Capital punishment...again

[Ender]

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

Not exactly. One of the benefits of slaying the wicked is the protection of the good, but protection can never be taken to be synonymous with the common good. Security is part of the common good, but the latter contains much more than simply that. Justice, for example, is a great part of the common good, and is of higher value than protection. You may argue that capital punishment is unnecessary for justice, but there is no argument that it is not needed simply because it is unnecessary for protection.

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

Yes, I have previously made this very point. Determining whether there is harm to the community, however, is a judgment about which reasonable people may legitimately disagree. it is a practical question, not a moral decision.

 

[Ender]

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.

No, Gn 9:6 is cited as the definitive statement about both the enormity of murder and its consequences.

Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself ! (Catechism of Trent)

It is a mistake to suggest the passage in Genesis refers only to the fact that man is made in God’s image, since that statement is given not on its own but as the explanation for why a murderer’s life is forfeit.

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.

I agree with this: I understand Pope Francis’ statement to mean that the use of capital punishment is detrimental to the common good at this time. But understand: this is a prudential judgment; it is not a doctrine, and it is therefore something with which Catholics may legitimately disagree.

 

[exnihilo]

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

That isn’t true, as pointed out, and again I ask how punishments are to be determined.

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

Well that is slanderous. If people ask questions they think little of the Church? Also, if people don’t understand then it is precisely the job of the Church to teach.

 

[runningdude]

If capital punishment is now to be seen as intrinsically evil that would not only contradict prior teachings…

Capital punishment cannot be intrinsically evil. The salvation of humanity was accomplished through the lawful use of capital punishment against Christ by the Roman State.

(The Jews could not lawfully execute Christ, because they knew he committed no crime. Instead they bore false witness to Pilot to pressure him into convicting.)

 

[JimG]

My understanding is that the pope did not declare capital punishment to be an intrinsic evil.

Rather, he declared it inadmissible at this time because current circumstances make its prohibition essential to the common good. But I still see that as a prudential judgment of current conditions, not a change or development of doctrine.

But does its inadmissibility apply equally to every nation in the world in any circumstance?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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

Not exactly. One of the benefits of slaying the wicked is the protection of the good, but protection can never be taken to be synonymous with the common good. Security is part of the common good, but the latter contains much more than simply that. Justice, for example, is a great part of the common good, and is of higher value than protection. You may argue that capital punishment is unnecessary for justice, but there is no argument that it is not needed simply because it is unnecessary for protection.

No, that isn’t what Aquinas is saying. He states that “legal justice directs man immediately to the common good” (ST II II 58 7) Read again what I cited above. To the question of whether it is lawful to kill sinners, he goes straight to the justification of community safety.

Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. 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”

Emeraldlady:

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

Yes, I have previously made this very point. Determining whether there is harm to the community, however, is a judgment about which reasonable people may legitimately disagree. it is a practical question, not a moral decision.

Within the community discussing the issue of whether capital punishment should be abolished today, sure. But as I understand it, you are actually denying the general principle that it can be abolished, saying that if it is not intrinsically evil then how can it be deemed “inadmissible”? As I understand your position, you are claiming that capital punishment can never be immoral or unjust a person or government doesn’t think it is. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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.

No, Gn 9:6 is cited as the definitive statement about both the enormity of murder and its consequences.

Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself ! (Catechism of Trent)

It is a mistake to suggest the passage in Genesis refers only to the fact that man is made in God’s image, since that statement is given not on its own but as the explanation for why a murderer’s life is forfeit.

You didn’t address the fact that the verse demands that the life of all beasts shall also be forfeit. That isn’t part of legal justice so the verses can be viewed as belonging to the economy of Gods divine justice.

Emeraldlady:

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.

I agree with this: I understand Pope Francis’ statement to mean that the use of capital punishment is detrimental to the common good at this time. But understand: this is a prudential judgment; it is not a doctrine, and it is therefore something with which Catholics may legitimately disagree.

Clarify for me again. Do you disagree on whether capital punishment is necessary or unnecessary for your society, or do you disagree that abolition of capital punishment is a legitimate position for the State to have?

 

[Ender]

No, that isn’t what Aquinas is saying. He states that “legal justice directs man immediately to the common good” (ST II II 58 7) Read again what I cited above. To the question of whether it is lawful to kill sinners, he goes straight to the justification of community safety.

You seem to equate safety with the common good, but Aquinas does not use those terms interchangeably. In (II-II 64,6) he states:

the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin.

In this case he is clearly referring to restoring the harm to the common good caused by a previous sin; there is nothing here about preventing future ones. This is a matter of justice. In fact there really is nothing in Aquinas that approves of pre-emptive executions. Even the passage you cite does not imply that.

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

The danger to the community is “on account of some sin” by which the community is infected, not on account of some threat which he poses. And again, you take “common good” to mean “community safety” yet this is not at all how Aquinas uses the term. Pius XII explicitly rejected this theory:

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

Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty

Within the community discussing the issue of whether capital punishment should be abolished today, sure. But as I understand it, you are actually denying the general principle that it can be abolished, saying that if it is not intrinsically evil then how can it be deemed “inadmissible”? As I understand your position, you are claiming that capital punishment can never be immoral or unjust a person or government doesn’t think it is. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The church has a long history of opposing capital punishment in particular situations, so the opposition to its use by the last three popes is not at all unusual. My position is simply this: capital punishment may be opposed on practical or prudential grounds, just not on moral ones. Of course it can be applied immorally, but that is a failure of those who apply it; that has nothing to do with the penalty itself. I don’t believe there are moral objections to capital punishment per se

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

No, that isn’t what Aquinas is saying. He states that “legal justice directs man immediately to the common good” (ST II II 58 7) Read again what I cited above. To the question of whether it is lawful to kill sinners, he goes straight to the justification of community safety.

You seem to equate safety with the common good, but Aquinas does not use those terms interchangeably. In (II-II 64,6) he states:

the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin.

In this case he is clearly referring to restoring the harm to the common good caused by a previous sin; there is nothing here about preventing future ones. This is a matter of justice. In fact there really is nothing in Aquinas that approves of pre-emptive executions. Even the passage you cite does not imply that.

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

The danger to the community is “ on account of some sin ” by which the community is infected, not on account of some threat which he poses. And again, you take “common good” to mean “community safety” yet this is not at all how Aquinas uses the term.

Aquinas couches execution consistently within the purview of community safety.

“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.” (ST II II 64 2)

 

[Emeraldlady]

Pius XII explicitly rejected this theory:

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

Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection , that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty

You’ve done this several times in this thread which is specifically addressing the sentence of death and not the principle of punishment in general. No one is advocating for the abolition of punishment, just the abolition of a particular sentence. Pius XII is addressing the principle of punishment. Those principles can still be served by non capital sentences these days because the community can be protected and saved within a more sophisticated prison system. It goes against the very nature of man to kill for the sake of killing and worse to kill as an unconditional divine right. I believe that this is why the recent Popes have found it necessary to come out and correct the Catholic position. Capital punishment has been gradually abolished around the world since before the modern Popes but there has never been strong protest claiming a ‘divine right to take life’ outside modern USA, which warranted the Churchs formal involvement.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Within the community discussing the issue of whether capital punishment should be abolished today, sure. But as I understand it, you are actually denying the general principle that it can be abolished, saying that if it is not intrinsically evil then how can it be deemed “inadmissible”? As I understand your position, you are claiming that capital punishment can never be immoral or unjust a person or government doesn’t think it is. Correct me if I’m wrong.

The church has a long history of opposing capital punishment in particular situations, so the opposition to its use by the last three popes is not at all unusual. My position is simply this: capital punishment may be opposed on practical or prudential grounds, just not on moral ones. Of course it can be applied immorally, but that is a failure of those who apply it; that has nothing to do with the penalty itself. I don’t believe there are moral objections to capital punishment per se

Going back to Aquinas.

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.

Don’t you think that Our Lord commanding forbearance if the community will be harmed, indicates moral prohibition? To ignore that command is clearly to sin.

 

[Ender]

Aquinas couches execution consistently within the purview of community safety.

“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.” (ST II II 64 2)

Your citation is in regard to the prudential argument against the use of capital punishment: when social conditions make its use inadvisable. That is, when it causes additional harm it ought not be used. This says nothing about its use being directed primarily to security. This is Aquinas’ explanation for why there are times someone ought not be put to death even though his crime merits it, as the sentence preceding the one you cited makes clear:

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.

 

[Ender]

You’ve done this several times in this thread which is specifically addressing the sentence of death and not the principle of punishment in general.

Capital punishment is merely one kind of punishment, but like all forms, is subject to all the restrictions applicable to “punishment.” The significance of Pius XII’s comment is that he rejected the very theory of punishment that you have put forward, and if it is wrong for punishment in general it is surely wrong for capital punishment in particular.

Pius XII is addressing the principle of punishment. Those principles can still be served by non capital sentences these days because the community can be protected and saved within a more sophisticated prison system.

To allege this is to ignore his explanation as to why punishment is not primarily about protection. “Those theories fail…” to understand that “penalizes the violation of the law is (as) the prime function of penalty.”

It goes against the very nature of man to kill for the sake of killing and worse to kill as an unconditional divine right.

Please, deal with the arguments I actually make; don’t invent ludicrous positions and ascribe them to me.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Aquinas couches execution consistently within the purview of community safety.

“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.” (ST II II 64 2)

Your citation is in regard to the prudential argument against the use of capital punishment: when social conditions make its use inadvisable. That is, when it causes additional harm it ought not be used. This says nothing about its use being directed primarily to security. This is Aquinas’ explanation for why there are times someone ought not be put to death even though his crime merits it, as the sentence preceding the one you cited makes clear:

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.

That is clearly referencing Gods punishment in death because legal justice and redressing the harm done to the common good are still served by a non capital sentence.

 

[Ender]

Don’t you think that Our Lord commanding forbearance if the community will be harmed, indicates moral prohibition? To ignore that command is clearly to sin.

It is a sin to do anything that one believes will cause harm. The judgment of what causes the most harm, however, is up to the individual to make. If you believe the use of capital punishment will cause harm to society while I believe not using it will cause harm, then each of us is morally justified in supporting our positions. One of us will be incorrect, but if we have seriously considered the question, there is no moral fault involved for either of us.

 

[Ender]

That is clearly referencing Gods punishment in death because legal justice and redressing the harm done to the common good are still served by a non capital sentence.

I think this is the argument that needs to be made: does a non-capital sentence satisfy the obligation of justice for (e.g.) the crime of first degree murder? You assert that this is so, but you have made no effort to defend this position.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Don’t you think that Our Lord commanding forbearance if the community will be harmed, indicates moral prohibition? To ignore that command is clearly to sin.

It is a sin to do anything that one believes will cause harm. The judgment of what causes the most harm, however, is up to the individual to make. If you believe the use of capital punishment will cause harm to society while I believe not using it will cause harm, then each of us is morally justified in supporting our positions. One of us will be incorrect, but if we have seriously considered the question, there is no moral fault involved for either of us.

You’ve moved the goal posts again here. Are you agreeing that the death penalty can be legitimately abolished under certain conditions and that you just don’t agree that your culture meets those conditions at this time?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

That is clearly referencing Gods punishment in death because legal justice and redressing the harm done to the common good are still served by a non capital sentence.

I think this is the argument that needs to be made: does a non-capital sentence satisfy the obligation of justice for (e.g.) the crime of first degree murder? You assert that this is so, but you have made no effort to defend this position.

Mine is the Church’s position. Execution has always been approved in relation to the welfare of the community. For example the Trent Catechism specifies:

"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.

If the non capital sentence tends to the punishments ends that is “they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence”, we can take justice as served.

 

[Ender]

Execution has always been approved in relation to the welfare of the community.

Of course it has. My objection is to equating the “welfare of the community” with mere physical protection against future crime. That has never been the church’s position.

Trent: The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life.

Yes, the preservation of human life is the end of the (Fifth) Commandment, but it is not the primary end of punishment.

If the non capital sentence tends to the punishments ends that is “they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence”, we can take justice as served.

Not exactly. If all you mean by this is that a criminal in custody is adequately prevented from committing a second crime then I would disagree…as did Pius XII. The primary end of punishment is not protection; it is retribution (retributive justice), and you have not provided an argument that justice is fully served if a criminal who has committed a heinous crime is punished simply by imprisonment.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Let us be clear: His Eminence, The Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – at the direction of the Vicar of Christ himself – has declared in the letter to the Bishops of the Catholic world:

All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine

That is authoritative – and the only response that is possible, by every Catholic who is part of this forum, is the required obsequium.

One who does not give the required assent is, in fact, in dissent from the Magisterium.

Any recourse to death penalty is now unacceptable.