Capital punishment...again

[Emeraldlady]

1 of 3

Emeraldlady:

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 He was not speaking merely in a general way about a Mosaic Law that was no longer applicable.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.

I read the whole chapter and it does not support your claim that the death penalty is a divine command. Bellarmine explains the nature of decrees and precepts within the Mosaic Law as specifically not being “prophecy”. (The Word of God)

Bellarmine’s treatise is worded as a defense of the death penalty against the Anabaptists emerging claim that all forms of killing were intrinsically evil including execution and war. It has the same nature of ‘prudential judgement’ as today’s Church’s decree against the use of the death penalty as if it were intrinsically just.

There is no point in trying to explain the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic evils to you.

 

[Emeraldlady]

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)

“It seems that vengeance should not be wrought by means of punishments customary among men.”

This article is addressing the right of human law to punish men and that right is divine law.

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 …

If you look at Article 2 ST I II 105, it is establishing that human laws are correctly framed to address the relationship between people ie. serving the common good. The reply to Objection 9 particularly points to issues of culpability, local conditions and wider society implications to determine punishment.

These are the considerations that determine whether the death penalty is just. There is no wiggle room in human law to simply appeal to a ‘divine right’ to the death penalty. It’s justness is determined by its service to the common good.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

1Lord1Faith:

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.

Separating the death penalty from the concept of punishment simply makes it incoherent, as is the argument that capital punishment is somehow not…punishment. The only thing that justifies punishment in general is sin.

“Nothing but sin deserves punishment.” (Aquinas)

The only thing that justifies capital punishment in particular is that the severity of the sin requires an equally severe punishment.

2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

One cannot “purge the evil from your midst” unless the evil deserve it, and because it is a just punishment for their actions. This is an issue of justice by which sin and punishment are inextricably joined.

A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. (Pius XII)

When you use the word punishment, do you mean the infliction of ‘a penalty’, or is there more to it than that. Is there retribution involved? Justice? Vengeance? It seems to me that you’re using the word punishment to mean more than just a penalty. For example:

One cannot “ purge the evil from your midst ” unless the evil deserve it, and because it is a just punishment for their actions. This is an issue of justice by which sin and punishment are inextricably joined.

“deserve it”… “an issue of justice” Are you implying something more than a penalty, in the strictest sense of the word?

The CCC you quote uses the word penalty, which would be in keeping with the scripture I provided from the Pentateuch.

In these OT passages the prescription of death is strictly a penalty, a consequence, not a measure of justice or retribution. There is no “deserved” about it. But the responsibility for the death is on the hands of those who incurred the penalty, not the executioner. It is a means to “purge the evil from your midst”. Not something else.

 

[Richca]

You do not understand the point.
Self defence is not a directly intended killing but rather a tolerated doing of a lesser non moral evil to avoid a greater evil.

None of these tolerated exceptions allow a direct killing which is what the 5th Commandment absolutely condemns…as did Jesus who corrected Moses’s “eye for eye” and death for death principles…just as he corrected his teaching re divorce.

I repeat, if we have to choose an absolutist proposition between Moses/Noah (according to Ender) and Jesus on these two teachings (which at times conflict) it is clear that Jesus’s view on killing is the greater and more absolute.

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy between the Old Testament or Old Law and the New Testament or the New Law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as if they both don’t have a single author, namely, Christ and God. They are both divinely revealed covenants from the one God. Jesus said:

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5: 17-19). Jesus also said that Moses wrote about him in the Law.

Neither do I believe that the commandment ‘Thou shall not kill’ or Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount concerning the law of retaliation or an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth etc. are ‘absolutist’ precepts in a certain sense without a few distinctions.

For example, the commandment in the Decalogue God gave the Israelites ‘Thou shall not kill’ forbids the killing of innocent people thus it is written “The innocent and just person thou shalt not put to death” (Exodus 23:7). Thus murder is never lawful. But the commandment did not forbid the killing of people for various ‘capital’ crimes and sins such as murder, adultery, idolatry, cursing father and mother, etc. but rather the Israelites were commanded by God to apply capital punishment for these crimes but only if two or three witnesses could be brought forward.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

I think Jesus’ teaching concerning the law of retaliation which was given by God to the Israelites ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ has to be understood in context. He is certainly not doing away with the virtue of justice which of its very nature implies a kind of equality for one of the beatitudes he taught is ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness [justice], for they shall be satisfied’. In Luke 22:36, Jesus says “And let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” which could probably be argued for self defense. St Paul defended himself when he made that appeal to Caesar.

The various teachings or at least some of them in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount appear to me to be directed to the individual Christian. In the teaching on the law of retaliation, he is not telling us absolutely that we ought in all circumstances simply let anybody maime, kill, or do us or others harm at will or that we cannot justly defend ourselves, our family or nation or justly bring a case against somebody who has wronged us to court. Consider the parable of the unjust judge and the persistent widow and the mention of the court and judge concerning Jesus’ teaching on anger in the Sermon on the Mount. It could be a very serious sin against love of our neighbor and a breach of duty to not protect those whom we are especially more bound too such as our family and children. “You shall not stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake” (Leviticus 19: 16).

I think Jesus is saying that we ought not be rashly, inordinately, and to quick to retaliate at all times and under all circumstances but rather be prepared to suffer wrongs and injustices against us and forgive our persecutors and enemies for the love of God, Jesus, and our neighbor when various certain occasions may call for it as the better and more Christ like thing to do. As St Paul says, do not repay evil with evil but repay evil with good. And Jesus says “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”. In this teaching on an eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, Jesus is also not saying that an authority such as the state has no right to apply justice or the law of retaliation against wrongdoers and St Paul also makes this clear where he says that the state or those in authority over us are the ministers of God’s justice in wielding the sword against wrongdoers and the wicked.

 

[CamelJoe]

I’m not challenging you, just curious:

Are you saying that God did at one point “grant the sword” to the State and has since then withdrawn that authority, or are you saying that God never granted the State the authority to take vengeance upon the wicked and that the Church is just confirming what has always been true?

 

[Ender]

I read the whole chapter and it does not support your claim that the death penalty is a divine command. Bellarmine explains the nature of decrees and precepts within the Mosaic Law as specifically not being “prophecy”. (The Word of God)

It was not a prophecy because it would not always be true, as he said. This simply recognized the validity of circumstantial exceptions, as Aquinas noted. It is nothing more than recognition of exceptions, which is why he said the passage was a “decree and a precept”. The words mean neither more nor less than what they plainly say.

decree: an official order issued by a legal authority.
precept: a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought.

 

[Ender]

These are the considerations that determine whether the death penalty is just. There is no wiggle room in human law to simply appeal to a ‘divine right’ to the death penalty. It’s justness is determined by its service to the common good.

Your original claim to which my response was directed was this:

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

It is quite clear that you are no longer defending that position (“This article is addressing the right of human law to punish men and that right is divine law.”) The rest of your position is based on your own fantasy about what I believe, and no matter how often I correct you, you refuse to accept my explanation of my own position.

 

[Ender]

When you use the word punishment, do you mean the infliction of ‘a penalty’, or is there more to it than that. Is there retribution involved? Justice? Vengeance? It seems to me that you’re using the word punishment to mean more than just a penalty. For example:

I try not to use words in any way other than their common meaning, so yes, punishment and penalty seem to me to be the same thing. As for the objectives of punishment, there are four: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and defense.

In these OT passages the prescription of death is strictly a penalty, a consequence, not a measure of justice or retribution. There is no “deserved” about it. But the responsibility for the death is on the hands of those who incurred the penalty, not the executioner. It is a means to “purge the evil from your midst”. Not something else.

This is where we disagree. It is absolutely a measure of justice/retribution, and it is only because it is deserved that it is a just act. If you remove the concept of desert from “penalty” then anything is permissible as you will have completely abandoned the concept of justice.

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? unless, of course, I deserve it." (C.S. Lewis)

 

[Ender]

In this teaching on an eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, Jesus is also not saying that an authority such as the state has no right to apply justice or the law of retaliation against wrongdoers and St Paul also makes this clear where he says that the state or those in authority over us are the ministers of God’s justice in wielding the sword against wrongdoers and the wicked.

It is critical to recognize the distinction between the responsibilities of the individual and those of the state. As individuals we are forbidden to take revenge even as the state has the duty to do so. It is a mistake to assume that all the commands directed to us as individuals (Turn the other cheek, do not return evil for evil…) apply to the state.

…when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance (St Bellarmine, De Laicis)

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

I read the whole chapter and it does not support your claim that the death penalty is a divine command. Bellarmine explains the nature of decrees and precepts within the Mosaic Law as specifically not being “prophecy”. (The Word of God)

It was not a prophecy because it would not always be true, as he said. This simply recognized the validity of circumstantial exceptions, as Aquinas noted. It is nothing more than recognition of exceptions, which is why he said the passage was a “decree and a precept”. The words mean neither more nor less than what they plainly say.

decree: an official order issued by a legal authority.
precept: a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought.

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.”

Ender - "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)"

A decree and a precept are not ‘divine command’. That’s sorted.

You also then spliced together grabs from the ST to force it to support your position.

"(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)"

Divine law pertains to salvation and is unchangeable. The fact that there is punishment for sin is unchangeable. While divine law informs the basis of positive law, it doesn’t make positive law ‘fixed’ or unchangeable. Positive law is concerned with what serves the good of the relations between men. The common good. That logically means that no sentence is fixed and unchangeable including the sentence of death. They are flexible in human law serving first and foremost the common good. That’s sorted.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

1Lord1Faith:

When you use the word punishment, do you mean the infliction of ‘a penalty’, or is there more to it than that. Is there retribution involved? Justice? Vengeance? It seems to me that you’re using the word punishment to mean more than just a penalty. For example:

I try not to use words in any way other than their common meaning, so yes, punishment and penalty seem to me to be the same thing. As for the objectives of punishment, there are four: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and defense.

In these OT passages the prescription of death is strictly a penalty, a consequence, not a measure of justice or retribution. There is no “deserved” about it. But the responsibility for the death is on the hands of those who incurred the penalty, not the executioner. It is a means to “purge the evil from your midst”. Not something else.

This is where we disagree. It is absolutely a measure of justice/retribution, and it is only because it is deserved that it is a just act. If you remove the concept of desert from “penalty” then anything is permissible as you will have completely abandoned the concept of justice.

You’ve packed a lot of meaning into the word punishment. I don’t know how useful that’s going to be in a discussion like this

If those prescriptions for death in the Pentateuch were truly “just” and “deserved” for the corresponding act which is cited in each passage, then would a death sentence still be a just and deserved penalty today? Obviously not. So why is there a disconnect between the penalty and the justice, or what’s deserved?

 

[Ender]

If those prescriptions for death in the Pentateuch were truly “just” and “deserved” for the corresponding act which is cited in each passage, then would a death sentence still be a just and deserved penalty today? Obviously not.

Remember what is required for a punishment to be just: it must be of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime, and it must not be harmful to the society that employs it. If a punishment was truly just in the past then its severity must have been appropriate to the severity of the crime. For some crimes, the severity depends partly on the circumstances: stealing $100 from a rich man’s surplus is very different than stealing the last $100 from a poor man’s pocket.

For some crimes, such as first degree murder, the severity of the crime does not change. That is, while the nature of the murder may make some worse than others, no murder ever falls below the level where death is not a commensurate punishment.

So, if death was a just punishment before because of the nature of the crime then it is equally just today. If the severity of the crime was more serious in the past because of existing circumstances then it would merit a more serious punishment in the past than would be just today.

So why is there a disconnect between the penalty and the justice, or what’s deserved?

I don’t believe there is. Can you be more specific?

 

[adgloriam]

I read the whole chapter and…

I admire your tenacity. These past few months I hardly find time or concentration to read anything not work related. Except for the casual browsing of a thread here and there

I have heard of people in prison who have made incredible progress thanks to all the help and support received when in prison.
Keep that up… you ve got very valuable people to help people in prison in many ways.
Do not be afraid…it isn’t t just releasing anyone anytime whimsically what the church is advocating,that is out of the question. It is about not putting person to death.

A beautiful post @graciew I could never write a post like that

 

[graciew]

Thank you adgloriam…

 

[Le_Cracquere]

protecting society from criminal killers

“[P]rotecting society from criminal killers” is far from the only purpose of punishment. Retribution, equity, and the perpetuation of civic order are at least as important. If it’s not licit for the state to kill under any circumstance, then only private vengeance can adequately requite certain transgressions. But leaving such things to private retribution is an open invitation to public disorder and the law of vendetta. Therefore, it follows that the state needs the discretion to impose punishments (including death) that would otherwise degenerate into tit-for-tat private quarrels.

 

[Ender]

It is one thing to assert something, as Fr. Fongemie did, but a very different thing to present convincing arguments that it might be true. Actually, I think his position is unnecessarily confrontational, and pretty much ends the conversation before it can ever really begin. The arguments I have presented are directed at making this point: the change in 2267 is prudential because the interpretation that it is doctrinal is impossible.

The Holy Father is unambiguous on this point—the Church must, “…work with determination for [the death penalty’s] abolition worldwide .”

Yes, this claim is unambiguous as to what it means, but that doesn’t mean it is anything more than his personal (prudential) opinion.

Can we view this as anything other than a change, and a major one at that?

Yes. If if it is a prudential judgment then it is not a change at all. The church throughout her history has argued (prudentially) against capital punishment in specific circumstances.

• Man is what God made, sinner is what man made himself to be. So do not condemn people to death, or while you are attacking the sin you will destroy the man. (Augustine)
• Nevertheless, far be it from your minds that you, who have acknowledged so pious a God and Lord, now judge so harshly, especially since it is more fitting that, just as hitherto you put people to death with ease, so from now on you should lead those whom you can not to death but to life. (Nicholas I)

stress is laid on the principle that the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel”

This is a more troubling assertion inasmuch as before this it was pretty much understood that Scripture supported the death penalty.

• This teaching has been consistent for centuries — in the Scriptures… (Archbishop Gomez)
• If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be … contradicting the teaching of Scripture. (Cardinal Dulles)

our awareness of the dignity of persons has “increased.”… as Pope Francis plainly states, the death penalty is, “…an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” , “…contrary…to divine mercy” , and because, “Justice is never reached by killing a human being.”

And this is the sticking point. In order to accept this we have to believe that virtually all the Fathers, and Doctors of the Church as well as every pope prior to this one failed to properly recognize man’s inherent dignity. We also have to believe everyone also misunderstood Scripture on this point…until now. That’s a devastating indictment.

This question is not in fact limited merely to capital punishment but goes to the nature of the church herself.

 

[Ender]

A prudential judgment that it is always disallowed would be illegitimate if it was in fact allowed by divine law. A judgment that it was currently disallowed because of existing circumstances would be a legitimate judgment (whether or not it was accurate).

if the death penalty was merely a prudential question all along, then it certainly seems as though the competent authority is free to revise the teaching as it sees fit—and that the competent authority, has, in fact, done so. This I believe is a fair representation of the anti-death penalty faction’s position.

I have always understood their position as the church was always wrong before and has now finally gotten it right. There was never a question of judgment.

My view, however, is that even a revision of a prudential nature is unacceptable because it causes the foundations of Catholicism to crumble…

This question does seem to go to the very roots of the church. It isn’t clear how how anything the church says could be taken seriously if she walks back on this one. Too many things have to be discarded:

And as the things which the Holy Synod of Trent decreed …we… declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (First Vatican Council)

 

[SteelArchangel]

My cousin is a priest. My cousin is an official chaplain for death row inmates at a Federal prison.

In speaking about this he has said that these people on death row, have absolutely no hope. They do not have hope in religion, they do not have hope in God, they do not have hope that there will be a life sentence commutation. They truly are living Hell on Earth with no hope.

He says that he tries as best he can reconcile them with the Church and few are receptive. But not everything that is in the media is how it’s portrayed. Not everyone is a vicious, unrepentant killing machine. Some people just made a mistake, and the situation and circumstances are in a very grey area.

 

[graciew]

t would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.” —then-Cdl. Ratzinger, Donum Veritatis 16
[/

This isn t consistent with section 16 of the document in Vatican site,
If you have picked this from a blog , please re read the section to which this passage corresponds in full and then you ‘ll see if there is anything to comment…
Suggestion: avoid misleading blogs. And misleading bloggers.
Much less pitch Popes against each other.
And I assure you that I am not the brightest bulb in the Christmas tree but this is apples and oranges when you read the whole of the section and Donum Veritatis in the Vatican web site
…