Capital punishment...again

[twf]

Your arguments and entire approach to this issue sounds very similar to that of the SSPX and others who accuse Vatican II of deviating from 1900 years of tradition… on issues such as religious liberty and ecumenicism.

I think it’s fine to have difficulties and to raise those difficulties in dialog, but it seems that some on this forum are starting with the premise that the Holy Father is wrong and they are right. Much as some ultra-traditionalists start with the premise that an Ecumenical Council was wrong and they are right.

The Church says that VII is binding. Ultra-traditionalists say it was a “pastoral council” and can thus be safely ignore on certain key points. The Church (CDF) says that the Holy Father’s teaching is a “development of doctrine”. You and other say it’s just his personal prudential judgment and can thus be ignored.

 

[Ender]

Your arguments and entire approach to this issue sounds very similar to that of the SSPX and others who accuse Vatican II of deviating from 1900 years of tradition… on issues such as religious liberty and ecumenicism.

Categorizing my arguments in an unflattering manner is a way to dismiss them without having to engage and rebut them. I’m prepared to debate the issues on any point you might like to challenge.

You and other say it’s just his personal prudential judgment and can thus be ignored.

This is a rather serious misrepresentation of what I’ve written. If you would cite my actual comments instead of lumping me in with what I and others might have said you wouldn’t make such a mistake. Just to be clear, here is my actual position on the issue (comments by Cardinal Dulles):

…the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.

…they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord

In no part of what I have said have I simply ignored the comments from the Vatican or from any bishop. On the contrary, I have addressed their statements explicitly in the context of other explicit teachings from the church and discussed the implications of various interpretations of these new changes.

 

[Ender]

Accordingly, though christians do not rejoice in punishment or death as such, they do rejoice in that all just punishment (namely vengeance which is a virtue, a part of justice, and assuming here that Bin Laden’s death was just) is an effect of justice and justice is good

You are not alone in holding this position.

God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them. (Aquinas ST I-II 87, 3 ad 3)

And God does not inflict punishment from wrath, but for the ends of justice; since it is not expedient that justice should be neglected on our account. Each one of us, who sins, with his own free-will chooses punishment, and the blame lies with him who chooses. (St. Clement of Alexandria)

 

[twf]

I apologize if I offended you. I’m not saying that some of your arguments don’t have merit. The challenges critics of VII raise in regards to say, religious liberty, also make convincing points… for as with this issue, there IS a contradiction on the surface.
Let me ask you this: do you agree that the Pope clearly INTENDED this to be a binding doctrinal statement? The instruction to revise the Catechism, his own commentary, and the accompanying text from the CDF certainly seems to suggest such.

 

[Ender]

Let me ask you this: do you agree that the Pope clearly INTENDED this to be a binding doctrinal statement? The instruction to revise the Catechism, his own commentary, and the accompanying text from the CDF certainly seems to suggest such.

One of the fastest ways to get this thread closed, or get myself permanently banned, is to make any comment that could be perceived as denigrating the pope. Given that speculating on the pope’s intentions is inherently dangerous - and is in any event not all that relevant - I think I’ll pass on this one.

 

[twf]

Of course its relevant. I think its pretty clear that it was indeed his intention that this development be binding on the faithful. Doesn’t the CDF text pretty strongly imply such? Father, who is a learned priest and very much “in the know” with Rome, said as much in this thread as well. Surely the Holy Father’s intention is a very important part of this equation.
I think it is important that the revised Catechism text does NOT use the term “intrinsically evil”.

 

[Ender]

Of course its relevant. I think its pretty clear that it was indeed his intention that this development be binding on the faithful. Doesn’t the CDF text pretty strongly imply such? Father, who is a learned priest and very much “in the know” with Rome, said as much in this thread as well. Surely the Holy Father’s intention is a very important part of this equation.

What is important is not what a person intends to accomplish, but what he actually accomplishes, not even what ideas he intends to convey but what ideas he actually conveys. We cannot ignore what is said in favor of what we believe someone intended to convey.

Most significantly, we should be very wary of judging what we think someone else intended. We may not judge what we cannot know, and the intentions of the pope are very much hidden from us.

I think it is important that the revised Catechism text does NOT use the term “intrinsically evil”.

I think it is very important as well, and the question I have is this: if capital punishment is not now intrinsically evil then what does it mean to say it is “inadmissible”? because if it is not intrinsically evil then its use may be justifiable in particular circumstances…which would mean it is not in fact inadmissible, only judged unwise in most circumstances.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-statement-on-bin-ladens-death

Osama Bin Laden - as everyone knows - has had the gravest responsibility for spreading hatred and division among people, causing the deaths of countless people, and exploiting religion for this purpose.

Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of everyone before God and man, and hopes and pledges that every event is not an opportunity for a further growth of hatred, but of peace.”

Accordingly, though christians do not rejoice in punishment or death as such, they do rejoice in that all just punishment (namely vengeance which is a virtue, a part of justice, and assuming here that Bin Laden’s death was just) is an effect of justice and justice is good, it is a virtue and that such just vengeance prevents further harm to human beings and especially do they rejoice in the justice of God in which all true human justice is a participation of. Punishment that stops short of capital punishment and death has the hope of being corrective and medicinal in nature for the repentance and conversion of sinners and in this way too punishment effected by justice can be a cause of rejoicing in a way for christians, “Rejoicing in hope” (Romans 12:12). Such ‘true’ justice and hope springs from charity which is the love of God and of our neighbor.

I believe it is naive for you to assume the type of rejoicing seen in the streets over bin Ladens death and the general public sentiment about capital punishment, stems from the sense of divine justice. Our cultures have grown more attune to new age ‘karmic’ principles and people often cite karma in this situations. In the end, that attitude is naturally repulsive to societies who ultimately desire the common good. That seems to me to have inspired the abolition of the death penalty around the world even prior to the Church’s official position.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I think it is very important as well, and the question I have is this: if capital punishment is not now intrinsically evil then what does it mean to say it is “inadmissible”? because if it is not intrinsically evil then its use may be justifiable in particular circumstances…which would mean it is not in fact inadmissible, only judged unwise in most circumstances.

It’s inadmissible in law just like in severe drought it is inadmissible to water domestic lawns. The government who is responsible for the common good has the duty to make laws and prohibitions that serve the common good.

 

[Richca]

Whether or not the Vatican statement was referring to public demonstrations or a ‘type of rejoicing seen in the streets over Bin Laden’s death’, I did not mean in my comment on the Vatican statement to pass a moral judgement on any individual or on any public demonstrations or really to make any connection to such demonstrations that may have followed Bin Laden’s death.

 

[Richca]

Yes, I know. Besides the scripture passages I referenced, I was doing some Aquinas theology as you reference.

 

[Ender]

It’s inadmissible in law just like in severe drought it is inadmissible to water domestic lawns. The government who is responsible for the common good has the duty to make laws and prohibitions that serve the common good.

Whether or not it is legally admissible says nothing about whether it is morally acceptable, let alone whether it is wise or unwise. I agree with you that governments have a duty to serve the common good; what I disagree with is the idea that the highest good, at least as far as punishment is concerned, is the mere physical protection of society. Justice is the overriding issue.

“….this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself.” (Pius XII)

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

It’s inadmissible in law just like in severe drought it is inadmissible to water domestic lawns. The government who is responsible for the common good has the duty to make laws and prohibitions that serve the common good.

Whether or not it is legally admissible says nothing about whether it is morally acceptable, let alone whether it is wise or unwise. I agree with you that governments have a duty to serve the common good; what I disagree with is the idea that the highest good, at least as far as punishment is concerned, is the mere physical protection of society. Justice is the overriding issue.

“….this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself.” (Pius XII)

You seem to be moving goal posts here. It is not the principle of punishment for crime that is inadmissible. Just the sentence of execution. Crimes still have to be paid for but if execution isn’t necessary to protect the community and worse, it is a practice that is feeding a morbid culture of death among people, then it shouldn’t be used as a sentence.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Adding to that, while punishment for crime is intrinsic to justice, the penalty of death is not. It can in fact be morally inadmissible.

 

[exnihilo]

Crimes still have to be paid for but if execution isn’t necessary to protect the community and worse, it is a practice that is feeding a morbid culture of death among people, then it shouldn’t be used as a sentence.

How is it we determine punishments in the first place? The old adage ‘the punishment fits the crime’ seems wise to me and in keeping with Catholic ideas of justice. That seems to me the idea being ‘whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed‘.

I think it is very important as well, and the question I have is this: if capital punishment is not now intrinsically evil then what does it mean to say it is “inadmissible”? because if it is not intrinsically evil then its use may be justifiable in particular circumstances…which would mean it is not in fact inadmissible, only judged unwise in most circumstances.

I find it troubling that it is so hard to figure this out. It should be a simple answer.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Crimes still have to be paid for but if execution isn’t necessary to protect the community and worse, it is a practice that is feeding a morbid culture of death among people, then it shouldn’t be used as a sentence.

How is it we determine punishments in the first place? The old adage ‘the punishment fits the crime’ seems wise to me and in keeping with Catholic ideas of justice. That seems to me the idea being ‘whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed‘.

The idea that Genesis 9 6 is a ‘Catholic idea of justice’ is simply wrong. Firstly not even the Jews interpreted the verse as a mandated death penalty and have a history of abolishing it over time. Secondly the passage is traditionally understood as revealing the inviolability of human life made in Gods image, rather than a model of justice. The fact that animals are included in the reckoning shows that it is not the model of justice we have relied on.

Gen 9 5 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings,

 

[Emeraldlady]

I think it is very important as well, and the question I have is this: if capital punishment is not now intrinsically evil then what does it mean to say it is “inadmissible”? because if it is not intrinsically evil then its use may be justifiable in particular circumstances…which would mean it is not in fact inadmissible, only judged unwise in most circumstances.

I find it troubling that it is so hard to figure this out. It should be a simple answer.

I find it more troubling that you think so little of your Churchs capacity to teach.

 

[Ender]

Crimes still have to be paid for but if execution isn’t necessary to protect the community and worse, it is a practice that is feeding a morbid culture of death among people, then it shouldn’t be used as a sentence.

It is the phrase “protect the community” that disturbs me. If you mean the physical protection against future crimes then I will point out yet again that protection is not the primary objective of punishment, and of itself cannot determine the extent of the punishment.

Adding to that, while punishment for crime is intrinsic to justice, the penalty of death is not. It can in fact be morally inadmissible.

This is an assertion for which you provide no support. Beyond applying capital punishment to crimes for which it is clearly unwarranted, what would make its use morally inadmissible.

The idea that Genesis 9 6 is a ‘Catholic idea of justice’ is simply wrong.

Actually, Gn 9:6 has always been the basis of Catholic teaching on capital punishment.

So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. 1
1 - Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

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). (Cardinal Dulles)

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Crimes still have to be paid for but if execution isn’t necessary to protect the community and worse, it is a practice that is feeding a morbid culture of death among people, then it shouldn’t be used as a sentence.

It is the phrase “protect the community” that disturbs me. If you mean the physical protection against future crimes then I will point out yet again that protection is not the primary objective of punishment, and of itself cannot determine the extent of the punishment.

That isn’t what Aquinas taught. To the objection that execution is forbidden altogether he states,

Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump”

To explain what conditions would prohibit punishment of death he states,

Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death. STII II 64 2

It is the common good and protection of people, that informs both judgements.

Emeraldlady:

Adding to that, while punishment for crime is intrinsic to justice, the penalty of death is not. It can in fact be morally inadmissible.

This is an assertion for which you provide no support. Beyond applying capital punishment to crimes for which it is clearly unwarranted, what would make its use morally inadmissible.

As Aquinas states, when it does more harm than good to the community.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The idea that Genesis 9 6 is a ‘Catholic idea of justice’ is simply wrong.

Actually, Gn 9:6 has always been the basis of Catholic teaching on capital punishment.

So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. 1
1 - Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)

First you are quoting the Catechism of Trent out of context. Gen 9 6 was used according to the long held understanding of the verse; to form “a just conception of the wickedness of murder.” It is not quoted in reference to Executing Criminals.

And secondly, the Church does not advocate for bringing animals to justice in a court of law.

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) . (Cardinal Dulles)

The Popes aren’t denying the right of man to use the death penalty, as Cardinal Dulles is pointing out. They are saying that the common good is warranting prohibition at this time. That perfectly accords the traditional Church understanding.