was immoral will continue to be so.

Yes. And…???

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Far too many here consider the Death Penalty to be a “right to life” issue, when Popes and Councils clearly have said that it is not.

I’ve not seen that claim on this Forum, but I’ll take your word for it.

What is true is that the Death Penalty is not intrinsically evil, and the Church acknowledges that. It allows for capital punishment under very limited circumstances.

My opinion of Ender’s arguments is “So What?” Does he really think that in the 21st Century, the Church is going to become a cheerleader for the death penalty? Does he think that the Church is going to reverse what it said in the Catechism?

As for the role of the laity, does anyone really think that civilized nations are going to go back to the barbaric practice of killing people who have killed other people just because some dead-for-centuries theologians applauded the death penalty? The Church has been clear that the practice is not necessary if alternate means for securing the murderer from society are available.

Sure, some gang members have ordered killings from inside prison, and prison guards have been killed by convicted murderers. And, maybe those are candidates for execution. But, those rare exceptions aren’t to define how capital punishment is to be applied otherwise.

This all smacks of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Nothing the Forum’s pro-death penalty posters can say is going to get the Church to change its mind.

 

[Brendan]

I’ve not seen that claim on this Forum, but I’ll take your word for it.

What is true is that the Death Penalty is not intrinsically evil, and the Church acknowledges that. It allows for capital punishment under very limited circumstances…

Actually, the Church goes beyond even that. It was also Commanded by God in particular curcumstances. So when it is used in the cases commanded by God, it is a moral good.