Can a Catholic support the death penalty in good-faith?

[Ender]

Any deliberate taking of life is evil, even if it is for self-protection. Sometimes, it is an evil that is necessary.

This is inconsistent. If it is true that all deliberate killing is evil then it can never be necessary since one may never do evil that good may come of it. Even self-protection would be illegitimate. Again, all the pieces must fit, not just some of them.

There has been enormous conceptual, language, and ethical change since Aquinas. It’s not applicable.

This is another of those “harmful arguments.” If we believe, as the church teaches, that morality does not change with time then society cannot change such that what was morally valid once can become immoral later on.

And again, if we do not discuss this in the frame of God’s mercy and forgiveness, it is all meaningless.

We cannot ignore specific, unambiguous doctrines because they interfere with our personal interpretations of “God’s mercy and forgiveness.”

I consistently explain that forgiveness from the heart is not an acquittal.

What does it mean to a judge? Suppose two murder trials, equally heinous, where both judges hand out identical sentences, but one judge imposes it because he feels it is just and the other imposes it from a desire to stick it to the defendant. Are the sentences both just, both unjust, or one of each?

In fact the justness of a sentence is independent of why it is applied; it is the conditions of the case that make a particular sentence just or unjust, not the nature of the judge who imposes it. The fact that the intent of an act is sinful does not make the object of the act sinful as well.

You want to discuss the intent and ignore the object, which concerns the justness of the punishment. Whether or not you are right about how a judge should feel it makes no difference to what he ought to rule.

The State is made of individuals. We don’t want to go into allowing a State to be less ethical than ordinary people; that runs into huge problems.

No, you cannot erase the distinction between the individual and the State; the church has always taught that this is significant and based it on Rom 13:1-4. Again, this is a clear doctrine that cannot be dismissed because it is difficult or inconvenient.

The duties of the State are significantly different than those of the individual, and they cannot be treated is if they weren’t.

We Catholics can support the State’s right to punish people in order to deter the perpetrator and “medicinally” correct them.

This goes back to the discussion you want to avoid, namely that retribution is the primary objective of punishment. Deterrence and rehabilitation are not.

 

[OneSheep]

This is inconsistent. If it is true that all deliberate killing is evil then it can never be

That would depend on your definition. To me, evil is harm to the human, harm to human dignity, an act that should, by the conscience, be avoided unless there is a worse evil being stopped by the action. You are operating from a different definition. All war is evil, even when it is just.

If we believe, as the church teaches, that morality does not change with time then society cannot change such that what was morally valid once can become immoral later on.

It depends on what you call “morality”. Slavery and many punishments once considered moral are now considered immoral. Or maybe there is a separation we are not considering. Blasphemy is still immoral, but is no longer punishable by death. So the morality of action has not changed, but the practice of punishment is now much more ethical and comes from more forgiving hearts, hopefully.

The civilized world has come to a place of realizing human dignity. It’s an awareness that comes through understanding and forgiveness.

We cannot ignore specific, unambiguous doctrines because they interfere with our personal interpretations of “ God’s mercy and forgiveness .”

Consider it a flow chart. A man stands accused and convicted before the public. Who should be allowed to decide his punishment? The judge who, because of his faith, has forgiven from the heart, or the judge who is bent on vengeance, which is contrary to the Gospel?

The just judge is the one who has forgiven, not the one who holds a grudge.

What does it mean to a judge? Suppose two murder trials, equally heinous, where both judges hand out identical sentences, but one judge imposes it because he feels it is just and the other imposes it from a desire to stick it to the defendant. Are the sentences both just, both unjust, or one of each?

If either of the judges holds a grudge, then he is unjust in his position. If a person holds a grudge, we are to forgive. This is primary. Have you heard of the heresy of Donatism? It was an entire regional division that happened because many of the faithful refused to forgive a person designated as their Bishop. The Spirit guided the Church away from this unforgiving attitude.

 

[OneSheep]

No, you cannot erase the distinction between the individual and the State; the church has always taught that this is significant and based it on Rom 13:1-4. Again, this is a clear doctrine that cannot be dismissed because it is difficult or inconvenient.

An immoral act carried out by the state is no less immoral than one carried out by an individual, that is what I am saying. An individual acting on behalf of, with permission from, his community is acting as a “state”. This is the condition of a community with no government.

Now, can we go back to the primary questions concerning how our faith applies to the discussion? We don’t have to make it personal, so I can modify the questions:

How can the Church leadership enable the faithful (and the world) to forgive, from the heart, those who do the most evil of acts?

What is a punishment for a murderer that meets the objectives of redressing the disorder, in terms of compensating the victim, protecting the public from the murderer and through deterrence, and providing a medicinal redressing of the disorder, all while upholding human dignity?

Our beliefs about the sanctity of human life and dignity must be at the center of our approach to these issues. We respect the humanity and promote the human dignity of both victims and offenders. We believe society must protect its citizens from violence and crime and hold accountable those who break the law. These same principles lead us to advocate for rehabilitation and treatment for offenders, for, like victims, their lives reflect that same dignity. Both victims and perpetrators of crime are children of God.

• Teach Right from Wrong, Respect for Life, Forgiveness and Mercy
  Parish priests, Catholic educators, and a wide variety of other efforts assist parents in teaching children right from wrong, respect for life, and forgiveness and mercy. Catholics also can have an impact in their own families and communities, when they teach by example and demonstrate these values by their actions.
• Oppose attempts to impose or expand the death penalty in your state. In states that sanction the death penalty, join organizations that work to curtail its use (e.g., prohibit the execution of teenagers or the mentally ill) and those that call for its abolition.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...rative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

 

[Ender]

What is a punishment for a murderer that meets the objectives of redressing the disorder…

This is the primary objective of all punishment. It is the one that must be met whether the other objectives are satisfied or not. What is the obligation this punishment must meet? Assuming there is no concern for its affect on the public, it must be of a severity commensurate with the crime (2266). That is what determines whether it is just.

We know that death is in fact a just punishment for this crime, so what would be the argument against using it? Only in the case where it would automatically defeat one of the other objectives and there was an equally just punishment.

… in terms of compensating the victim…

Execution does not prohibit compensation; those are separate actions.

…protecting the public from the murderer…

Clearly this objective is met.

… through deterrence…

The severest penalty can hardly be less of a deterrence than a lesser one, so this is not a problem.

…providing a medicinal redressing of the disorder…

No, redressing the disorder is retribution, and that has already been addressed. The medicinal aspect refers to rehabilitation, which is something entirely different. Punishment “…has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.” The church uses an execution as an example of a medicinal punishment. Beyond that, execution, if it is freely accepted, completely expiates the sin thus restoring the criminal spiritually. What can be more medicinal than that?

CCC 1459 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins.

…all while upholding human dignity.

Here is the problem, and this is why it is important to have a explanation that fits with all the doctrines. If execution is a violation of a person’s dignity, and thus can never be used, it would be intrinsically evil. We know, however, that it cannot be intrinsically evil because God himself commanded it, therefore it cannot be a grave violation of man’s dignity, and this condition does not prohibit its use.

So what is the argument against using it?

 

[OneSheep]

We know that death is in fact a just punishment for this crime, so what would be the argument against using it?

I suggest you read the Bishop’s letter I linked.

We know, however, that it cannot be intrinsically evil because God himself commanded it, therefore it cannot be a grave violation of man’s dignity

You are staying with the idea that God does not change what He says to people over time. I’m not sure from where this idea comes. Do you know?

Read this for the explanation of the violation of human dignity. If you have an argument against it, feel free to comment on it:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...rative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

How can the Church leadership enable the faithful (and the world) to forgive, from the heart, those who do the most evil of acts?

 

[Ender]

I suggest you read the Bishop’s letter I linked.

No, you extract what you feel are the relevant arguments, and you can defend them.

You are staying with the idea that God does not change what He says to people over time. I’m not sure from where this idea comes. Do you know?

CCC 1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;

Besides, it is simply not conceivable that God could command something evil.

Read this for the explanation of the violation of human dignity. If you have an argument against it, feel free to comment on it:

This is an extremely long document. You read it, and extract the passages you think support your position, and then I’ll comment on them.

How can the Church leadership enable the faithful (and the world) to forgive, from the heart, those who do the most evil of acts?

Forgiveness, at least in the form of mercy, is not left solely to the judge who must set the punishment.

There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. (Aquinas ST II-II 67, 4)

God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” ( Ex 34: 6-7). In the Second Book of Samuel, King David’s humble confession after his grave sin obtains God’s forgiveness (cf. 2 Sm 12: 13), but not the prevention of the foretold chastisement (cf. ibid ., 12: 11; 16: 21). (JPII, General Audience, 1999)

 

[OneSheep]

This is an extremely long document. You read it, and extract the passages you think support your position, and then I’ll comment on them.

You asked for the argument against using the DP. I provided a link to the Bishops’ explanation of what is the argument against using it.

This is a really big issue to you, Ender. If you actually care about the Catholic position, then you would read their letter from 20 years ago. If you don’t care enough, then I don’t see how you would care about what I say either.

If you want to actually learn something about the Catholic position, read their letter. If you want to just argue for the sake of arguing, I’m done.

Forgiveness, at least in the form of mercy, is not left solely to the judge who must set the punishment.

This is a very good point. Do you forgive all murderers you held something against?

 

[Ender]

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration (1)….

This is not going to be pretty.

…even if the death penalty were proven to be a deterrent to crime, the Catholic bishops would still oppose its use because there are alternative means to protect society available to us today.

This is really amazing. They don’t care if it prevents these crimes because they (claim they) have ways of preventing those crimes. It’s like saying boaters don’t need sun screen because they have life jackets. This is entirely indefensible.

We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law.

This is wrong because it is incomplete, and they know it because later on they give a fuller explanation of punishment’s objectives. It is not by accident that they left out the primary objective of punishment.

The Lord offered to his people Ten Commandments, very basic rules for living from which the Israelites formed their own laws in a covenant relationship with God. Punishment was required…

God pronounced the commandments in Exodus 20:1-17. This is what He said in Ex 21:12. Same God, same time.

Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death.

All are created in the image of God and possess a dignity, value, and worth that must be recognized, promoted, safeguarded, and defended.

We know this is true because God said it, right there in Gn 9:6.

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

God apparently sees no contradiction between man having an innate dignity, and also to being punished by death, so it isn’t clear why we should believe such a contradiction exists.

 

[Ender]

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration (2)… .

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , punishment by civil authorities for criminal activity should serve three principal purposes: (1) the preservation and protection of the common good of society, (2) the restoration of public order, and (3) the restoration or conversion of the offender.

I said they knew better (see 1st response), but even this explanation of punishment is deficient. They cite the catechism but then go on to mis-quote it. This is what the catechism lists as the purposes of punishment (1) redress the disorder, (2) preserve order and safety, and (3) correct the offender. Assuming they mean by “the restoration of public order” what the catechism calls “redress the disorder” you will note that they changed the order even as they rephrased it. I cannot express my opinion of this passage without getting in trouble with the moderators.

The concept of “redress,” or repair of the harm done to the victims and to society by the criminal activity, is also important to restoring the common good.

This statement comes immediately after the one above it. After having removed “the concept of ‘redress’” from their explanation of the objectives of punishment they now refer to it as an “often neglected dimension of punishment” (well they certainly did) and go on to associate it with restitution, which further mangles its actual meaning. This is really…disappointing stuff.

The protection of society and its members from violence and crime is an essential moral value.

If it is an essential moral value then why are they willing to disregard means that provide protection? They have already said they wouldn’t support the death penalty even if it “were proven to be a deterrent”. If they’re willing to disregard means to protect society they can’t claim that protection is an essential moral value.

 

[Ender]

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration (3)… .

We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for how it affects society; moreover, we have alternative means today to protect society from violent people.

If we accept that capital punishment is now inadmissible then whether or not it protects society is irrelevant. It is inadmissible even if necessary for protection, and all the “except for protection” arguments of the last 25 years are moot.

We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders.

It is hard to take seriously a document that contains comments like this. Can we overcome crime by incarcerating criminals? Can imprisonment restore the lives of the innocent? If we shouldn’t use the death penalty because of these shortcomings then it is equally true that we shouldn’t punish at all since nothing can satisfy those objections.

The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.

If it is an illusion it was one held by the Council of Trent which proclaimed:

Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder.

This is why they also proclaimed:

The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

We have entirely lost all concept of “the wickedness of murder”, which is not altogether surprising: “Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? This seems unlikely.”

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Ender, I appreciate your effort to inform yourself, so I will counter:

It’s like saying boaters don’t need sun screen because they have life jackets.

Sorry, its a false analogy.

This is wrong because it is incomplete, and they know it because later on they give a fuller explanation of punishment’s objectives. It is not by accident that they left out the primary objective of punishment.

That there is a primary objective that they did not mention is your opinion. Since we believe that the Spirit guides the Church, as Catholics we tend to value the voice of the leadership and scholars more than individuals. If retribution means “payback”, then there are some serious issues involving forgiveness. Retribution means “restoration of the order of justice”, and part of the disorder is in the perpetrator, and part is in the harm done to the victims. While punishment can help rehabilitate the disorder in the offender, it does nothing to help the victims. Compensation, care, and healing helps the victims, not punishment.

God pronounced the commandments in Exodus 20:1-17. This is what He said in Ex 21:12. Same God, same time.
Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death.

The Spirit guides the Church as to which previous mandates to maintain, and which to find past their societal purpose or contradictory.

21:17 says “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.”, so by your logic this should also remain a rule.

Gn 9:6

Again, we rely on the Holy Spirit guiding the Church on the interpretation of these scriptures.

Assuming they mean by “the restoration of public order” what the catechism calls “redress the disorder” you will note that they changed the order

As catechists, it is their prerogative. In either case “restoration” and “redressing” no longer include the DP because the DP itself creates a disorder, it violates human dignity.

If it is an essential moral value then why are they willing to disregard means that provide protection?

Because it violates human dignity.

even if it “ were proven to be a deterrent ”.

Since the DP negatively effects human dignity, it would be difficult to gauge net effect in terms of deterrence. When the human is seen as disposable for any reason, the value of human life on Earth is diminished. Murderers already do this, we don’t need the state upholding the disvalue, the degradation of human dignity.

You see, Ender, none of your counters involve what they say about human dignity. What do you agree with/disagree with concerning human dignity? In addition, what about forgiving the perpetrators?

 

[Ender]

Sorry, its a false analogy.

This is an assertion; it is not an argument. The document claimed that one set of threats could be neutralized so it didn’t matter that a different set could not.

That there is a primary objective that they did not mention is your opinion .

It is not opinion, it is fact. They listed protection and rehabilitation, but they ignored what the catechism cites as the primary objective: redressing the disorder caused by the crime. It’s like mentioning Huey and Louie and ignoring Dewey. There are three (or four) objectives; they identified two.

21:17 says “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.”, so by your logic this should also remain a rule.

That some of the Mosaic laws have been dropped does not mean they are all nullified. The case has to be made for each one, besides you might want to be careful of this citation in light Jesus comment in Mk 7:10 - For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ Jesus is not exactly condemning that law given that he was castigating the Pharisees for abandoning it.

As catechists, it is their prerogative. In either case “restoration” and “redressing” no longer include the DP because the DP itself creates a disorder, it violates human dignity.

Are you saying God was unaware of this violation of human dignity when he commanded that it be used?

Since the DP negatively effects human dignity, it would be difficult to gauge net effect in terms of deterrence.

The document said they don’t care if it saves lives or not while at the same time claiming that protecting society was “an essential moral value.” Those two claims are incompatible.

none of your counters involve what they say about human dignity. What do you agree with/disagree with concerning human dignity?

If God commanded it it cannot be contrary to human dignity.

 

[goout]

The Pope has said that capital punishment is inadmissible. Not intrinsically immoral, not forbidden forever.
At this time, in the present circumstances…(remember, moral evaluation appreciates circumstances), the death penalty is inadmissible.

There is no confusion, other than in the hearts of those who are not docile.

 

[Ender]

The Pope has said that capital punishment is inadmissible. Not intrinsically immoral, not forbidden forever.
At this time, in the present circumstances…(remember, moral evaluation appreciates circumstances), the death penalty is inadmissible.

It might surprise you to find that I agree with this. This is to me the only rational explanation: it is the opinion of the pope that, given present circumstances, the death penalty ought not be used. I have always acknowledged that circumstances must be considered in the application of any punishment, but what is important to acknowledge here is that this is a judgment. It is not a new doctrine, and inasmuch as it is a judgment it does not require our assent.

There is no confusion, other than in the hearts of those who are not docile.

Well this really wasn’t necessary. In fact as I pointed out before there is a great deal of confusion over this issue as even the US bishops acknowledged. Are their hearts not docile because they too are confused?

 

[OneSheep]

It is not opinion, it is fact. They listed protection and rehabilitation, but they ignored what the catechism cites as the primary objective: redressing the disorder caused by the crime

It is your opinion that protection and rehabilitation are not part of redressing the disorder.

That some of the Mosaic laws have been dropped does not mean they are all nullified. The case has to be made for each one

Exactly. There were probably centuries where the DP used for people who curse their parents was upheld, and then the Spirit guided the flock away from such a penalty. It has taken more centuries for the DP to be dropped in the case of murder.

Are you saying God was unaware of this violation of human dignity when he commanded that it be used?

Of course not. The reason why the DP for murder outlasted all the other applications of the punishment is because people naturally hang onto an “eye for an eye” mentality, as it is our default mentality. So two things had to happen for human dignity to become forefront: Jesus had to come and reveal that we are to love our enemies, forgive those we hold anything against. 2) Society had to become (more securely) protected without the use of the DP.

So previously there was a hit on human dignity, but people were not in a forgiving spiritual mindset, and murderers were not completely securely imprisoned. In an uncivilized world, the knock against human dignity was not on the radar; the DP was tolerable because the net effect of having the DP was still a positive one. Now, things have changed, just as things changed to rid society of the “cursing the parents” application. The world has become more charitable, less violent, so removing the DP has become an improvement on human dignity.

The document said they don’t care if it saves lives or not while at the same time claiming that protecting society was “ an essential moral value. ” Those two claims are incompatible

I addressed this in my previous post.

 

[OneSheep]

If God commanded it it cannot be contrary to human dignity.

It was not contrary at the time in terms of net effect. Try to imagine it this way: Some political leader comes forward today and wants to reinstate the death penalty for cursing ones’ parents, just as can be found in Exodus. People would protest, saying that the human life is worth more than a few unwise words. People are more tolerant and forgiving of such lack of wisdom today than thousands of years ago. The same is true of murderers, to some degree. People do not tolerate murder, but many people forgive just as Jesus forgave from the cross, as Jesus forgave his assailants.

People who murder do not know what they are doing, Ender. They are blind to the dignity of the victim. It’s not an “excuse”, but it is an understanding that can be reached by the faithful when we really come to grasp what happened on Calgary.

Do you see that we are just as capable of being blind to the human dignity of people when they do great evil? Look at the Philippines, where people are put to death for dealing drugs. Many citizens support this; they see no dignity in drug dealers. It is a very natural mindset, a default mindset.

Is there anything you agree with the Bishops concerning human dignity?

 

[Ender]

It was not contrary at the time in terms of net effect.

If the concern is with the net effect the death penalty has then there is no concern with it being contrary to man’s dignity since presumably a beneficial net effect would justify it.

People do not tolerate murder, but many people forgive just as Jesus forgave from the cross, as Jesus forgave his assailants.

Forgiveness and punishment are separate obligations, and they are not mutually exclusive. Saying that a person should be forgiven says nothing whatever about how he should be punished for a crime he has committed. What does forgiveness mean in the context of punishment? That a person should receive less punishment than he deserves? Explain how forgiveness conditions punishment.

People who murder do not know what they are doing, Ender. They are blind to the dignity of the victim.

Again: so? What does this mean with regard to punishment?

Is there anything you agree with the Bishops concerning human dignity?

They haven’t said anything about it with which I could agree or disagree. They have certainly said nothing that explains why capital punishment is contrary to human dignity. Why does capital punishment diminish man’s dignity but LWOP does not? How do you distinguish between a punishment that is contrary to that dignity and one that is not? There are assertions without explanations.

If you accept that capital punishment disregards man’s dignity then how do you explain God commanding it? There is not an “at that time it was OK” answer. It either always did, or never does compromise man’s dignity. That dignity is unchangeable through time as is the nature of the punishment. That relationship is fixed.

 

[OneSheep]

If the concern is with the net effect the death penalty has then there is no concern with it being contrary to man’s dignity since presumably a beneficial net effect would justify it.

Yes, it did justify it. It does no longer for reasons I explained earlier.

What does forgiveness mean in the context of punishment? That a person should receive less punishment than he deserves? Explain how forgiveness conditions punishment.

When we understand and forgive, we no longer hold something against someone (Mark 11:25). We no longer are in the mindset that “he should pay” because this emotional response has been replaced by seeing the crime as a sad series of events, including the event of blindness, the event of lack of awareness. So punishment becomes something for the sinner, a rehabilitation, a disincentive to repeat the crime. Of course, there is the important action on the part of the state to also punish as a deterrence, but I have already addressed this concerning the DP.

Again: so? What does this mean with regard to punishment?

What this means is that an enormous part of “redressing the disorder” is to address the disorder in the criminal’s mind, to help the blind to see, to bring awareness as to the value of humanity violated. If punishment does not do this, then it is ineffective or even self-defeating. The DP, in our modern times, is self-defeating. It does not rehabilitate the sinner, it does not redress the disorder in the sinner, but it upholds the illusion that human life is disposable. In the past, when apprehension of the criminal was less secure and societies were generally more violent, this self-defeating aspect was not as important.

They have certainly said nothing that explains why capital punishment is contrary to human dignity.

Well, I guess you’ll have to reread it.

Why does capital punishment diminish man’s dignity but LWOP does not?

With LWOP, we uphold the dignity of the person’s life (to the degree possible) without letting them be a danger to the public. A person doing LWOP can still have a life; Church and society can communicate that they value their life.

There is no an “at that time it was OK” answer.

Again, if there is no “at that time it was OK” answer, then you are saying that it is still OK to kill people who curse their parents. Where does it come from, this idea that there is no “at that time it was OK” answer? Did you realize that the section from Exodus you quoted also allowed for slavery?

You bring up a very good point in your post, though. LWOP is definitely undignifying for the person, but we still must use it to protect society in some cases. In the future, we may be able to come up with a means of curing the disability of psychopathy, and the healed people are truly no longer a threat to society. Then we can eliminate LWOP also. Do you see what I mean?

 

[Ender]

Yes, it did justify it. It does no longer for reasons I explained earlier.

Death cannot be contrary to man’s dignity now without it having been equally wrong before. The relationship between the two cannot change with time. Nor does the claim that it was beneficial before but harmful now change that. If it is an offense against man’s dignity then it was wrong to use it in the past regardless of the benefit since “one may not do evil that good may come of it.”

What this means is that an enormous part of “redressing the disorder” is to address the disorder in the criminal’s mind…

No. You hold to this misperception even in the face of explicit citations that contradict it. Rehabilitation is no part of redressing the disorder; that term means retribution alone. Nor is this a matter of theology. It is nothing more than a matter of plain English. I have provided any number of references clearly showing this and you simply ignore them. I keep harping on this point as we can never make any progress on this topic if this issue remains unresolved.

 

[OneSheep]

If it is an offense against man’s dignity then it was wrong to use it in the past regardless of the benefit since “ one may not do evil that good may come of it .”

One does evil when one goes to war and kills. This is still allowed under “just war theory”, when there are absolutely no other options. The same applies to the DP. It was allowed when there were no other viable options. This is a great comparison, actually. As technology increases, I can see the taking of life during war as increasingly less necessary, or less probable.

Rehabilitation is no part of redressing the disorder; that term means retribution alone.

We addressed this thoroughly earlier in the thread.