Capital punishment...again

[Ender]

I have enjoyed whenever Archbishop Gomez and I have had occasion to speak together.

Is this statement he made in 2016 still valid or would it now constitute dissent, because I don’t consider it all that different from what I’ve been saying? Surely we would have been justified in accepting it then, but it is still true?

The Catholic Church has always taught that legitimate governments have the right to impose the death penalty on those guilty of the most serious crimes. This teaching has been consistent for centuries — in the Scriptures, in the writings of the Church Fathers and in the teachings of the popes.
…
The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion

Now, I recognize that Archbishop Gomez strongly opposes the use of capital punishment, and did so in the document containing the remarks I cited. That said, my question is whether those two statements are as valid today as they were when he made them?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The Church is correcting the false assertions by US Catholics that capital punishment was a ‘divine command’ and a default sentence. That was never taught by the Church in its history.

Don’t be too sure of that…

For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine)

(3 objection 3) … Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.
On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, 105, 2). (Aquinas ST II-II 108, 3)

To the pro Capital punishment posters who regard Ender as their spokesperson please look more deeply into the context of the many quote mined citations he uses.

The St Bellarmine quote here is speaking in a general way about Mosaic law.

“These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. Hence in the Chaldaic paraphrase it is rendered, “Whosoever sheds blood before witnesses, his blood shall be shed by sentence of the judge.” And Judas says, “Bring her out that she may be burnt.” Here the patriarch Judas, as head of a family, condemned an adulteress to death by fire.”

Bellarmine specifically explains how the Israelites used Genesis 9 to formulate the decrees and precepts of the Old Law which changed from era to era according to the needs of Jewish Law. Bellarmine in fact is specifically saying that Genesis 9 is not a divine command.

What Ender has done with the citation from the Summa regarding vengeance, is paste a convenient single sentence from the objections, to the general summary that Aquinas precedes with in his answer. Reading on, it is evident that the general comment “These punishments are fixed by divine law” references the eternal punishment due in regard to Gods judgement of souls. Aquinas continues on to define human law and the limits of the State.

“All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others.” - ST II II 108 3

The punishments of this life are in fact not fixed by divine law but are bound to serving the common good in order to be just.

 

[Ender]

• However you suffer from an error of logical reasoning…
• But Mr. Ender, yourself, and others in this form, are decidedly wrong…
• Ender, is in open and public dissent from the Papal Magisterium…

As I’ve said, I get this a lot so I’d like to be as clear as possible about what I believe. In the previous post I cited two comments made by Archbishop Gomez in 2016. I mentioned that this was only a small part of a document that was directed at the elimination of capital punishment, so clearly Abp Gomez strongly opposes its use. Despite his opposition, however, he still made these statements…and I agree 100% with every one of them.

• The Catholic Church has always taught that legitimate governments have the right to impose the death penalty on those guilty of the most serious crimes.
• This teaching has been consistent for centuries — in the Scriptures, in the writings of the Church Fathers and in the teachings of the popes.
• The Church is not changing her teaching.
• Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order.
• What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion

So the question is, is what was true in 2016 still true today, and if it is, why is my position so strongly condemned?

 

[billsherman]

You quoted me out of context, which judging from what others are saying is something you do often. What I said you “are decidedly wrong” about is the cavalier dismissal of arguments others have raised as being mere “assertions” or something less than the arguments you raise. Based on the way at least two other posters have caught you manipulating quotes, and the way you have now done it to me, I repeat my advice for you to log off the forum for some time and go spend some serious time in a research library. My FULL quote is here:

Maybe I am wrong about the death penalty. But Mr. Ender, yourself, and others in this form, are decidedly wrong when you ignore, or claim that evidence presented by @Don_Ruggero consists of nothing more than “assertions,” “[his] understanding of the situation,” or nothing more than “I’m right, you’re wrong, discussion is not allowed.” You can disagree with him, the Pope, every bishop and cardinal on the planet, and a very large number of secular governments for all I care, but do NOT belittle this good man’s effort by being so cavalierly dismissive of his argument.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Is this statement he made in 2016

Here is what His Excellency said after the revision:

August 03, 2018 16:11Archbishop José E. GomezForum

Below is a reflection of Archbishop Josè Gomez, Archbishop of Los Angeles, on the death penalty now being, in all cases, “inadmissable,” after the recent revision in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, announced yesterday. This statement was published on Angelus News:

---

For some years now, I have expressed my concern that the death penalty is both cruel and unnecessary and I have called for its abolition.

So, I welcome the changes to The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty and I am grateful for Pope Francis’ leadership in working for an end to judicial executions worldwide.

The Catechism revisions announced today reflect an authentic development of the Church’s doctrine that started with St. John Paul II and has continued under emeritus Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis.

The Scriptures, along with saints and teachers in the Church’s tradition, justify the death penalty as a fitting punishment for those who commit evil or take another person’s life. And the Church has always recognized that governments and civil authorities have the right to carry out executions in order to protect their citizens’ lives and punish those guilty of the gravest crimes against human life and the stability of the social order.

But in recent decades, there has been a growing consensus — among bishops’ conferences around the world and in the teachings of the Popes and the Catechism — that use of the death penalty can no longer be accepted.

The Church has come to understand that from a practical standpoint, governments now have the ability to protect society and punish criminals without executing violent offenders. The Church now believes that the traditional purposes of punishment — defending society, deterring criminal acts, rehabilitating criminals and penalizing them for their actions — can be better achieved by nonviolent means.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Continued

The Church’s continued prayer and reflection has also helped us to see the deeper demands of the Gospel’s teaching on human life and dignity.

We understand now that all human life is sacred — even the lives of those who commit acts of great evil and depravity. And we have come to insist that authorities respect the dignity of even the most violent criminals and give them the chance to reform their lives and be reintegrated into society.

Today’s revisions to the Catechism seem to me to reflect this growing consensus in the Church that capital punishment should be rejected.

Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles on Death Penalty Being Always 'Inadmissable' in Church Teaching - ZENIT - English

Archbishop of Los Angeles: 'The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral'

zenit.org

 

[Emeraldlady]

Ender:

Emeraldlady - So which is it? Is the punishment of execution for murder fixed outside the common good and can never change. Or are all punishments including execution, determined by the State as the caretaker of the common good?

I said there were two criteria that determined the justness of a punishment: (1) is the severity appropriate for the severity of the crime, and (2) does its use introduce harm to the community. A punishment is unjust if either criterion is not met.

First, the use of punishment and execution springs from a natural impulse specific to the welfare of the human community since they are witnessed in cultures and tribes in history not even visited by the One God. Logically it is implicit to the use of execution, that it serves the common good first and foremost. Logically we can also recognise that the ‘severity of a crime’ is influenced by the conditions that exist in the community in which it happens. Those in charge of these communities are most disposed to determine this and to recognise if the climate warrants abolition of a sentence altogether.

Around the world States have been coming to this conclusion for more than a century now. The climate in society, by some unhealthy aspect, has blurred the lines of black and white justice. Justice is more prudently served today by abolition of the death penalty. There is no deficiency in justice because of it as you seem to be imagining.

Why is this complicated? Clearly it is the State that determines the latter. How often must I say there can be valid prudential objections to the use of capital punishment?

I guess you’ll have to keep saying it for as long as you experience condescension towards the Church and those defending her teaching.

That capital punishment is a just punishment according to the first criterion is a given. If the church thought it was unjust she would never have recognized the validity of its use, let alone done so for two millennia. If the death penalty was unjust by the standard of commensurate severity the church would have opposed its use.

No, the given is that capital punishment is just if it serves the common good. It no longer is doing that and is being opposed by the Church.

 

[exnihilo]

The Church now believes that the traditional purposes of punishment — defending society, deterring criminal acts, rehabilitating criminals and penalizing them for their actions — can be better achieved by nonviolent means.

That isn’t true. The purpose of punishment was primarily justice. If rehabilitation was a traditional purpose then they wouldn’t have been executing people for all the various capital crimes of the past. You can’t rehabilitate a dead man because he is dead. So that just doesn’t make sense.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

That isn’t true. The purpose of punishment was primarily justice. If rehabilitation was a traditional purpose then they wouldn’t have been executing people for all the various capital crimes of the past. You can’t rehabilitate a dead man because he is dead. So that just doesn’t make sense.

You are endeavourig to argue with an Archbishop who is the vice-president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops…and himself a gifted theologian

 

[Emeraldlady]

JReed, speaking as a non US poster as Don Ruggero and some of the others here are also, if you get to the bottom of Enders reasoning, implicitly he is deeming abolition to be ungodly and a deficiency of justice. Around the world, it has been abolished for moral reasonings and that is recognised by Evangelium Vitae which calls it “a growing moral sensitivity”. Enders objection is not that the US needs the death penalty today but that abolition is an offence against the Divine. How arrogant and insulting to the rest of the world!

 

[Pug]

The purpose of punishment was primarily justice. If rehabilitation was a traditional purpose then they wouldn’t have been executing people for all the various capital crimes of the past. You can’t rehabilitate a dead man because he is dead.

I find it easy to view the death penalty as intending, among other things, to encourage restoration of the person to life in their heart. It would focus the mind most sharply on the four last things, and on prompt repentance. I’m not sure if it would work that way in a modern society of “nones”. But there is that quote about there are no atheists in foxholes.

 

[exnihilo]

You are endeavourig to argue with an Archbishop who is the vice-president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops…and himself a gifted theologian

Clearly not as he isn’t here. But that statement makes no sense to me.

I find it easy to view the death penalty as intending, among other things, to encourage restoration of the person to life in their heart. It would focus the mind most sharply on the four last things, and on prompt repentance.

I agree. If the discussion is how can punishment be reformative then there is no reason to exclude the death penalty. Plenty of condemned repent when they know they are going to be killed.

 

[Pug]

I went and read one of the links provided concerning Archbishop Gomez. One of the things he says is

In this kind of society, executing criminals sends no moral signal. It is simply one more killing in a culture of death.

He also says

But I do not believe that public executions serve to advance [the desired] message in our secular society.

He seems to think the way to advance the gospel message concerning life is to advocate for mercy and reintegration into society (for the murderer). If I have understood him. I’m thinking that the idea is to preach the gospel by working to banish capital punishment. I can agree that this would help reach certain groups of people with the gospel.

 

[exnihilo]

He seems to think the way to advance the gospel message concerning life is to advocate for mercy and reintegration into society (for the murderer).

I’d like it if the advocates of this were the ones to personally house or live next to such men. It would tremendously increase their credibility.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Pug:

He seems to think the way to advance the gospel message concerning life is to advocate for mercy and reintegration into society (for the murderer).

I’d like it if the advocates of this were the ones to personally house or live next to such men. It would tremendously increase their credibility.

That has as much merit as if we were to request that pro capital punishment supporters performed the executions.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

No, this thread is entirely about punishment, and if the discussion was somehow separated from the concept of punishment nothing would make sense. It is only the proper understanding of punishment that allows us to justly respond to a person’s actions.

In the Pentateuch, there is a phrase that is used repeatedly whenever death is prescribed for a certain act.

It is the phrase “Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.” or something similar, like “the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.” and “the man and the two women as well shall be burned to death, so that shamefulness may not be found among you.”

I’m suggesting that punishment is not the purpose of the death penalty, and I’m providing scripture to you as well.

 

[exnihilo]

That has as much merit as if we were to request that pro capital punishment supporters performed the executions.

Not really. The impact of allowing murders to eventually go free is on other innocent people. There is no shortage of people willing to carry out executions. No one is being forced to do that. But people are being forced to live with released murderers.

 

[billsherman]

I volunteer my house. They will have to share the guest bedroom with the undocumented migrant, however. Does that give me credibility?

 

[Ender]

1 of 3

The St Bellarmine quote here is speaking in a general way about Mosaic law.

Bellarmine specifically explains how the Israelites used Genesis 9 to formulate the decrees and precepts of the Old Law which changed from era to era according to the needs of Jewish Law. Bellarmine in fact is specifically saying that Genesis 9 is not a divine command.

Perhaps you didn’t read far enough. After the passage you ended with, Bellarmine goes on to say this:

In the law of Moses there are many precepts and examples. “He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death.” And Moses himself, Josue, Samuel, David, Elias, and many other very holy men put many to death. And as for “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. For Our Lord rebuked Peter not because a just defense is unlawful, but because he wished not so much to defend himself or Our Lord, as to avenge the injury done to Our Lord, although he himself had no official authority, as St. Augustine correctly explains, and St. Cyril also. Besides, “If thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister.” St. Paul says that the sword is given by God to rulers to punish evildoers, therefore, if like men are found in the Church, why may they not be put to death?

What he was doing was explaining how the death penalty is supported by Scripture. He was not speaking merely in a general way about a Mosaic Law that was no longer applicable. It was after all Bellarmine who said it was a heresy to believe Christian states lacked the right to apply capital punishment.

 

[Ender]

2 of 3

What Ender has done with the citation from the Summa regarding vengeance, is paste a convenient single sentence from the objections, to the general summary that Aquinas precedes with in his answer. Reading on, it is evident that the general comment “These punishments are fixed by divine law” references the eternal punishment due in regard to Gods judgement of souls. Aquinas continues on to define human law and the limits of the State.

It is indeed a strange interpretation on the section on vengeance, which Aquinas defines as “the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned”, to believe it refers to God’s judgment and not man’s. This is doubly mysterious in a section titled “Whether vengeance should be wrought by means of punishments customary among men?” There are three objections Aquinas addresses containing these statements:

• Obj 1: …Therefore sinners should not be put to death.
• Obj 2:
• Obj 3: … Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.

These objections are followed immediately by his response:
On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II:105:2)

If we look at I-II 105:2 we find this (response to objection 12):

Because the slaying of a heifer, which is a useful animal and full of strength, especially before it has been put under the yoke, signified that whoever committed murder, however useful and strong he might be, was to forfeit his life; and that, by a cruel death, which was implied by the striking off of its head; and that the murderer, as vile and abject, was to be cut off from the fellowship of men…