Capital punishment and protection from error

[triumphguy]

Ender: you don’t answer arguments you try and reduce them to the absurd.

Yes, it’s a common rhetorical trick, but unless you are arguing for entertainment it debases the discussion.

At the heart of your argument is an important question: about the unchanging nature of truth.

You ask whether the Church has changed it’s beliefs in order to respond to a certain situation.

But: the Church is not a Church of either A or B, but a Church of A and B (where appropriate and authentic, etc).

And there are different ways of approaching truth: doctrinally and pastorally.

And Mercy has always outshone Justice. That is the whole nature of the Atonement.

It was Just that a man should die for the sin of a man.

God did not deny that justice, but in His Mercy sent His Son as The Man to die for all men. Both Justice and Mercy were served.

The challenge is: what are we doing to foster that justice and mercy in our society?

 

[Ender]

The Church has recognized the right of States regarding Capital Punishment (but never abortion or euthanasia) in the context of the time.

This cannot be true as the right of the State to execute criminals for the crime of murder is based on the concept of retributive justice which does not change with time. If death was a just punishment for murder 2000 years ago it is equally just today since the severity of the crime, being based on the inherent dignity of man, cannot change.

**The woman taken in adultery (Jn 8:1-11):
**
She was guilty. She was guilty of a capital offense…

Humility, justice and mercy do not deny objective truth.

They do change the way we respond to objective truth.

What has changed in the last two decades that alters how these truths apply? The Church has surely always been aware of this passage yet nowhere has she applied it to this subject. If JPII referenced it in Evangelium Vitae I am unable to find it. The point is that the Church has never based her understanding of capital punishment on this incident. Rather she bases it on Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4, which support - not oppose - its use.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

This cannot be true as the right of the State to execute criminals for the crime of murder is based on the concept of retributive justice which does not change with time. If death was a just punishment for murder 2000 years ago it is equally just today since the severity of the crime, being based on the inherent dignity of man, cannot change.
What has changed in the last two decades that alters how these truths apply? The Church has surely always been aware of this passage yet nowhere has she applied it to this subject. If JPII referenced it in Evangelium Vitae I am unable to find it. The point is that the Church has never based her understanding of capital punishment on this incident. Rather she bases it on Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4, which support - not oppose - its use.

Ender

Well we could look at lists of what the State thought was a crime punishable by death 2000 years ago, or even 200 hundred years ago and see if the punishment “fits the crime” today.

In early Victorian England these crimes were capital offences. (10,000 Londoners were publicly executed for crimes such as these)


You could of course be hanged drawn and quartered for being a Catholic priest in Elizabethan England.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Gen 9:5-6 only references the shedding of blood.
Re: Rom 13:1-4 is a good one for your argument.

(BTW - so what’s your position on taxes (vs. 6)(allowed and encouraged) , mortgages (vs. 8) (not allowed)?

 

[Ender]

Ender: you don’t answer arguments you try and reduce them to the absurd.

I try to be very specific with my answers … but if I find an argument I believe is absurd I do try to make that point.

And Mercy has always outshone Justice. That is the whole nature of the Atonement.

I won’t re-post the citation from the Baltimore Catechism I just made, I’ll just add others to make the point that there is no justification for believing that mercy outshines or trumps justice.
*- Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. *(JPII)
- We seek both justice and mercy. (USCCB)
- Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. (Aquinas)
- this movement of the mind" (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded (Augustine)

And finally there are these:
- If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas)
*- The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue - and **justice *especially, which is the mother of all virtues - should be practiced (Leo XIII)

I don’t think there is any case to be made that mercy outranks justice.

The challenge is: what are we doing to foster that justice and mercy in our society?

I don’t diminish the significance of mercy when I argue that it doesn’t outrank justice, but I will point out that it is never wrong to be just but it can be wrong to be merciful.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Well we could look at lists of what the State thought was a crime punishable by death 2000 years ago, or even 200 hundred years ago and see if the punishment “fits the crime” today.

To hold that the Church allows capital punishment for serious crimes and accepts that the State has the (God given) authority to apply it says nothing whatever about whether that authority cannot be abused. The Church also teaches that I have free will but surely no one would argue that she believes that I am morally free to do what I will simply because I am free to choose. Without that freedom to choose I could not be morally responsible for my choices and the same is true of States. That they have the right to employ capital punishment does not give them license to abuse that right or that however they choose to apply it is right simply because it is their choice.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

Well we could look at lists of what the State thought was a crime punishable by death 2000 years ago, or even 200 hundred years ago and see if the punishment “fits the crime” today.

In early Victorian England these crimes were capital offences. (10,000 Londoners were publicly executed for crimes such as these)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/02/article-1203828-05EDD89C000005DC-30_468x214.jpg

You could of course be hanged drawn and quartered for being a Catholic priest in Elizabethan England.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQaw...ARM/YMS9JWuPvrU/s400/HangedDrawnQuartered.jpg

Gen 9:5-6 only references the shedding of blood.
Re: Rom 13:1-4 is a good one for your argument.

(BTW - so what’s your position on taxes (vs. 6)(allowed and encouraged) , mortgages (vs. 8) (not allowed)?

Clarify for me. “Strong evidence of malice in children 7 to 14” Does that mean what I think it means? Did they execute the kids?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[triumphguy]

*- Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. *(JPII)
- We seek both justice and mercy. (USCCB)
- Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. (Aquinas)
- this movement of the mind" (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded (Augustine)

And finally there are these:
- If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas)
*- The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue - and **justice ***especially, which is the mother of all virtues - should be practiced (Leo XIII)

I don’t think there is any case to be made that mercy outranks justice.
I don’t diminish the significance of mercy when I argue that it doesn’t outrank justice, but I will point out that it is never wrong to be just but it can be wrong to be merciful.

Ender

I agree with all of these, and I agree that mercy does not outrank justice, yet I stand by my argument.

Was Jesus both Just and Merciful with the woman caught in adultery? She walks away alive and unpunished!

Or would you say that Jesus was not just? I know you would not say that. You might, however, argue that this passage is not important in your argumentation. But I don’t buy that this passage should not be considered very carefully.

Anyway. We could drag this on, but: I believe that following the Church’s teaching I am called to be against capital punishment (and they are trying to reinstate it in Canada). You do not. You will never convince me that I am wrong, and I don’t think you will be convinced that you are either.

Someone else is wrong on another thread and I need to go spend some time there Just kidding: I have a wife and kids to spend time with.

 

[triumphguy]

Clarify for me. “Strong evidence of malice in children 7 to 14” Does that mean what I think it means? Did they execute the kids?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Yes, children were executed, and shipped to penal colonies. (Not the same child obviously)

 

[Brendan]

Ender: you don’t answer arguments you try and reduce them to the absurd.

Yes, it’s a common rhetorical trick, but unless you are arguing for entertainment it debases the discussion.

In support of Ender, reductio ad absurdum is more that a ‘rhetorical trick’. but a recognized logical debate technique.

It shows that the person’s premise is faulty as it leads to an absurd conclusion, and therefore disproved.

It’s mathematical equivelent is proof by contradiction.

 

[Brendan]

Was Jesus just with the Woman in Adultery?

Was he merciful?

Did she die by stoning?

Did Jesus condemn her?

Did he tell her to go and sin no more?

She wasn’t going to die and everyone knew that. Roman Law prohibited the Jews from executing anyone.

Rather, the Pharisees presented the woman as a trap.

So what was the trap?

If they presented the woman and Christ said “go ahead and stone her”, they could have gone to the Romans and claimed that the Nazorean was defying their authority, as Rome had prohibited the Jews from executing anyone.

If Christ denied that she should be stoned, He would be denying the Moral Law handed down from Moses. Christ could not do that, as He Himself gave the Moral Law, and it is unchanging.

Rather, He escaped the trap by denying neither. He instead told the Pharisees to go ahead and stone her, but in a way they could not take to the Romans.

The Pharisees considered themselves to be sinless. They followed every iota of the written Law, ergo, they commited no sin.

But they could not make that claim to Pilate, he would have laughted them out of court.

That is why the wisest, the eldest left first, they saw how Christ escaped their trap. They could not go the Jews and claim that Christ denied the Law of Moses, nor could they go to Rome and claim that He advocated the flaunting of Roman law.

 

[triumphguy]

In support of Ender, reductio ad absurdum is more that a ‘rhetorical trick’. but a recognized logical debate technique.

It shows that the person’s premise is faulty as it leads to an absurd conclusion, and therefore disproved.

It’s mathematical equivelent is proof by contradiction.

It’s a trick, a sales technique.

*$300 a month isn’t a lot of money, why it’s only $10 a day, or to be exact 41 cents an hour. *

What is absurd is that no-one budgets their life by the hour.

Goldlilocks was right, sometimes “just right” is “just right.”

 

[triumphguy]

She wasn’t going to die and everyone knew that. Roman Law prohibited the Jews from executing anyone.

Rather, the Pharisees presented the woman as a trap.

So what was the trap?

If they presented the woman and Christ said “go ahead and stone her”, they could have gone to the Romans and claimed that the Nazorean was defying their authority, as Rome had prohibited the Jews from executing anyone.

If Christ denied that she should be stoned, He would be denying the Moral Law handed down from Moses. Christ could not do that, as He Himself gave the Moral Law, and it is unchanging.

Rather, He escaped the trap by denying neither. He instead told the Pharisees to go ahead and stone her, but in a way they could not take to the Romans.

The Pharisees considered themselves to be sinless. They followed every iota of the written Law, ergo, they commited no sin.

But they could not make that claim to Pilate, he would have laughted them out of court.

That is why the wisest, the eldest left first, they saw how Christ escaped their trap. They could not go the Jews and claim that Christ denied the Law of Moses, nor could they go to Rome and claim that He advocated the flaunting of Roman law.

Oh, so the essence of Christian mercy is to get a good lawyer?

That’s reductio ad absudum btw.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It would be cheaper to execute them the first time convicted. They would cut costs by cutting repeat appeals. You can lobby for whatever you feel strongly about, and you very well should. But you can’t argue that executing a criminal is cheaper than supporting him/her throughout their sentence as well as paying for their continued crimes. It’s the repeated appeals, continued crime, and related nonsense that drives up costs.

It’s also cheaper to abort an unwanted child, a child who may be born with a disease or handicap. We are not called to find the cheapest way out with regards to human life - any and all human life. We always wait in hope of repentance.

All of those things you said about criminals are true, but not for every criminal in every prision. Some of convicted but are innocent, some reform. And most of thecrimes you mentioned are not capital crimes and so the convicted would not be on death row.

 

[Brendan]

It’s a trick, a sales technique. "

It is interesting that you find it so. St. Thomas Aquinas used that ‘sales technique’ as part of his cosmological proof of God’s existance.

Why do you think that the Angelic Doctor had to resort to a ‘trick’ as part of his proof?

 

[Brendan]

Oh, so the essence of Christian mercy is to get a good lawyer?
]

Or, as Christ has shown, it would be an impossibilty to deny God’s Moral Law, and that any attempt to do so is not really at the essesence of Christian Mercy

 

[Brendan]

Oh, so the essence of Christian mercy is to get a good lawyer?

That’s reductio ad absudum btw.

In support of Ender, reductio ad absurdum is more that a ‘rhetorical trick’. but a recognized logical debate technique.

Which is what I said. You even quoted me on it in post 131

 

[Brendan]

Opps, sorry, I didn’t notice that YOU forgot the ‘r’ in absurdum

Is that why you had it in an almost invisible font color?

Note the spelling here.
iep.utm.edu/reductio/

 

[triumphguy]

Justice and mercy from a guy who walked the talk.

 

[chosen_people]

Hello all,

I’ve been thinking about the death penalty recently and genuinely wrestling with the issue.

On the one hand, until fairly recently, the teachings of the Church seem to have been pretty consistently pro-death penalty, authorizing the state to execute criminals not merely out of necessity but out of simple justice. This support extends at least as far back as the Council of Trent and probably further; Pius XII seemed to echo this position. The historical Church has, moreover, produced pretty sound exegesis and theological exposition to support this position.

On the other hand, the present magisterium is nearly entirely opposed to it, including seemingly all the American bishops, and the Catechism contains qualifications apparently absent and seemingly in opposition to prior teachings on the topic.

I am struggling specifically to reconcile these two facts with the Church’s protection from error by the Holy Spirit. I want to be a good Catholic, but to do that I need to know clearly what is expected of me with respect to this issue and frankly no two Catholic sources are giving me the same answer.

So is there a “hermeneutic of continuity” by which we can reconcile what the Church presently teaches with what it has historically taught, and more importantly with the fact of the Church’s protection from error?

Regards,

sw85

A Jewish perspective:

(Mishnah Makkot 1:10): “A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel.”

We see from the above that the Rabbis were not comfortable with and did not wish to impose the death penalty for any offense. This is line with the over riding principle in Judaism of the sanctity of life, of the rights of the individual including the rights of the accused.

In order to impose the death penalty Jewish law requires:

1. A Sanhedrin trial consisting of 23 Judges
2. 2 witnesses to testify that they witnessed the act for which the accused is charged
3. that the witnesses warned the accused that if he carried out the act he would be executed
4. that the accused acknowledged the warning and stated his willingness to commit the act despite being aware of the consequences
5. the confession of the accused is not admissible as evidence nor is circumstantial evidence

So we see why no imposition of the death penalty

Needless to say the Jewish State of Israel cancelled the British mandate death penalty. It exists on the books only for the crime of treason during wartime and for Nazi war crimes. The single execution ever carried out in Israel was of the Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann on May 31, 1962.

 

[triumphguy]

She wasn’t going to die and everyone knew that. Roman Law prohibited the Jews from executing anyone.

So who stoned St. Stephen?

It is interesting that you find it so. St. Thomas Aquinas used that ‘sales technique’ as part of his cosmological proof of God’s existance.

Why do you think that the Angelic Doctor had to resort to a ‘trick’ as part of his proof?

And the devil can quote scripture etc., etc.

A Jewish perspective:

(Mishnah Makkot 1:10): “A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel.”

We see from the above that the Rabbis were not comfortable with and did not wish to impose the death penalty for any offense. This is line with the over riding principle in Judaism of the sanctity of life, of the rights of the individual including the rights of the accused.

In order to impose the death penalty Jewish law requires:

1. A Sanhedrin trial consisting of 23 Judges
2. 2 witnesses to testify that they witnessed the act for which the accused is charged
3. that the witnesses warned the accused that if he carried out the act he would be executed
4. that the accused acknowledged the warning and stated his willingness to commit the act despite being aware of the consequences
5. the confession of the accused is not admissible as evidence nor is circumstantial evidence

So we see why no imposition of the death penalty

Needless to say the Jewish State of Israel cancelled the British mandate death penalty. It exists on the books only for the crime of treason during wartime and for Nazi war crimes. The single execution ever carried out in Israel was of the Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann on May 31, 1962.

Interesting perspective. Thanks.