Almost sounds like a good argument for the death penalty, except in the cases where an innocent person is convicted, even sometimes with the knowledge of the state.
I’m not sure I recognize a distinction between restorative and retributive justice and I think that is because I don’t see the latter as being merely an eye-for-an-eye form of revenge.
Retribution and rehabilitation are two of the objectives of punishment but while rehabilitation cannot always be obtained, retribution - which is concerned with restoring the order disturbed by the sin - is the primary objective of all punishment and figures to the greatest degree in determining the severity of the penalty.
I agree with this but there is a problem in understanding what “redress the harm” actually means and this is where the conversation usually flounders, especially when I point out that it refers to the retributive rather than the rehabilitative aspect of punishment.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 (USCCB, 1980)
The Louisiana bishops made this statement:Restorative justice also calls on us to reject capital punishment as an effective and moral means of confronting crime. Death does not restore,heal,or make whole what was lost.
You misinterpret what you read.”…if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
I haven’t been giving you my interpretation of Scripture but the church’s interpretation. That’s my point.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). * (Dulles)
Is it really unfair of me to use church documents to support my argument?
Yes, 2267 was added later. Nearly 2000 years later. 2260 has always been the basis of the church’s understanding about capital punishment.
It is not nearly as clear as you suppose.* "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."*
Execution is a punishment and the primary objection of punishment is not security but retribution, therefore the goal of execution is not the same as the goal of the fifth commandment.
Trent provides that reason: it is mandated by God. The Catechism of Trent, like the current catechism (2260), refers to Gen 9:5-6; Aquinas cites Num 15:30-31 which ends with: “That fault deserves death, and he will be held to account for it.”
This is a better argument; I had not seen this letter before. One thing to note of course is that even though Donatus is a Catholic, Agustine makes no argument that capital punishment is wrong. He doesn’t want it used and tries to convince Donatus not to apply it … but he never suggests that its use is immoral. In that regard, I see this letter as very much in line with JPII’s opposition: for practical reasons it is better not to apply it.
You will note from earlier comments I’ve made that, in addition to supporting the use of capital punishment, I’ve also made it clear that much of my position is based on opposition to the arguments being used against it. It should also be obvious that the argument Augustine (and Ambrose) use is not at all the same as is used in 2267. Ambrose makes his point rather clear about imposing the death penalty:…you will be excused if you do it, and praised if you do it not. Should you feel unable to do it, and are unwilling to afflict the criminal by the horrors of a dungeon, I shall, as a priest, the more commend you.
This concern was addressed by Romano Amerio (theological advisor, Vatican II)…To go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory.
“On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law.”
For Aquinas the common good never meant mere safety.…the judge has care of** the common good, which is justice**, and therefore he wishes the thief’s death, which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate; (ST I-II 19,10)
I have agreed with this. It is also true, however, that evaluating the “danger to the good” is a prudential judgment about which there may be a* “legitimate diversity of opinion.”*
Why do you make this argument when you know very well that was not my point? I was referring to the comment that on this topic the bishops offer “neither judgment nor condemnation.”
I am surprised someone as well informed as you would say this. I made no comment about the basis for 2267 and did not cite Flannery in that regard. I made a very specific statement that a particular assertion made in 2267 was incorrect and cited Flannery saying the exact same thing. Basically I claimed “Flannery said A” to which you responded “This is simply wrong”, Flannery did not say B".
*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. *(Flannery)
I agree with this but repentance does not serve in place of punishment. Sin deserves punishment whether it is repented of or not.
God will judge his conscience but it is given to the magistrate to judge his crime and set the appropriate level of punishment.
There are some sins that all people recognize are wrong. As Catholics we believe in natural law, and deep down all people recognize in their conscience that murder isn’t ok.
The human mind can rationalize anything however. Murder is wrong; but the perpetrator mat not see himself as a murderer, but as a “mercy killer,” a defender of his “honor”, or driven by necessity (“I needed money and I had none”, etc.)
Much gray area
Church teaching for nearly 2000 years has always recognized that there are situations where the taking of human life is allowed. How are we to work for a society that now disavows those teachings?
Please provide an example of “a situation” involving already incarcerated prisoners where the taking of human life not against an active aggressor could be morally justified.
very convoluted sentence, but I think the case of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the first WTC bomber, who used his attorney Lynn Stewart to pass information to outside sources inspite of special administrative procedures to prevent this from happening. the information resulted in numerous deaths in Egypt.
high level leaders of narcotics and other gangs should be executed if they meet DP criteria.
I don’t know to whom you’re referring when you mention “hand wave arguments.” Nor do I know to whom “wishful thinking” refers.
attorney-client communications are constitutionally privileged and cannot be monitored or prevented. Stewart and her client abused this privilege to get messages out that resulted in more deaths. your hand wave argument fails.
“The Catholic moral tradition…shows an unambiguous preference to preserve life even when the order of justice is threatened and the safety of innocent life is at stake. While acknowledging the moral and legal prerogative of the state to execute criminals in strictly limited circumstances, the church pleads for restraint in the exercise of that prerogative.”
because some lives are more important than others.