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

[Ender]

One does evil when one goes to war and kills. This is still allowed under “just war theory”…

Again, all I can do is cite what the church teaches.

CCC 1756 One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Either you are wrong about all killing being evil, or the church’s doctrine (above) is wrong; those two positions cannot both be correct.

We addressed this thoroughly earlier in the thread.

Yes, we addressed retribution earlier, but we did not resolve the question. You didn’t think it significant.

The petty discussion about the formation of the sentences in CCC 2266 is fluff… (#52)

I’ll say it again: if we do not correctly understand the nature of punishment we can never come to an understanding of what punishments are justified.

 

[OneSheep]

Again, all I can do is cite what the church teaches.

CCC 1756 One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Either you are wrong about all killing being evil, or the church’s doctrine (above) is wrong; those two positions cannot both be correct.

I already addressed my “wrongness” on all killing being evil.

Here was what was “right” under Pope John Paul II:

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. (italics mine)

It is clear that the priority was defending human lives, and that at that point it was the only priority to consider concerning the DP.

I’ll say it again: if we do not correctly understand the nature of punishment we can never come to an understanding of what punishments are justified.

Then I guess we are at a deadlock, for I am saying that unless we have a discussion about forgiving murderers and the applicability of doctrine concerning human dignity, we cannot begin to discuss the justification of the DP.

Our first commandments are to love God and one another, and the Lord’s prayer is a call to action to forgive. These are the starting points for a discussion on the death penalty, not the wording somewhere in doctrine. And remember, by doctrine the DP is no longer admissible. “The law is written in your hearts.”

 

[Ender]

Here was what was “right” under Pope John Paul II:

What was morally right under JPII will always be morally right. What was judicious then might not be so now, but doctrinally nothing has changed.

It is clear that the priority was defending human lives, and that at that point it was the only priority to consider concerning the DP.

What applies to punishment generally applies to capital punishment equally, and the priority for all punishment is…retribution, i.e. redressing the disorder. CCC 2267 may have been rewritten since JPII, but 2266 is just the same as it has always been, and defending human life was never the priority.

…unless we have a discussion about forgiving murderers and the applicability of doctrine concerning human dignity, we cannot begin to discuss the justification of the DP.

What does forgiveness mean with respect to punishment? Does it eliminate it? Diminish it? Change it in any way? Does the punishment a murderer deserves depend on whether he has been forgiven or the severity of the crime he has committed?

And remember, by doctrine the DP is no longer admissible. “The law is written in your hearts.”

According to Cardinal Ladaria: “… the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.”

If it was valid before, and current doctrine is not in contradiction with it, then it must be valid now - doctrinally speaking. As to whether it is advisable, that can be argued, but if "The law is written in your hearts" now it was just as surely written there before, and given that the natural law is immutable that law must be the same.

 

[o_mlly]

What applies to punishment generally applies to capital punishment equally, and the priority for all punishment is…retribution, i.e. redressing the disorder.

It seems to me that your argument hinges on the validity of the above claim: that the primary objective of redressing the disorder is retribution.

It also appears that to arrive at the claim you incorrectly connect CCC#2266 and the USCCB 2005:

Church teaching is this: “ The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense .” (CCC 2266) That is, retribution is punishment’s primary end.

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution… (USCCB 2005)

I do see this connection as necessary to the argument but I see it as also invalid. The USCCB 2005 statement indicates “just retribution” as but one of several methods of redressing the disorder, and certainly not as the primary one. Further USCCB 2005, explains “just retribution” as a limiting principle which can only be seen as something other than primary.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...-capital-punishment/upload/penaltyofdeath.pdf

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution; defending public order; deterring future wrongdoing; and promoting reform, repentance,and conversion of those who commit evil acts. …

A correct interpretation of these passages indicates, however, that the principal intent of such laws was to limit the retribution that could be exacted for an offense, not to require a minimum punishment.

 

[Ender]

It seems to me that your argument hinges on the validity of the above claim: that the primary objective of redressing the disorder is retribution.

Agreed.

The USCCB 2005 statement indicates “ just retribution” as but one of several methods of redressing the disorder, and certainly not as the primary one.

The document says punishment has several purposes and then proceeds to list them: retribution; defense; deterrence; and rehabilitation. I have no argument with this. That statement does not, however, include the last three purposes as aspects of redressing the disorder. The objectives are separate and distinct and each is set off by a semicolon. Redressing the disorder is one of those purposes; the i.e. simply gives another way of saying the same thing: just retribution. That retribution is the first objective listed does not define it as primary; they did not address that point.

Further USCCB 2005, explains “just retribution” as a limiting principle which can only be seen as something other than primary.

That document was referring to several Old Testament passages which it claimed were misinterpreted. It was not referring to the comment on the purposes of punishment. Nor can it imply that retribution is not primary objective given that the catechism explicitly says it is. We’re dealing with the meaning of words and sentences in what is a disagreement over what seems to me to be plain English. I.e. means “in other words”. Replace that abbreviation with those words and the meaning is obvious.

 

[o_mlly]

Nor can it imply that retribution is not primary objective given that the catechism explicitly says it is.

Can you cite where the catechism explicitly says “retribution is the primary objective”?

 

[OneSheep]

What does forgiveness mean with respect to punishment? Does it eliminate it? Diminish it?

It means that forgiveness is primary with respect to anyone we hold anything against. So, first we forgive (if we do “hold against”) then we approach punishment with hearts that have no desire for vengeance. When this is the case, punishment by the state remains having a protective, rehabilitative, medicinal, and deterring purpose, but the hearts of those involved are merciful.

Change it in any way?

It changes it to something that looks toward redressing the disorder within the sinner.

Does the punishment a murderer deserves depend on whether he has been forgiven or the severity of the crime he has committed?

Once a person has forgiven, the word “deserves” essentially disappears. People deserve mercy, indeed God rains his mercy on the just and the unjust.

 

[Ender]

Can you cite where the catechism explicitly says “retribution is the primary objective”?

CCC 2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

This is what the discussion regarding the meaning of “redress the disorder” is all about, and why I cited the USCCB document.

It means that forgiveness is primary with respect to anyone we hold anything against. So, first we forgive (if we do “hold against”) then we approach punishment with hearts that have no desire for vengeance. When this is the case, punishment by the state remains having a protective, rehabilitative, medicinal, and deterring purpose, but the hearts of those involved are merciful.

This is not what 2266 says. It says that redress (retribution) is primary, and you have just eliminated it completely as an objective. Suppose someone commits a serious crime, but is truly repentant and poses no threat of committing it again. How should this person be punished, and should he be punished more leniently than someone who is unrepentant?

Once a person has forgiven, the word “deserves” essentially disappears.

I think we have finally gotten to the key difference in our understanding of punishment. First, if one does not deserve punishment then nothing can justify it, and the person should not be punished at all. So, if forgiveness erases ones debt, and we are commanded to forgive everyone, then all punishment would be eliminated. We cannot punish a person who does not deserve it; that would be unjust.

In fact, however, forgiveness assuredly does not erase our debt.

Confession wipes away the guilt of the sin, so that if, before confession, you had your face turned toward creatures, you’ll turn it back to God. The guilt of sin is therefore remitted, but not the punishment.

In the same way, by confession we receive the pardon of the Prince, who is God; but we have to undergo the punishment that the sin entails. (St Vincent de Paul)

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

Can you cite where the catechism explicitly says “retribution is the primary objective”?

CCC 2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

This is what the discussion about the meaning of “redress the disorder” is all about, and why I cited the USCCB document.

I could not find in the catechism the explicitness of your claim either. Just wanted to be sure that you did not as well.

The claim that “retribution is the primary objective” of punishment is vital to your argument and not explicit in any Magesterial document. To arrive at your claim, you cite the USCCB 2005 and infer from the document that lists the several purposes that retribution is primary. I believe, that inference is not justified in the wording. What follows the id est are of equal weight as none is ranked higher than another in the document. Is there a ranking to be discerned in church teaching?

In order to understand the bishops’ teaching, the USCCB 2000 document speaks directly to the relationships of rehabilitation and retribution to restoration in society. In its final sentence, the bishops make clear that restoration rather than retribution as primary.

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

Our society seems to prefer punishment to rehabilitation and retribution to restoration thereby indicating a failure to recognize prisoners as human beings.

The Common Good: The social dimension of our teaching leads us to the common good and its relationship to punishment. 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.32

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 often neglected dimension of punishment allows victims to move from a place of pain and anger to one of healing and resolution. In our tradition, restoring the balance of rights through restitution is an important element of justice.

We believe a Catholic ethic of responsibility, rehabilitation, and restoration can become the foundation for the necessary reform of our broken criminal justice system.

We suggest that they use these reflections to assess how the system can become less retributive and more restorative.

 

[Ender]

I could not find in the catechism the explicitness of your claim either. Just wanted to be sure that you did not as well.

I have tried any number of times to find an authoritative statement explicitly saying that redressing the disorder means retribution. As long as such a statement is lacking there will always be those who say the two statements are different. As I’ve said before, this is no longer a theological debate but an argument over grammar.

I cited the USCCB because it is the next closest thing to that definitive statement:

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution ; defense ; deterrence ; rehabilitation. (2005)

They have actually said this more than once:

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. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment (1980)

I don’t think there is any reasonable argument that by “redress the disorder” the church means something other than retribution. And that point has to be resolved. How many citations are required to settle this?

Punishment is commonly held to have four purposes. They are: (1) protection (of society), (2) retribution, (3) rehabilitation, and (4) deterrence. (Montana Catholic Conference on Capital Punishment, 1981)

 

[OneSheep]

Please consider this meditation:

Our Father who art in heaven

A statement of loving faith to our “Abba”

Hallowed be thy name

your name is holy, to be revered

thy kingdom come

Yours is a kingdom that begins with love, comes from love. Your kingdom is indeed coming, as we can see people increasingly loving and accepting one another, seeing dignity in all. We practice loving our enemies, praying for those who persecute us, loving our neighbors. These are what create Your kingdom, by Your grace.

thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven

give us the grace to do Your will. When we do not understand the suffering in the world, give us the grace of faith, knowing that Your will is being done.

Give us this day our daily bread,

not only does this petition apply to our physical needs, but also our spiritual needs

and forgive us our trespasses.

This spiritual need for forgiveness is singled out, it refers to the specific need of wanting to be in relationship with God, unencumbered by feelings of guilt. One hears and believes, by faith, that God forgives the sinner. A self examination, understanding and forgiving one’s own sins, is part of seeing that God understands and forgives us, but there is a caveat. There is a condition by which this knowing of God’s forgiveness can or cannot happen.

… as we forgive those who trespass against us.

This is the caveat, the condition. We cannot know and experience the Father’s forgiveness if we hold anything against anyone. “With whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.” Matt 7:2. Psychologically, since our image of God has so much to do with projection, we can only project a God who loves and forgives as much as we ourselves love and forgive. Help us, Father, to forgive, aided by understanding that those who take lives do not know what they are doing.
When we forgive, we are part of building the Kingdom.

And lead us not into temptation,

What is the “temptation” when it comes to our reactions to those who do the greatest of evil, the taking of someone’s life? We are tempted to destroy the perpetrator, to hold a grudge or take revenge instead of forgiving. So when we ask not to be led into temptation, we are asking God to assist us in loving and forgiving everyone, especially those who we think deserve the worst.

but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Help us to see, Lord, that evil is what happens, not the people who carry out evil. Bring your Kingdom, deliver us from the evil brought about by those blind to Your presence and beauty within every human being. Through forgiveness, we can see these things in all people; give us the grace to understand and forgive. Give everyone who considers taking any life the grace to understand, forgive, and see the value of what who you created.

 

[Ender]

Please consider this meditation:

I cannot apply my personal interpretation of Scripture in such a way that it conflicts with the explicit doctrines of the church. If the church says that “redressing the disorder” is the primary objective of punishment then that discussion is over; I must fit my opinions to that teaching. If “redressing the disorder” means retribution then I cannot overlook that because it conflicts with my personal understanding of punishment.

I have seen too many examples where redress clearly means retribution to believe those terms are anything other than synonyms. No theory of punishment can be valid that does not acknowledge this equivalence, and if there is no grammatical difference there can be no theological distinction either.

 

[o_mlly]

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution ; defense ; deterrence ; rehabilitation. (2005)

I submit that correctly diagraming USCCB 2005 teaching shows that punishment has 4 purposes, one of which is redressing the disorder.

Redressing the disorder has 3 purposes, one of which is just retribution.

The bishops relegate just retribution to a second order purpose for punishment. A second order purpose cannot be the primary purpose of punishment, to which capital punishment is the extreme mode.

punishment has several purposes:

• redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e.,
  • just retribution;
  • defending public order;
  • deterring future wrongdoing;
• promoting reform,
• repentance, and
• conversion of those who commit evil acts

 

[OneSheep]

I cannot apply my personal interpretation of Scripture in such a way that it conflicts with the explicit doctrines of the church. If the church says that “redressing the disorder” is the primary objective of punishment then that discussion is over; I must fit my opinions to that teaching. If “redressing the disorder” means retribution then I cannot overlook that because it conflicts with my personal understanding of punishment.

It may take some deeper prayer and discernment, as you have already read the USCCB explanation and that doesn’t seem to be enough for you.

You might want to start by reading a couple times the meditation I offered. It is meant to add perspective for those dealing with the death penalty debate.

Blessings to you, Ender

 

[Ender]

I submit that correctly diagraming USCCB 2005 teaching shows that punishment has 4 purposes, one of which is redressing the disorder .

Yes, agreed.

Redressing the disorder has 3 purposes, one of which is just retribution .

No, that’s not how punctuation works.

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes:

• Redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution semicolon.
• defending public order semicolon
• deterring future wrongdoing semicolon
• and promoting reform, repentance, and conversion of those who commit evil acts.

This is exactly what others have said (in contrast with your claim of which there are zero examples). Your interpretation doesn’t even stand up to the USCCB’s 1980 statement:

The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution, deterrence, and reform.

 

[Ender]

You might want to start by reading a couple times the meditation I offered. It is meant to add perspective for those dealing with the death penalty debate.

At this point I am not dealing with the death penalty debate in general. I am addressing solely the meaning of the passage in 2266 and whether “redressing the disorder” does or does not mean retribution. Everything else is - for the time being - irrelevant.

 

[BT3241]

There are pros and cons to every candidate you have to choose whats best for you. Getting hard to vote as a Catholic.

 

[o_mlly]

No, that’s not how punctuation works.

Yes, that is exactly how punctuation works and, specifically, how semicolons work.

https://www.scribbr.com/language-rules/semicolons/

Semicolons are also used to separate list items that contain internal punctuation such as commas and dashes.

The i.e. list requires semicolons as separators because the several purposes of punishment use commas as their separators.

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution; defending public order, deterring future wrongdoing; and promoting reform, repentance,and conversion of those who commit evil acts .

 

[OneSheep]

At this point I am not dealing with the death penalty debate in general. I am addressing solely the meaning of the passage in 2266 and whether “redressing the disorder” does or does not mean retribution. Everything else is - for the time being - irrelevant.

It sounds like you would like to take the discussion out of the framework of the Christian faith itself.

Ender, the Lord’s prayer, the call to understand and forgive, the call to love our neighbor, and upholding human dignity are all relevant to any doctrine. In fact, perhaps you should preface your arguments by saying these things are irrelevant in considering 2266, then you could have your discussion with a group of non-Catholics.

 

[Ender]

It sounds like you would like to take the discussion out of the framework of the Christian faith itself.

The meaning of a particular sentence has nothing whatever to do with Christian faith. I want to settle the meaning of that sentence, and for the moment that’s all I want to do, and to do that we are less in need of someone versed in theology than we are of someone well versed in grammar.