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

[Ender]

The primary objective of punishment isn’t being addressed.

This point needs to be resolved. We cannot have a rational discussion about punishment if we don’t agree on what it is meant to accomplish.

I’ve given an authoritative source on correct grammar. You have not.

How about this? I have a good friend who for five or six years was the editor of a national magazine. I sent the sentence from the USCCB to her for review. This is her response.

In the Chicago Manual of Style , the entry at 6.58 explains the use of semicolons in a complex series: “When items in a series themselves contain internal punctuation, separating the items with semicolons can aid clarity.” The AP Stylebook indicates their use thus: “Use semicolons to separate elements of a series when the items in the series are long or when individual segments contain material that also must be set off by commas.” (Chicago and AP are the two most common style rulebooks used in publishing today.)

Each item between semicolons, then, should be seen as a separate entry in that definition – to simplify, the “several purposes” of punishment are “redressing,” “defending,” “deterring,” and “promoting.” The semicolons are being used here because the last item in that list – “promoting” – itself has multiple aims: “reform, repentance, and conversion of those who commit evil acts.” The words “reform, repentance, and conversion” apply to “promoting”; the words “redressing,” “defending,” “deterring,” and “promoting” refer to the “several purposes of punishment.”

Regarding “i.e.”: “I.e.” is an abbreviation of the Latin “id est,” translated “that is” (a handy way to think of it is " i n e ssence"); as opposed to “e.g.,” – “exempli gratia,” meaning “for example” (where what comes after the e.g. might be a partial list, but not every instance). The “i.e.” here refers only to “redressing the disorder” – “just retribution” is the “essence” of “redressing the disorder.” Because of the semicolon following it, it does not apply to the rest of the sentence.

Reading this sentence is like using the order of operations in mathematics: Everything after the colon is the definition of the whole (the several purposes of punishment). Everything between semicolons is a distinct example in that that particular series (redressing, defending, deterring, and promoting).

 

[Ender]

The citation extracted above from USCCB 1980 does not say retribution is primary.

True. I cited it only to list the purposes of punishment.

USCCB 1980 relegates retribution to the third purpose of punishment and teaches that retribution never warrants capital punishment:

Like their later comment, this was an unordered list. They simply identified what the objectives were; they did not prioritize them.

the citation extracted above from Montana Catholic Conference 1981 does not say retribution is primary.

True again. I cited them only because they offered a complete list of the objectives, not because they prioritized them.

And, specifically to retribution as a purpose, not only is retribution not primary, retribution as a purpose of punishment is impossible.

Clearly the church disagrees with this. Retribution is a matter of justice.

On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 3:10:11): “Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.”

We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil, done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus, who hurts the hand, hurts the man. When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society. (Aquinas ST I-II 21,3)

 

[Ender]

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.

Oh my. We’re not talking about those who have authority to write magisterial documents, but about those who have the intelligence to understand them. Besides, Dulles said nothing different than anyone else, which was the point of all those citations.

Again, the citation extracted above from Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2019 does not say retribution is primary.

Again, I cited it simply to clarify the objectives of punishment, which they listed. They said nothing about which was primary.

In fact, the document does not even mention “retribution” as a purpose of punishment, much less its primary purpose

I am making the point that redressing the disorder means retribution. I cite things to make specific points; I don’t expect one citation to resolve everything. The catechism says redressing the disorder is primary. I don’t need to argue that point. If, however, I show that redressing the disorder and retribution are the same then it is proven that retribution is the primary objective of punishment.

Mining documents and extracting out of context sentences to support a claim is misleading. Please stop this practice.

Nothing else they said changes the meaning of the sentence I quoted. That they have a different position on capital punishment than I do is irrelevant. That sentence stands alone; its meaning is not changed by anything they said elsewhere.

 

[o_mlly]

The “i.e.” here refers only to “redressing the disorder” – “just retribution” is the “essence” of “redressing the disorder.” Because of the semicolon following it, it does not apply to the rest of the sentence.

This is false. Following your friend’s own explanation, the above could be true if the sentence contained only 1 semicolon. However, the sentence contains 3.

Further, assigning “essence” as descriptive to the first item in the list is clearly beyond the text.

One may maintain a sentence’s integrity by deleting a (i.e.) subordinate clause. Doing so yields the sentence just as I have previously diagrammed it:

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, and promoting reform, repentance, and conversion of those who commit evil acts.

Clearly the church disagrees with this. Retribution is a matter of justice.

Retribution is a matter of justice. No one denies that; certainly not Aquinas. What is not taught and is critical to your argument and not demonstrated in your citations is that retribution is primary.

(Although the Angelic Doctor is unparalleled as a theologian, his teachings are not Magisterial. Some of Aquinas’ beliefs are rejected as doctrine.)

We’re not talking about those who have authority to write magisterial documents …

We most certainly are looking for Magisterial authority.

Besides, Dulles said nothing different than anyone else, which was the point of all those citations.

And, we are still looking for a Magisterial document which supports your claim that retribution is primary.

The catechism says redressing the disorder is primary. I don’t need to argue that point. If, however, I show that redressing the disorder and retribution are the same then it is proven that retribution is the primary objective of punishment.

The former is agreed: redressing the disorder is primary. But you have not shown that redressing the disorder and retribution are identities. Retribution is one of three objectives required to redress the disorder and, as the bishops teach emphatically, retribution is not primary as your own citations confirm.

Nothing else they said changes the meaning of the sentence I quoted.

Agreed. We are arguing that your interpretation of that sentence is fatally flawed.

That they [bishops] have a different position on capital punishment than I do is irrelevant.

I disagree.

 

[Ender]

This is false.

This is the best I can do: the explanation from a professional who actually edited documents for a living. Clearly that is inadequate to stand up to your personal opinion.

What is not taught and is critical to your argument and not demonstrated in your citations is that retribution is primary.

If A=B and B=C then A=C. This is basic logic. What I am showing is this:

A (retribution) = B (redress the disorder),
B(redress the disorder) = C (primary objective of punishment)
A (retribution) = C (primary objective of punishment)

I don’t need to prove B=C; the catechism explicitly states it, nor do I need to find a statement saying A=C. All I have to do is show that A=B, and A=C is logically forced.

We most certainly are looking for Magisterial authority.

No, we’re looking for someone who can understand grammar…like the editor I cited. To me your explanation of the statement from the USCCB is incomprehensible. You will find no one at all who supports your interpretation while I can cite several who have expressly said the same thing I do, but your rejection of the citations I have provided indicates you would find an excuse to reject others if I supplied them.

 

[sealabeag]

I asked this question a while ago in the forums and the above poster Ender helped me figure it out.
What I learned:

1. The catechism is not a vehicle for expounding new teaching, it is simply a collection of the pre-existing teaching of the Church. Thus I would say Pope Francis’ entering of this new statement was an error. Which is fine, infallibility is not applicable here anyway.
2. Pope Francis’ new entry regarding the death penalty is a prudential judgement, which does not require our agreement in order to be a faithful Catholic.

Pretty simple, really!

 

[Emeraldlady]

If A=B and B=C then A=C. This is basic logic. What I am showing is this:

A (retribution) = B (redress the disorder),
B(redress the disorder) = C (primary objective of punishment)
A (retribution) = C (primary objective of punishment)

I don’t need to prove B=C; the catechism explicitly states it, nor do I need to find a statement saying A=C. All I have to do is show that A=B, and A=C is logically forced.

“Redress the disorder” in the context of human law means redress of the common good not divine retribution which can only be Gods.

"…human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6). ST I II 96 1

 

[kapp19]

Goodness. Not going to read this entire thread, but have noted the usual errors - all of which are addressed by Feser in his book, well worth the purchase and read. He has done extensive follow-ups - and the combox discussions are even sometimes worth the read at his blog on this point.

One of the most pernicious errors is the “mistake” argument. “You can’t be certain!” Yes, well, plenty of people are sentenced to life in prison who are innocent. They waste away behind bars. Or, even if they eventually get out, are we supposed to give them those years back? We can’t. We can give them some money maybe, if we determine their innocence (again, only probable - we are human beings). The principle of totality also includes the soul and its eternity (also relevant… regarding the elicitation of repentance, as was one of the major points under Pius IX - every parish in Rome knew about the upcoming execution, the criminal was given ample opportunity to amend his soul, etc.).

There is just no getting around it. The Bible, the Fathers, the major Catechisms, the Popes… they all agree. A Catholic must support the legitimacy of CP in theory, even if not in practice. For crying out loud, St. Pius V had people’s heads cut off (clerics - for sodomy… see “Horredum illud scelus”). Can we dispense with the notion that we are only just now discovering mercy in the Church? It is not realistic, or respectful, or pious.

 

[o_mlly]

This is the best I can do: the explanation from a professional who actually edited documents for a living. Clearly that is inadequate to stand up to your personal opinion.

Based on the explanation your “professional” friend offered, he/she is more “friend” than “professional”. He/she missed 2 of 3 semicolons; the very reason for the consult. Astonishingly, he/she invented the descriptor “essence” and applied that qualifier to “retribution”. My, oh my.

I suppose you resorted to a friend because you could not find an online source that supports your erroneous grammatical claim on the use of semicolons in a list. As you will recall, it was not my personal opinion I offered but just such a source. The sources supporting the same are numerous.

If A=B and B=C then A=C. This is basic logic. What I am showing is this:

A (retribution) = B (redress the disorder),
B(redress the disorder) = C (primary objective of punishment)
A (retribution) = C (primary objective of punishment)

I don’t need to prove B=C; the catechism explicitly states it, nor do I need to find a statement saying A=C. All I have to do is show that A=B, and A=C is logically forced.

Correction:
A (retribution) ≠ B (redress the disorder)

a (retribution) ∈ B (redress the disorder)
d (defending) ∈ B (redress the disorder)
e (deterring) ∈ B (redress the disorder)

Lacking the equality required to apply the Associative property, your logic concluding A = C fails.

No, we’re looking for someone who can understand grammar…like the editor I cited.

Clearly, your editor is wrong. Why did you not find a reliable online grammatical source that supports your position? Because your position is wrong.

You will find no one at all who supports your interpretation …

? Type “grammatical use of semicolons in lists” into your search engine. You will find numerous sources that support me.

… while I can cite several who have expressly said the same thing I do …

No, you did not cite anyone but your “professional” friend on the grammatical issue.

And, no you did not cite any Magisterial source that teaches “retribution is the primary”. I cited from your own mined list of Magisterial publications, that each source teaches exactly the opposite to your claim: retribution is not primary.

… but your rejection of the citations I have provided indicates you would find an excuse to reject others if I supplied them. …

? I offered no excuses. I used the same documents you posted to show that the bishops completely disagree with your claim.

If you can supply additional Magisterial sources that you purport support your claim, i.e., retribution is primary, please do so. We both seek the truth as to what the Church teaches. This debate is nothing more than an honest appeal to authority.

 

[o_mlly]

One of the most pernicious errors is the “mistake” argument. “You can’t be certain!” Yes, well, plenty of people are sentenced to life in prison who are innocent. They waste away behind bars. Or, even if they eventually get out, are we supposed to give them those years back? We can’t. We can give them some money maybe, if we determine their innocence (again, only probable - we are human beings).

So if we are uncertain, it is better to kill them?

 

[o_mlly]

The catechism is not a vehicle for expounding new teaching, it is simply a collection of the pre-existing teaching of the Church. Thus I would say Pope Francis’ entering of this new statement was an error. Which is fine, infallibility is not applicable here anyway.

The catechism is a summary document. Its authority is in the footnotes. The primary sources as shown in the footnotes are: #67 C^. Lk, 23:40-43; and #68 John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.

I do agree that Pope Francis would have better followed tradition in the issuance of an encyclical rather than an amendment to the catechism to explain his development of the doctrine.

 

[Ender]

? Type “grammatical use of semicolons in lists” into your search engine. You will find numerous sources that support me.

I recall you claimed a valid source, but you couldn’t have actually provided one since your explanation is incomprehensible. In any event, this discussion has become utterly uninteresting. Even after explaining what I’m trying to do you still appear not to understand.

If you can supply additional Magisterial sources that you purport support your claim, i.e., retribution is primary , please do so

Last time: I have been trying to show that “redress the disorder” means retribution. That’s all.

The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. The section on punishment in general reaffirms the traditional formulation of the triple purpose of punishment, and it describes retribution as the first of these purposes. (R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L. 2003)

Retribution of damaged juridic order. Punishment aims to redress the disorder introduced by the offense, by depriving the offender of a good of a proportionate degree to that which was suffered by the offended, or—in the ultimate analysis—by the society. (Fr. Jim Achacoso)

Retribution is civil society’s imposition of a just penalty upon an offender who has violated the order of justice. The purpose of the punishment is to restore the order of justice so violated. (John J. Conley, S.J.)

“Protecting society is not the primary purpose of punishment,” he said. “The primary purpose of punishment is retribution (Fr. Thomas Petri O.P. Dean of the Dominican House of Studies)

The subsection briefly departs from this motif in no. 2266 to introduce punishment’s “primary purpose,” i.e., redressing the disorder introduced by deliberate crime (i.e., retribution) (E. Christian Brugger, Loyola Univ)

Evangelium Vitae , no. 56, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church , no. 2266, agree that “the primary aim” of punishment is the retributive one of “redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” (Charles E. Rice, Notre Dame Law School)

Properly speaking, retribution is a restoration of the order of justice that was disturbed by the criminal’s behavior. (Christopher Kaczor, Loyola Marymount)

The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” (USCCB, 1980) (Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Ave Maria Law School)

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s when conscience can legitimately come into conflict with the word of the Pope according to St. John Henry Newman:

I observe that conscience is not a judgment upon any speculative truth, any abstract doctrine, but bears immediately on conduct, on something to be done or not done. “Conscience,” says St. Thomas, “is the practical judgment or dictate of reason, by which we judge what hic et nunc is to be done as being good, or to be avoided as evil.” Hence conscience cannot come into direct collision with the Church’s or the Pope’s infallibility; which is engaged in general propositions, and in the condemnation of particular and given errors.

Next, I observe that, conscience being a practical dictate, a collision is possible between it and the Pope’s authority only when the Pope legislates, or gives particular orders, and the like. But a Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy.

The “abstract doctrine” or “general proposition” in this case is summed up by the Roman Catechism:

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. 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. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

The “practical dictate” would be, in a given set of circumstances, is a particular execution a “just use of this power” and, since the whole basis of civil authority is its service to the common good, whether it serves the common good.

Clearly the public policy supported by the last few Popes and most bishops is that in the current circumstances, the use of the death penalty should be abolished as not conducive to the common good and therefore not justified. Pope Francis even seems to have the same opinion regarding past circumstances.

But since the Pope and bishops are not omniscient as to the facts, this is the very kind of practical dictate where one’s conscience can come into conflict. And conscience must be followed when there is such a conflict.

Furthermore, what measures best serve the common good–which includes a just public order–is the responsibility of the civil authority. And in that realm, “The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.” (CCC 2245)

 

[o_mlly]

I have been trying to show that “redress the disorder” means retribution. That’s all.

And no one argues against retribution as part of redressing the disorder. If that is all you claim then we are finished. But you go further in your claim:

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.

Ender:

Agreed.

So the disputed fact is whether or not the Church teaches that retribution is primary in redressing the disorder. Your many citations in this last post from learned men who are not Magisterial must be dismissed; they do not speak with the authority to which you must appeal.

The Church does not teach through her theologians who often disagree. If she did then we would be many Protestant churches instead of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ.

 

[kapp19]

Hi o_mlly,

If we are uncertain by what terms? There is only imperfect certainty in judicial systems. God has certainty, however.

If the reasonable and unavoidable conclusion based on a fair judicial process carried out by lawful authority says, “This person committed the crime in question,” then the person may be sentenced. All sentences entail risks of error (so do all appeals!). It does not make sense to base the process of determining sentences around the question of certainty and “reversibility” alone. Remember that God reverses death in the end.

 

[o_mlly]

If the reasonable and unavoidable conclusion based on a fair judicial process carried out by lawful authority says, “This person committed the crime in question,” then the person may be sentenced.

In cases of capital punishment, the teaching on the quality of the verdict requires evidence that goes beyond just “reasonable”.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined …

“Fully” means to the greatest degree or extent possible. The wording suggests that the standard required for guilt in capital punishment cases elevates from beyond a reasonable to beyond a shadow of doubt. Some would argue that fully implies a standard of moral certainty.

 

[kapp19]

Oh yes, I agree that severity and reversibility should be in proportion with the level of certitude reached… they are considerations for sure, even though they are not the only considerations.