Can the Death Penalty save souls?

[Elizabeth502]

Answer to OP’s question:

Of course it can, but that’s quite a risk, even for the standard double-digit years of wait for defendants on Death Row who get automatic Appeals. Christianity is the ultimate religion of hope, by which we believe that redemption is possible for the most ostensibly hardened criminals. It may not be very likely at all, depending on the individual, but what we do not have is future vision, and miraculous things have happened to obstinate non-believers and obstinate life-long sinners.

That said, clearly a convicted serial murderer is a menace to society and usually to fellow prisoners. Government has a duty to protect society from dangerous evildoers, and people have a right to expect that protection from government, at whatever inconvenience and unhappiness that causes such prisoners.

I believe in graduated merit systems in prisons, and most of all on a focus of payback to society. (Which is part of the Catholic doctrine of restorative justice.) I grant you this seems to be easier in female prisons than in male prisoners, as the former is historically less violent and therefore maximum security is less of an issue. (Rehabilitation requires a certain amount of freedom of movement within confines, and some choices; that is often impossible in the most violent male prisons.)

I do believe in restoring the concept of rehabilitation to prison life – which had been officially abandoned I believe in the 1980’s, at least in my State, maybe not all States – noting, however, that the potential for rehabilitation has to be first demonstrated by the prisoner, and over time.

OP, I know the above digression doesn’t directly answer your question, but i.m.o. it indirectly does, in that souls are saved by a variety of methods, and, as GEddie said, terror isn’t necessarily the optimal way (at least not universally). Most people convicted of First Degree Murder, for example (as opposed to second-degree or to manslaughter) have already been able to override their consciences quite powerfully once, when faced with an opportunity to engage the conscience and also be frightened of consequences. If they could tame or dismiss terror once and willfully commit a horrific crime, they are more likely to be able to conquer fear again, when faced with the Death Penalty.

However, if they are ever able to reach a point in prison to merit a path to rehabilitation (in-house!), they will have received a kind of personal “justice” during that prison sentence as well as experiencing giving justice back to society. People internalize redemption by participating in it themselves, and thus valuing divine redemption as well. If they are convinced that they are not capable of redemption, they are more likely, it seems to me, to despair of God when faced with the DP. Removing that calendar date provides the only opportunity they might have, in most cases, for redemption at some point.

Please understand, though, I am not even vaguely a softie on crime. I could never be a defense attorney, except to protect due process. The absurd affirmative defenses and manipulative, dishonest theatrics in U.S. criminal law do absolute violence to justice, i.m.o. They make a mockery out of natural law and criminal law, both, and they desecrate truth itself in their deception. I could be a prosecutor, only.

I do believe in life sentences (without parole, when called for), and I also respect the parole process. One of the Manson murderers has repeatedly come up for parole. She’s quite a reformed woman; has done enormous good in prison, including education, including counseling others, including testimony of remorse for her crime at every parole hearing. Many of those have been televised & I have watched those hearings. However, the surviving Tate sister has appeared at every hearing and objected, and the board has never yet been willing to release the accused.

Rehabilitation is no guarantee that a prisoner will ever return to society, necessarily, but it does,i.m.o., promote the possiibility of “saved souls” much better than the DP does.

 

[Ender]

I think we should let Pope JPII speak for himself. Here is what he had to say on the matter:

There is no dispute about what the pope said. The dispute is over how we are to understand it, that is, whether it is doctrinal or prudential. I accept the interpretation Cardinal Dulles gave.* The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.* (Cardinal Dulles, 2004)

I logically disagree with our primitive ancestor’s ideas on the need for violent retribution

I don’t think you recognize that the “primitive ancestors” you disparage include virtually all of the Doctors and Fathers of the church as well as every pope at least through Pius XII. Church teaching on capital punishment did not originate in 1995.

From the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, (No. 2266) :

“In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: 'If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

What you cited is not from 2266 but from 2267 and what I asked you to explain was 2260. Do you want to try again?

Ender

 

[Ender]

As I said, “There’s nothing wrong with the wording of this old local catechism as long as one recognizes that it’s very simplified and there’s a lot more to what the Church teaches than this.”

I don’t accept that. That statement is in accord with what every catechism before it contained, none of which contain anything like what was asserted in 2267. If, however, you want the long explanation of the church’s teaching on the subject that can be found in the Catechism of Trent which not only presents the doctrine but explains its sources, something completely missing from 2267.

Here you depart from Church teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a departure from the faith but the norm for teaching the faith,

I should have been more specific: if 2267 was doctrine then it would contain within it the repudiation of the traditional teaching, but since it is prudential it does not contradict what went before it.

As I already pointed out, this is not true. This is not novel, it is a more robust understanding of the Gospel’s commandments.

You misunderstand what was said. It was not claimed that we ought now to limit capital punishment to where it is needed for defense. That could at least be considered a more “robust” understanding. What was said was that this was the traditional teaching of the church, that is, this is what was taught in the past. That claim is inaccurate.The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. (Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Professor, Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome 2007)

Ender

 

[Ender]

This is just nonsense. Even the writings of St. Thomas already restrict execution to safeguarding society. For example: “it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community.”

You read this too narrowly if you assume that the welfare of the community is limited strictly to its physical protection. Given that the primary objective of punishment is retribution (e.g. justice) it ought to be clear that justice is one of the proper goods of society. In this particular passage, however, Aquinas is making the point that the right to execute an evildoer is restricted to the magistrate and forbidden to the individual: “that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare.”

You have also misread the other citations in that while they approve of the execution of someone who is a danger to society they do not say that executions should be restricted only to those who are a physical danger, which is the point under discussion.

Likewise: “The end of the {Fifth} Commandment is the preservation and security of human life.” Catechism of Trent

The end of the fifth commandment may be the preservation of life but we are talking about the primary end of punishment, two very different concepts, especially considering that that very passage starts out by acknowledging "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."

Blessed John Paul II’s teaching that punishment “ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases… when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society” is completely consistent with what St. Thomas and the earlier Catechism wrote…

If 2267 was consistent with Traditional teaching then why is there no reference to any of those teachings in either 2267 or EV 56? In fact neither points to any prior doctrine at all.

the papal teaching furthermore demands of the faithful religious submission of mind and will.

Apparently not in this case.“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
Ender

 

[aspirant]

That statement is in accord with what every catechism before it contained

Yes, what this old local catechism says is in accord with what other catechisms have said as long as one recognizes that it’s very simplified and there’s a lot more to what the Church teaches than this.

none of which contain anything like what was asserted in 2267.

You’ve now ventured into blatant untruth as well as dissent and sowing dissension.

the Catechism of Trent

Which, as previously demonstrated, supports what Blessed John Paul II taught, that the lawful purpose of execution is “preservation and security of human life.”

if 2267 was doctrine then it would contain within it the repudiation of the traditional teaching

Because the doctrine in 2267 is entirely consistent with traditional teaching, there is no “repudiation.”

You read this too narrowly if you assume that the welfare of the community is limited strictly to its physical protection.

The welfare intended is specified in the provided passages: only when the wrongdoer poses a danger to the community may he be executed for their protection and salvation. Where circumstances do not demand execution for the preservation and security of human life, or where execution would endanger the good, execution is not permissible. Blessed John Paul II agrees with both Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It is you who do not. You are dissenting and sowing dissent.

Aquinas is making the point that the right to execute an evildoer is restricted to the magistrate and forbidden to the individual

Thomas deliberately makes many more points than this one in the articles (plural) previously quoted.

that very passage starts out by acknowledging “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.”

And it is “obedience” precisely because “The end of the {Fifth} 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.”

If 2267 was consistent with Traditional teaching then why is there no reference to any of those teachings in either 2267 or EV 56?

It is not needed because it is known.
Cardinal Ratzinger:

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty.

Of course there may be legitimate diversity of opinion regarding whether the Church’s criteria apply to a particular case. Note well what he does not say: He does not say that the criteria themselves are subject to personal opinion.

 

[aspirant]

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.” (Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Professor, Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome 2007)

It is interesting that you rip this out of context to favor your dissent. Flannery does argue that, despite how it may appear to some readers, Blessed John Paul II’s teaching in CCC 2267 cannot be based on Thomas’ arguments regarding personal self-defense in ST II-II.64.7, cited in CCC 2263-2264. But Flannery’s ultimate point is that Blessed John Paul II’s teaching in CCC 2267 really is consistent with other elements in Aristotle and Thomas:
Kevin Flannery:

We have already seen how Aristotle’s two-tiered approach to what is natural can be applied to political issues such as killing in war… Given the conditions of life in an imperfect world, a nation that defends itself by means of intentional killings can be acting in a perfectly natural—that is to say, ethical—way {“natural” in a secondary sense}. But in the primary sense of what is natural, all killing is unnatural. Thus, once the conditions that allow for war’s naturalness are no longer present, the killing that was once natural becomes unnatural. Moreover, since “second intention natural law” is a derogation from “first intention natural law,” the latter enjoys a privileged status such that, if it is possible to apply it, one should. In other words, one should always prefer peace, although war is not per se immoral. We can say similar things with respect to capital punishment. Throughout the history of the Church, Catholic philosophers and theologians have said that capital punishment is licit {second intention natural law}. But they have done this without ever denying that, in a more abstract sense, any such killing goes against what is favored even by nature {first intention natural law}. Given certain conditions, capital punishment is a perfectly reasonable political expedient. Since reasonableness determines morality, this expedient found its way into human law… there are very few Christian (or formerly Christian) nations in existence today that have not had some form of capital punishment in their legal history. But, even still, few of these nations (or their legal experts) would have resisted the argument that there is something foul or disordered about the practice. In itself killing is bad, but allowed. Mercy, in itself, is good and invoked whenever possible and appropriate.

The truth that informs Pope John Paul II’s teaching on capital punishment is, I believe, that killing in itself is unnatural, but is allowed in exceptional circumstances… in my opinion, it would have been better to express this truth in the traditional terms found in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas than… to attempt to assimilate it to personal self-defense… By discarding the account of capital punishment in terms of personal self-defense, the Church would be… removing one source of confusion among contemporary ethicists regarding the role of intention in the analysis of human action.

In other words, Flannery is saying CCC 2267 cannot be based on ST II-II.64.7. He is not claiming, however, that CCC 2267 is without Artistotelian and Thomistic foundation. In fact, he argues that CCC 2267 is consistent with Aristotle and Thomas’ two-tiered concept of “natural” and the conviction that “since ‘second intention natural law’ is a derogation from ‘first intention natural law,’ the latter enjoys a privileged status such that, if it is possible to apply it, one should.” In other words, in circumstances where execution is not strictly required, killing becomes unnatural and no one should resort to killing.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

There is no dispute about what the pope said. The dispute is over how we are to understand it, that is, whether it is doctrinal or prudential.

I think I understand Pope JPII’s statement that the death penalty should be banned to mean that he was against the death penalty. Whether it appears in the form of a bull, a writ, a homily or a discussion over coffee is of no matter to me. He called upon us to work to end it. That is plainly said.

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

[/INDENT]

That is correct.

I don’t think you recognize that the “primitive ancestors” you disparage include virtually all of the Doctors and Fathers of the church as well as every pope at least through Pius XII. Church teaching on capital punishment did not originate in 1995.

Our understanding of the world around us has changed more in the past 50 years than it had in the prior 50,000 years of human history. The world that the Doctors and Fathers of the church lived in was more akin to the world of the people who drew animals on the walls of caves than the world we live in. It is our duty and our destiny to grow and to think for ourselves.

What you cited is not from 2266 but from 2267 and what I asked you to explain was 2260. Do you want to try again?

Once again, this is a matter of dimension in thinking, and an ability to apply nuance and creativity to the conversation. Let me show you how that works:

-When I quoted 2267, I was using in fact using it to explain 2260.

-You see, 2267comes numerically after 2260.

-Which means it was logged after 2260.

-Which goes on to mean that 2260 was known at the time 2267 was logged.

-Which in turn means that 2267 has the intent of further defining, adding clarity to, or even superseding 2260.

Get it?

 

[Ender]

Which, as previously demonstrated, supports what Blessed John Paul II taught, that the lawful purpose of execution is “preservation and security of human life.”

Aquinas and Trent do not say that ***the ***purpose of execution is security; they acknowledge that this is a benefit executions provide. The primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice, not protection, and this is the main problem with 2267: it ignores the obligations of justice.

Because the doctrine in 2267 is entirely consistent with traditional teaching, there is no “repudiation.”

Does the Catechism of Trent say that capital punishment may be used *only *when it is needed to protect society? No. Does any other catechism say this? No. Does any Doctor or Father of the church say this? No. Has any pope prior to JPII said this? No. So exactly where in the traditional teaching is it said?

The welfare intended is specified in the provided passages: only when the wrongdoer poses a danger to the community may he be executed for their protection and salvation.

Here is the passage you cited: Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community… it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good

This says if a person is a danger to society he may be executed. It does not say the only reason to execute someone is because he is dangerous. This goes to the question of what kind of crimes may justify the death penalty (rape, assault, robbery); it does not address the question of whether a crime merits execution solely because of the nature of the crime.

As I said earlier, you interpret “the common good” too narrowly when you assume it means mere physical protection, which was not how Aquinas used the term. Nevertheless, as stated above the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin.
Protection is no part of this discussion of the common good and execution is justified in combating the corruption (not simply the physical protection) of society. This is the same sense in which the Catechism of Trent said:Of these remedies* the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *
The murderer is executed not simply to protect society but primarily because the grievous nature of the sin demands it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Continued…

Where circumstances do not demand execution for the preservation and security of human life, or where execution would endanger the good, execution is not permissible.

It is now and always has been morally permissible. It is opposed now because the Magisterium believes that it endangers the good. That is a practical rather than a moral objection.

[A reference] is not needed because it is known.

There are thousands of references in the catechism. They are put there because the church doesn’t simply assert things to be true but shows why they are true and how all things fit with what has been taught in the past. 2267 is an exception because there is no past to fit it to.

Of course there may be legitimate diversity of opinion regarding whether the Church’s criteria apply to a particular case. Note well what he does not say: He does not say that the criteria themselves are subject to personal opinion.

You should read the comments of Aquinas and Trent as carefully as you read Ratzinger’s. This statement is somewhat vague on that point. There are other reasons for taking the broader perspective.*The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. *(USCCB, 2005)
Can you imagine the bishops making a statement such as this about any church doctrine? Replace death penalty with abortion or euthanasia and it is obvious how ludicrous this passage would be. Bishops express both judgment and condemnation of acts that are contrary to church doctrines. Why would they be loathe to do so in this case?

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is interesting that you rip this out of context to favor your dissent. Flannery does argue that, despite how it may appear to some readers, Blessed John Paul II’s teaching in CCC 2267 cannot be based on Thomas’ arguments regarding personal self-defense in ST II-II.64.7, cited in CCC 2263-2264. But Flannery’s ultimate point is that Blessed John Paul II’s teaching in CCC 2267 really is consistent with other elements in Aristotle and Thomas:

If you are concerned with context then you should at least have responded to the statement I made rather than attack me for something I didn’t address.

I was speaking about a particular assertion made in 2267 which had to do with the Traditional teaching of the church. That assertion was also addressed by Flannery in his article and I cited it. Not referring to other comments on a different subject is hardly ripping out of context the citation I used.

If you choose to cite Flannery’s arguments in defense of JPII’s position on capital punishment you may surely do so but this doesn’t change the fact that Flannery, who you approvingly cite as a supporter of JPII’s teaching, flatly rejected the claim made in 2267 about the Traditional teaching of the church.

It is a bit ironic that you would use Flannery to also point out that it is not valid to claim that the new teaching on capital punishment is based on the concept of self defense, an argument many opponents of capital punishment have relied on.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

Telling ANYONE you are going to kill them in the morning will focus their mind.

They don’t have to be guilty of anything.

Being guilty or not, or deserving of death or not is not what makes someone focus - it’s the nearness of death.

Maybe as a society we should execute atheists just to give them a chance for a conversion experience.

Or liberals,

Or trads,

Or whoever we don’t agree with…

 

[Ender]

Our understanding of the world around us has changed more in the past 50 years than it had in the prior 50,000 years of human history. The world that the Doctors and Fathers of the church lived in was more akin to the world of the people who drew animals on the walls of caves than the world we live in. It is our duty and our destiny to grow and to think for ourselves.

I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a more dismissive attitude toward sacred Tradition and Scripture. What you regard as irrelevant the church considers to be of equal importance with the teaching Magisterium. I think you need an attitude adjustment.

Once again, this is a matter of dimension in thinking, and an ability to apply nuance and creativity to the conversation. Let me show you how that works:

-When I quoted 2267, I was using in fact using it to explain 2260.

-You see, 2267comes numerically after 2260.

-Which means it was logged after 2260.

-Which goes on to mean that 2260 was known at the time 2267 was logged.

-Which in turn means that 2267 has the intent of further defining, adding clarity to, or even superseding 2260.

Get it?

I got it … 2260 is meaningful only to those who have not yet read all the way to 2267. It would seem a bit confusing to insert 2260 only to abrogate it seven sections later but I will confess that this is the extent to which one must go in order to ignore what has been said. Perhaps aspirant can provide a better explanation; he is very well informed on this topic.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Answer to OP’s question:

• Government has a duty to protect society from dangerous evildoers…
• I believe in … a focus of payback to society. (Which is part of the Catholic doctrine of restorative justice.)
• I do believe in restoring the concept of rehabilitation to prison life…
• However, if they are ever able to reach a point in prison to merit a path to rehabilitation (in-house!), they will have received a kind of personal “justice” during that prison sentence as well as experiencing giving justice back to society.
• The absurd affirmative defenses and manipulative, dishonest theatrics in U.S. criminal law do absolute violence to justice

Punishment according to the church has four objectives, most of which you’ve touched on (you didn’t mention deterrence). *The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles)
The OP’s question and your responses don’t discuss the issue in terms of the primary objective however which alone justifies the degree of punishment that can be applied.

The question the OP asked does lead to another question: suppose capital punishment did save souls, would that justify its use? That is the justification given for using the death penalty when the objective is protecting society. Why not for the objective of rehabilitation, for saving men’s souls? Is not eternal salvation a greater good than mere physical existence? Both security and rehabilitation are secondary objectives of punishment so if capital punishment is appropriate in securing one such objective why would it not be appropriate to achieve the others as well?

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

Punishment according to the church has four objectives, most of which you’ve touched on (you didn’t mention deterrence). *The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles)
The OP’s question and your responses don’t discuss the issue in terms of the primary objective however which alone justifies the degree of punishment that can be applied.

The question the OP asked does lead to another question: suppose capital punishment did save souls, would that justify its use? That is the justification given for using the death penalty when the objective is protecting society. Why not for the objective of rehabilitation, for saving men’s souls? Is not eternal salvation a greater good than mere physical existence? Both security and rehabilitation are secondary objectives of punishment so if capital punishment is appropriate in securing one such objective why would it not be appropriate to achieve the others as well?

Ender

I disagree that I did not respond to the OP’s question. I explained that the question involves an assumption on our part when we construct a timeline for repentance. The Church herself has never done that. The Church always leaves open the possibility for repentance at some unknown, unprojected time frame, including at the moment of death when the person has not expressed regret in any form until that moment.

I also addressed the separate issue of whether the supposed “terror” of a timeline does or does not promote repentance. The variations in human response cannot be predicted, particularly with the volatility I elucidated about criminals, especially the very variety of criminal who is typicall sentenced to death, which is still the minority of convicted criminals.

By the way, I believe, Ender, that it is you who are non-responsive, in this particular post I’m referring to. I am not challenging Church statements on the purpose of punishment or imprisonment, although I will note that the concept of restorative justice is part of Church teaching. The question the OP asked was not centered on purposes of punishment or even the legitimacy of the DP. The question was on personal redemption as a justification for the DP. Given the Church’s position on the unknowability of when personal redemption can occur, I believe I did respond to the OP’s question.

 

[Ender]

I disagree that I did not respond to the OP’s question.

You did indeed; I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.

I am not challenging Church statements on the purpose of punishment or imprisonment, although I will note that the concept of restorative justice is part of Church teaching.

I don’t want to guess at what you mean by restorative justice. Do you mean retribution or perhaps restitution?

The question the OP asked was not centered on purposes of punishment or even the legitimacy of the DP. The question was on personal redemption as a justification for the DP.

Even though the OP didn’t address the purposes of punishment it is helpful to recognize that redemption - rehabilitation - is in fact a valid objective. If it was not a valid objective then I think that would argue against it. I was trying to point out the parallel between using capital punishment to achieve security and using it to achieve redemption. 2267 says capital punishment is acceptable to satisfy the former objective so why would it not also be acceptable to satisfy the latter one as well?

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

Even though the OP didn’t address the purposes of punishment it is helpful to recognize that redemption - rehabilitation - is in fact a valid objective. If it was not a valid objective then I think that would argue against it. I was trying to point out the parallel between using capital punishment to achieve security and using it to achieve redemption. …2267 says capital punishment is acceptable to satisfy the former objective so why would it not also be acceptable to satisfy the latter one as well?

(1) because secular redemption (i.e., rehabilitation) and spiritual redemption are two different things, even though they certainly can overlap (some prisoners state that their personal reform was contiguous with, or even due to, their renewal or discovery of religion), they do not necessarily overlap, and they are certainly not equivalent.

(2) While redemption might “guarantee” or hopefully promise, security, security does not guarantee redemption. People (not just prisoners, but including them) can be trained into submission to civil authority. Others can be persuaded that such submission has practical and even selfish value to them. Redemption, OTOH, assumes internal change. God is not fooled when our outward behavior conforms to required moral or civil law, while lacking a change of heart and being devoid of purity.

There is also evidence that released prisoners who have served their time and merely understood intellectually the requirements, and the value, in submitting to civil law, have a high recidividism rate. The impulses to crime remain when moral conviction is lacking. (Recall the movie, A Clockwork Orange, in which the villains were eventually programmed – drugged, as I recall – to conform to society but remained evil within.)

Similarly, behavioral therapy has been used on populations such as some categories of the mentally ill (BPD, OCD, and more), as well as criminal populations. The results of these efforts are in themselves unreliable.

I don’t want to guess at what you mean by restorative justice. Do you mean retribution or perhaps restitution?

*“Restorative justice” repairs the harm caused when a crime is committed. It is a community-centered approach to justice that views crime as a violation of people and relationships, rather than simply a violation of law. Restorative justice focuses on the victim’s needs and the offender’s responsibility to repair harm and foster healing…

Justice involves right order. Restorative justice involves the return to right order, effected through the acceptance of responsibility, the assignment of appropriate punishment and the return or restoration of as many as possible to the human community. The appropriate punishment redresses the harm done to the victims, their families and the wider…" *
catholicsmobilizing.org/programs/restorative-justice/

IOW, it is a movement (not a doctrine) which grows from Catholic social teaching.

A complete statement from the bishops of Louisiana perhaps best explicates the thinking. I focus especially on page 5 of the following document:

catholicsmobilizing.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/JusticeMercy.pdf

Again, we must not assume that realism should not enter into the picture. And in fact that word appears in the document. Any measures which put innocent persons at risk are measures which in themselves violate justice, gravely.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a more dismissive attitude toward sacred Tradition and Scripture.

I am not being dismissive at all in regards to the evil that some would try to achieve by the misuse of tradition, coupled with contempt for our Pope’s call to end such practices, with the aim of visiting misery and cruelty on those who in spite of their grave misdeeds have been rendered defenseless. John Paul II was clearly against it, and the current Pope says that those who are for it should abstain from communion. And still you insist that our Church calls for it.

As for scripture, you know very well that those same scriptures call for the death penalty for minor infractions of cultural code, for instance, prescribing putting disobedient children to death. You really should knock it off.

What you regard as irrelevant the church considers to be of equal importance with the teaching Magisterium

.

Obfuscation of the meaning and current understanding of the Magisterium with the aim of enabling those who would kill defenseless creations of God is not simply an academic matter of point of law. It is a very grave thing. I hope that you will come to understand the gravity of what you are attempting to do.

I think you need an attitude adjustment.

My attitude stands with moral clarity, and a firm conviction to oppose any attempt to use the name of our Church to denigrate the sanctity of any life.

I got it … 2260 is meaningful only to those who have not yet read all the way to 2267. It would seem a bit confusing to insert 2260 only to abrogate it seven sections later but I will confess that this is the extent to which one must go in order to ignore what has been said. Perhaps aspirant can provide a better explanation; he is very well informed on this topic.

You are trying to obfuscate again. 2260 was not inserted after 2267. It came first. 2267 was added later to add clarity to 2260 in regard to the Church’s commitment to the protection of life, and objection to the death penalty. Every time you try to muddy the waters on this, I will call you on it.

 

[aspirant]

Aquinas and Trent do not say that the purpose of execution is security

They both say it rather clearly, as we’ve already seen. You’re just denying it because you’re a dissenter who rationalizes his dissent with feigned acceptance of earlier teaching. You’re not fooling other people here, but you’re still trying, perhaps because you feel some need to justify your dissent to yourself. Good luck with that.

Does the Catechism of Trent say that capital punishment may be used only when it is needed to protect society?

According to the CCT, the reason “exception” to the commandment may be lawful is that the goal of execution is the same as the goal of the fifth commandment: “the preservation and security of human life.” No other reason is provided that would, by itself or in combination with reasons other than preservation of human life, justify (much less require) an exception to the commandment’s prohibition of homicide. This does not in any way conflict with the teaching of Blessed John Paul II that if the goal of preserving human life may be met by other means we should abstain from execution. In fact, the Catechism of the Council of Trent implicitly suggests what the blessed pope taught: Where the goal of the commandment could be met by other means, it is reasonable that the exception to the commandment would cease. Your unwillingness to submit to papal teaching is certainly not based on adherence to the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Does any Doctor or Father of the church say this?

What the blessed pope taught is, in fact, also consistent with many of their teachings, as well as what Flannery said about the privileged status of “first intention natural law.” Even Church Fathers who believed that the death penalty may be licitly used in some circumstances (as Pope John Paul II agreed) taught that Christian morality favors sparing the convicted execution (also consistent with the blessed pope).

St. Augustine provides a good example. He allowed that “if… there were no other means established to curb the malice of the wicked, extreme necessity might perhaps urge that such men be put to death.” But he also argued, both generally and in the cases of particular murderers, that public authorities should limit sentences to non-lethal punishments whenever possible.

Augustine:

In fact, there is only one thing of which we are much afraid in your administration of justice… {that} you should… consider that {the crimes of our opponents} ought to be punished with a severity corresponding to the enormity of the crime, and not with the moderation which is suitable to Christian forbearance. We beseech you, in the name of Jesus Christ, not to act in this manner. For we do not seek to revenge ourselves in this world; nor ought the things which we suffer to reduce us to such distress of mind as to leave no room in our memory for the precepts in regard to this which we have received from Him for whose truth and in whose name we suffer; we “love our enemies,” and we “pray for them.” It is not their death, but their deliverance from error, that we seek to accomplish by the help of the terror of judges and of laws, whereby they may be preserved from falling under the penalty of eternal judgment; we do not wish either to see the exercise of discipline towards them neglected, or, on the other hand, to see them subjected to the severer punishments which they deserve. Do you, therefore, check their sins in such a way, that the sinners may be spared to repent of their sins. We beg you, therefore… to forget that you have the power of capital punishment, and not to forget our request… If… your opinion be, that death must be the punishment of men convicted of these crimes, you will deter us from endeavouring to bring anything of this kind before your tribunal; and this being discovered, they will proceed with more unrestrained boldness to accomplish speedily our destruction, when upon us is imposed and enjoined the necessity of choosing rather to suffer death at their hands, than to bring them to death by accusing them at your bar.

This letter is particularly stunning because St. Augustine says he and other African Catholics would rather be killed by their persecutors than to testify against persecutors who would be subject to the death penalty.

(cont’d)

 

[aspirant]

Augustine:

This news has plunged me into the deepest anxiety, lest perchance your Excellency should judge {our opponents} worthy, according to the laws, of punishment not less severe than suffering in their own persons the same injuries as they have inflicted on others {i.e. death}. Wherefore I write this letter to implore you by your faith in Christ, and by the mercy of Christ the Lord Himself, by no means to do this or permit it to be done… we do not wish to have the sufferings of the servants of God avenged by the infliction of punishments equal to those sufferings, as in the way of retaliation. Not, of course, that we object to the removal from these wicked men of the liberty to perpetrate further crimes; but our desire is rather that justice be satisfied without the taking of their lives or the maiming of their bodies in any part, and that, by such coercive measures as may be in accordance with the laws, they be turned from their insane frenzy to the quietness of men in their sound judgment, or compelled to give up mischievous violence and betake themselves to some useful labour. This is indeed called a penal sentence; but who does not see that when a restraint is put upon the boldness of savage violence, and the remedies fitted to produce repentance are not withdrawn, this discipline should be called a benefit rather than vindictive punishment? …Christian judge… be not provoked by the atrocity of their sinful deeds to gratify the passion of revenge, but rather be moved by the wounds which these deeds have inflicted on their own souls to exercise a desire to heal them… If you do not hearken to me asking this favour as a friend, hearken to me offering this counsel as a bishop… it becomes you to hearken to me as a bishop commanding with authority, my noble and justly distinguished lord and much-loved son… let not the sufferings of Catholic servants of God, which ought to be useful in the spiritual upbuilding of the weak, be sullied by the retaliation of injuries on those who did them wrong, but rather, tempering the rigour of justice, let it be your care as sons of the Church to commend both your own faith and your Mother’s clemency.

Augustine did not speak this way only in particular cases to particular judges, but also in sermons to the Catholic faithful: “So do not condemn people to death, or while you are attacking the sin you will destroy the man. Do not condemn to death, and there will be someone there who can repent. Do not have a person put to death and you will have someone who can be reformed. As a man having this kind of love for men in your heart, be a judge of the earth… I don’t deny that penalties must be applied. I don’t forbid it. But let it be done in a spirit of love a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming.” In all of the preceding it may be clearly seen that Christian morality favors sparing the convicted execution, that what Flannery called the “first intention natural law” is privileged. It reminds me of St. Anselm: “He is better who is good to the righteous and the wicked than he who is good to the righteous alone… and he who is good to the wicked, both by punishing and sparing them, is better than he who is good by punishing them alone.”

Of crucial concern to Augustine is that executed men would no longer have opportunity to repent. St. Ambrose expressed the same concern: “From the point of view of our faith, no one ought to slay a person who in the course of nature still would have time for repentance up to the very moment of his death. A guilty man-- provided a premature punishment had not deprived him of life-- could well procure forgiveness by redeeming himself by an act of repentance, however belated.” Likewise, St. John Chrysostom praised the “moral wisdom” of Christian monks who protested a death sentence by the Emperor, saying, “if you put to death the image of God, how will you be again able to revoke the deed! Or how to reanimate those who are deprived of life, and to restore their souls to their bodies?” These Fathers clearly support rendering the convicted incapable of doing harm without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself. As the Code of Canon Law expresses it, “salvation of souls is the supreme law.”

Therefore, as Pope Saint Nicholas wrote to the Bulgars: “{I}n every possible circumstance, save the life of the body and soul of each individual. You should save from death not only the innocent but also criminals, because Christ has saved you from the death of the soul.” Christian morality favors sparing the convicted execution.

(cont’d)

 

[aspirant]

It does not say the only reason to execute someone is because he is dangerous.

As with the CCT, no other reason is provided that would, either by itself or in combination with reasons other than preservation of human life, justify (much less require) an exception to the commandment’s prohibition of homicide, so it does not conflict with the teaching of Blessed John Paul II. (If the ideas of Thomas and teaching of the pope were inconsistent, however, the correct conclusion would be that Thomas erred.)

you interpret “the common good” too narrowly

No, I interpret it as specified by the author in context: “if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community… it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good… human justice… puts to death those who are dangerous to others.” As I said, the welfare/common good intended is specified in the provided passages.

It is now and always has been morally permissible.

In those limited circumstances where the criteria provided by Church teaching are met, it is.

It is opposed now because the Magisterium believes that it endangers the good.

That would be consistent with Thomas: “the execution of the wicked is forbidden wherever cannot be done without danger to the good.” (In this context Thomas meant “good people,” but I see no reason to think he would disagree with the Church.) And the Magisterium must be obeyed in this matter.

That is a practical rather than a moral objection.

It is based on sound and traditional Catholic moral principles.

Can you imagine the bishops making a statement such as this about any church doctrine?

A hope that engagement and dialogue among people of goodwill would persuade and ultimately lead to conversion? Absolutely! The Church teaches that work “for the conversion of hearts” is an essential component in promoting human dignity.

I was speaking about a particular assertion made in 2267 which had to do with the Traditional teaching of the church. That assertion was also addressed by Flannery in his article and I cited it.

Flannery’s article does not support your claims. Flannery argued that the citations of ST II-II.64.7 in CCC 2263-2264 are not the basis for CCC 2267 as some (including Flannery) think it is intended to be. Flannery did not argue that CCC 2267 is either inconsistent with traditional sources or erroneous; in fact, he argued that Blessed John Paul II’s teaching CCC 2267 is consistent with and supported by the thinking of Aristotle and St. Thomas.

Flannery… flatly rejected the claim made in 2267 about the Traditional teaching of the church.

This is simply wrong.

It is a bit ironic that you would use Flannery

There is no “irony” defending Flannery against your egregious misrepresentation of his article.