You are saying that the meaning of something in the catechism (in this case, a sentence) has nothing to do with the Christian faith.The meaning of a particular sentence has nothing whatever to do with Christian faith.
This distorts the meaning of my comment. Given that the statement is about Catholic doctrine it clearly “has to do with the Christian faith.” That said, understanding what it means, not so much. In the case of the USCCB statement, not at all. Understanding that is determined by the rules of English grammar.You are saying that the meaning of something in the catechism (in this case, a sentence) has nothing to do with the Christian faith.
No. The list of the purposes was separated by semicolons. Only the last objective had multiple items separated by commas.The i.e. list requires semicolons as separators because the several purposes of punishment use commas as their separators.
This is not accurate. Here is the sentence separated at the semicolons: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 .
That is not correct. The sentence can only be diagrammed as I previously showed. The sentence begins: Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes.This is not accurate. Here is the sentence separated at the semicolons:
redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution;
defending public order;
deterring future wrongdoing;
and promoting reform, repentance,and conversion…
You bundled together the things separated by the semicolons, and separated out those delimited by commas. There is no grammatical justification for that; that turns the punctuation on its head. Moreover, it is not in accord with everything else said about the purposes of punishment.
Thanks for clarifying the comment. I had read literally this sentence:This distorts the meaning of my comment. Given that the statement is about Catholic doctrine it clearly “has to do with the Christian faith.” That said, understanding what it means, not so much. In the case of the USCCB statement, not at all. Understanding that is determined by the rules of English grammar.
Just as understanding that sentence, then, cannot be taken out of the context of what you intend to say, what your general intent is, then the same applies to how we look at CCC 2266. CCC 2266 cannot be read for meaning of any sort unless it is put into the context of the 2267, the entire chapter, and the entire CCC.The meaning of a particular sentence has nothing whatever to do with Christian faith.
Yes, it does: redressing, defending, deterring, and rehabilitating.The sentence begins: Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes .
Partly true. The i.e. is not a list; it is an explanation of what redressing the disorder means.The i.e. list is not inserted after several purposes as your diagram shows but after redressing the disorder .
No, it is your version that is inaccurate. The bishops put a semicolon between “defending public order” and “deterring future wrongdoing”. You replaced their semicolon with a comma.You have diagrammed a different sentence:
Again, no. The semicolons set off the four purposes, and they used semicolons because the last item on the list contains multiple items, set off by commas.The bishops used semicolons for a reason. If just retribution was the only item that explains what redressing the disorder is then only one semicolon is needed; the list is a singular. The list consists of multiple items so the semicolons are necessary because commas are used to list the several purposes of punishment.
I doubt it, but as I don’t what you refer to I can’t address it specifically, but boil it all down for me. Give me a list of the purposes of punishment, one word for each purpose.USCCB 2000 supports the sentence as I have diagrammed it.
Not so. I can only re-post the purposes as indicated by the bishops’ use of punctuation:Yes, it does: redressing, defending, deterring, and rehabilitating.
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
No. Id est, Latin for that is, followed by a sentence is an explanation. Absent a sentence, what follows i.e. is a list. The bishops give us a multiple list correctly separated by semicolons.Partly true. The i.e. is not a list; it is an explanation of what redressing the disorder means.
No. The last item on the list is promoting which has three objects, properly separated by commas.Again, no. The semicolons set off the four purposes, and they used semicolons because the last item on the list contains multiple items, set off by commas.
? I already did. According to the USCCB 2005, the purposes of punishment are: 1) redressing, 2) promoting reform, 3) promoting repentance, and 4) promoting conversion.Give me a list of the purposes of punishment,
I didn’t read all 100+ posts of this thread, but the official Catholic Church position on the death penalty may be found in the Catechism at section 2267, revised in Feb. 2018. I don’t think it’s very confusing. Seems quite clear to me.That being said, I’m wondering what the Catholic position on the death penalty is. I’ve looked through the Catechism and I’m still confused what the answer is.
There has been post going back and forth on this: I am surprised that you didn’t do the following.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
No. This is not what they said, nor is it what the church teaches.According to the USCCB 2005, the purposes of punishment are: 1) redressing, 2) promoting reform, 3) promoting repentance, and 4) promoting conversion.
It does all seem so simple on a cursory reading; it is only when one goes below the surface that questions arise. For example, last summer at their annual conference (in Baltimore) the issue was raised regarding the English translation, and one of the bishops rose and asked what “inadmissible” meant. The response given, and regrettably accepted, was that it was an ambiguity - an “elegant ambiguity” to be precise.I didn’t read all 100+ posts of this thread, but the official Catholic Church position on the death penalty may be found in the Catechism at section 2267, revised in Feb. 2018. I don’t think it’s very confusing. Seems quite clear to me.
I don’t think so. This is not what the church has taught.As a Catholic for me the death penalty is Old Testament justice, it’s an eye for an eye. The New Testament completely changed that way of looking at things.
The thing is that justice is the same today as its always been; there is no OT justice that differs from NT justice. Justice consists of treating a person as he deserves because of his actions. This is why the church teaches (CCC 2266) that “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”From a practical perspective you obviously need justice to be seen to be done and prison takes care of this…
It’s about as intrinsically evil as “just war”.I’ll just ask you what I’ve asked others: does inadmissible mean that capital punishment is or is not intrinsically evil?
OK, then in what sense can it be termed inadmissible given that there are conceivably circumstances when it would be not only admissible but required?A circumstance could arise where we’d need the death penalty.
This is where the earlier discussion about the primary objective of punishment comes in, because it assuredly is not protection.We don’t need it in our current Western society in order to protect the community
You can reasonably argue that it is a bad idea, and would be harmful if used, but morality does not apply where there can be a valid difference of opinion about what is or is not harmful. If the argument against capital punishment is prudential, as I believe it to be, then each of us is entitled to our own opinion as it is not a moral question.So the Church doesn’t see it as morally justified.
This is where my dispute with o_mlly and OneSheep foundered. It all has to do with understanding the primary objective of punishment, which is “redressing the disorder caused by the offense.” That means retribution, which is understood as a matter of justice and is why the penalty must be commensurate in severity with the nature of the crime. Protection is not primary; it is secondary.Most of the people I know (primarily non-Catholic) who support death penalty are coming at it from a “revenge” or “eye for an eye” perspective. That’s easy to dismiss as not in accordance with Catholic teaching.
The primary objective of punishment isn’t being addressed. It is the sentence. Sentences for different crimes have varied according to place, time and circumstances since the history of the world. No one is arguing to do away with punishment itself.It all has to do with understanding the primary objective of punishment, which is “ redressing the disorder caused by the offense .” That means retribution, which is understood as a matter of justice and is why the penalty must be commensurate in severity with the nature of the crime.
I’ve given an authoritative source on correct grammar. You have not. The document reads just as I have indicated.This is not what they said, nor is it what the church teaches.
- The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution , deterrence , and reform . (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. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment. For the practice of punishment both presupposes a previous transgression against the law and involves the involuntary deprivation of certain goods. But we maintain that this need does not require nor does it justify taking the life of the criminal, even in cases of murder.
Again, the citation extracted above from Montana Catholic Conference 1981 does not say retribution is primary. Nor does this single sentence you offered reflect the clear meaning of the entire statement.Punishment is commonly held to have four purposes. They are: (1) protection (of society), (2) retribution , (3) rehabilitation , and (4) deterrence . (Montana Catholic Conference, 1981)
And, specifically to retribution as a purpose, not only is retribution not primary, retribution as a purpose of punishment is impossible.The following paper proposes to examine the issues involved and to provide support for the stand against capital punishment.
(continued)B. Retribution
Retribution is defined as something administered or executed in recompense, to return in kind. It is defined by some as simply revenge. Part of the reasoning in the retribution theory includes Hegel’s notion of establishing an equilibrium of restoring the state of being to what it had been before the crime was committed. This, of course, is impossible because the victim cannot be restored. “We do not, in the name of the State, stab, shoot, throw acid, maim or mug persons convicted of such aggravated assaults. Where, then, is the rational logic for retention of the death penalty for inflicting death?”
The cardinal priest’s credentials as a theologian are par excellence. However, Dulles, having never been ordained as bishop, does not have Magisterial authority in his commentaries.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 . (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
Again, the citation extracted above from Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2019 does not say retribution is primary. Nor does this single sentence you offered reflect the clear meaning of the entire statement.According to Church teaching, a civil government’s response to crime should be to uphold justice by achieving four goals: rehabilitate the offender, protect society from the offender, deter future offenses, and redress the disorder caused by the offense. (Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2019)
Mining documents and extracting out of context sentences to support a claim is misleading. Please stop this practice.Therefore, the TCCB supports efforts to rehabilitate those who commit nonviolent state jail felonies, especially by providing for educational and vocational train-ing in order to help them live virtuous lives and contribute to the common good of Texas.
It is important to understand this issue in such a way that we don’t have to choose what to believe, that everything can fit together as a coherent whole. I think this is the problem with interpreting the catechism as you appear to have done.Even though the official catechism has been altered and it now declares that capital punishment is unacceptable, I strongly disagree with it.