Capital punishment debate: Dr. Feser and Msgr. Swetland

[Blue_Horizon]

It is a mistake to pit the OT against the NT, as if the latter corrected the errors of the former. *And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts…because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself. (First Vatican Council)
Nowhere does Jesus condemn punishment in general or capital punishment in particular. He uses any number of parables where an authority kills the unrighteous, and himself said: “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ *(Mk 7:9-10)
No one has suggested that “always and everywhere” is the standard. We all (conspicuously including the church) recognize exceptions. Today, however, the exception and the standard have been reversed.*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… *(Bellarmine)
*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)
It is not a necessary evil. It is a fundamental necessity.So fundamental is the duty of public authority to requite good and evil in deeds that natural law philosophers consider it the paramount function of the state, and the New Testament declares that the role is delegated to magistrates by God Himself. (J. Budziszewski)
Ender

Wow, what a knee jerk reaction to 5 secs of off the cuff thought on a quote that simply seems to say God not man is the Lord of life.

Why would anyone think the view expressed pits the testaments against each other any more than Christian indissolubility versus OT divorce tolerance .

And finally its a converse with Rau not your goodself.

Apologies if I trampled some personal sacred cow…but what you see in the 1 line of text does not appear mainstream.

If you do want to respond how about my observations re your mad logic re SE cannot be intrinsically evil because CP can be just .
Or have you gone quiet because you see the silliness of that line of reasoning at last?

PS Bellarmine was not a Pope, let alone infallible. Give me a pastoral Magisterial interpretation and I will take that more seriously than that of a lawyer making a living/career by sucking at the teet of the temporal order

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is a mistake to pit the OT against the NT, as if the latter corrected the errors of the former.

Its concerning that you cannot see on the question of CP that the Church and Jesus see this necessary civil power as a very limited and imperfect solution, only tolerated at all because we live in a fallen world. In this sense it is exceptional not normative.

Jesus demonstrated a better solution for his followers that cannot be commanded but counselled. Namely turning the other cheek.

You do not seem to realise Jesus was himself a victim of CP which was unjust…thereby showing its deep limitations in practice. He demonstrated a better way to bring deeper and more lasting justice to the world for those who can do it.

That is why Christians of the NT see CP as akin to dynamite while you you and those of the OT tend to see it as bread n butter.

Nor do you accept the Catholic tradition of pacifism which rides on this deeper wisdom also espoused from the beginning by Ambose and Augustine despite their recognition of the necessity of the civil power of the sword. Both were against Church clergy or courts ever exercising this power within the Kingdom of God as it was false to the Gospel.

 

[Ender]

And finally its a converse with Rau not your goodself.

If you’re not prepared to defend your assertions perhaps you shouldn’t make them.

Or have you gone quiet because you see the silliness of that line of reasoning at last?

I pretty much read to the first insult and then dismiss the entirety of the post. With you, that happens a lot.

Ender

 

[Ender]

…on the question of CP that the Church and Jesus see this necessary civil power as a very limited and imperfect solution, only tolerated at all because we live in a fallen world. In this sense it is exceptional not normative.

This is just another assertion with nothing whatever to substantiate it. Moreover it does not accord with scripture or church doctrine.*‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained retributive as well as medicinal penalties’ and that ‘this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time, and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them. The reason is that the words of the sources and of the living teaching power do not refer to the specific content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action (cf. particularly Romans 13:4), but rather to the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality. *(Pius XII)

Jesus demonstrated a better solution for his followers that cannot be commanded but counseled. Namely turning the other cheek.

This is a rather profound misinterpretation of that phrase. What Christ was expressing is a requirement of the individual. The state has a very different obligation: to punish. Vengeance is forbidden the individual but is the duty of the state.*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; just as from the fact that the law said, “Thou shalt love thy friend,” they infer that it is lawful to hate enemies; but Christ teaches that these are misinterpretations of the law, and that we should love even our enemies and not resist evil, but rather that we should be prepared, if necessary, to turn the other cheek to him who strikes one cheek. And that Our Lord was speaking to private citizens is clear from what follows. For Our Lord speaks thus: “But I say to you not to resist evil, but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, etc.” *(Bellarmine)

You do not seem to realise Jesus was himself a victim of CP which was unjust…thereby showing its deep limitations in practice.

It was clearly unjust - which didn’t keep him from noting that authority, even when unjustly used, was from God.

He demonstrated a better way to bring deeper and more lasting justice to the world for those who can do it.

True, just not in the context of this discussion.

That is why Christians of the NT see CP as akin to dynamite while you and those of the OT tend to see it as bread n butter.

There is no justification in separating the two testaments as if they taught different things or were ruled over by different gods. Have you already dismissed what the First Vatican Council said?And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts…

Nor do you accept the Catholic tradition of pacifism which rides on this deeper wisdom…

There is no tradition of pacifism. This is another personal invention.*From the beginning there were two variant interpretations of State authority relating to war and capital punishment. One interpretation was openly pacifist, and the other was non-pacifist… At the same time, the accepted Fathers of the Church never adopted these extreme positions, either outlawing all war as unjust or forbidding all capital punishment as inherently evil. *(Fr. Hardon)

… also espoused from the beginning by Ambose and Augustine despite their recognition of the necessity of the civil power of the sword. Both were against Church clergy or courts ever exercising this power within the Kingdom of God as it was false to the Gospel.

This is also incorrect. Don’t you realize you accuse them of a willingness to do evil that good may come of it? How can they accept the “necessity of the civil power of the sword” and at the same time oppose it as “false to the Gospel”? They did oppose the use of capital punishment, but only on prudential grounds. They never raised a moral objection to it.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is just another assertion with nothing whatever to substantiate it. Moreover it does not accord with scripture or church doctrine.‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained retributive as well as medicinal penalties’ and that ‘this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time, and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them. The reason is that the words of the sources and of the living teaching power do not refer to the specific content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action (cf. particularly Romans 13:4), but rather to the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality. (Pius XII)
This is a rather profound misinterpretation of that phrase. What Christ was expressing is a requirement of the individual. The state has a very different obligation: to punish. Vengeance is forbidden the individual but is the duty of the state.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; just as from the fact that the law said, “Thou shalt love thy friend,” they infer that it is lawful to hate enemies; but Christ teaches that these are misinterpretations of the law, and that we should love even our enemies and not resist evil, but rather that we should be prepared, if necessary, to turn the other cheek to him who strikes one cheek. And that Our Lord was speaking to private citizens is clear from what follows. For Our Lord speaks thus: “But I say to you not to resist evil, but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, etc.” (Bellarmine)
It was clearly unjust - which didn’t keep him from noting that authority, even when unjustly used, was from God.
True, just not in the context of this discussion.
There is no justification in separating the two testaments as if they taught different things or were ruled over by different gods. Have you already dismissed what the First Vatican Council said?And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts…
There is no tradition of pacifism. This is another personal invention.From the beginning there were two variant interpretations of State authority relating to war and capital punishment. One interpretation was openly pacifist, and the other was non-pacifist… At the same time, the accepted Fathers of the Church never adopted these extreme positions, either outlawing all war as unjust or forbidding all capital punishment as inherently evil. (Fr. Hardon)
This is also incorrect. Don’t you realize you accuse them of a willingness to do evil that good may come of it? How can they accept the “necessity of the civil power of the sword” and at the same time oppose it as “false to the Gospel”? They did oppose the use of capital punishment, but only on prudential grounds. They never raised a moral objection to it.

Ender

As usual your capacity to observe the pointing finger but not the reality pointed to is startling.
I have not denied anything in the somewhat irrelevant quotes you provide.

There is no NT OT contradiction in what I said.
Is there a contradiction between OT divorce and NT indissolubility pray tell?

Dynamite is clearly legitimate…but it is not to be treated as breadnbutter which tended to be the way of CP in the OT and States in modern times.

Ambrose and Augustine clearly exhibit the pacifist tradition i speak of as did Jesus … whose death clearly demonstrated the limitations of CP which is indeed like dynamite that is in practice a legitimate power often used illegitimately which is why its necessity is but tolerated in a fallen world. It has no place in Eden and can never be considered normative or unqualified holy except when executed by God alone.

Which is why not even the leaders of the Church and its courts may exercise this power on its own members…CP is only a temporal/State concession as the God of the NT finally made clear to those of His Kingdom even on earth.

Notably you have not responded re the only matter I asked you to respond to…the intrinsically evil silver bullet of yours. Is it so hard to concede you make errors?

 

[Rau]

…Jesus … whose death clearly demonstrated the limitations of CP which is indeed like dynamite that is in practice a legitimate power often used illegitimately which is why its necessity is but tolerated in a fallen world.

This is a prudential argument for limiting the use of CP. How we get from here (and from the weight of Church teaching) to a position of asserting CP is morally wrong if we have secure prisons is the mystery. [A belief that CP causes more harm than good (these days) would be a moral basis to avoid its use. This also is prudential.]

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is a prudential argument for limiting the use of CP. How we get from here (and from the weight of Church teaching) to a position of asserting CP is morally wrong if we have secure prisons is the mystery. [A belief that CP causes more harm than good (these days) would be a moral basis to avoid its use. This also is prudential.]

As usual you do your “sniper thing” of asking things of others you won’t answer yourself .

Post #174
What about you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you’re not prepared to defend your assertions perhaps you shouldn’t make them.

I suggest you don’t try butting into somebody else’s conversation like this at your next dinner party - if you ever get invited .

I pretty much read to the first insult and then dismiss the entirety of the post. With you, that happens a lot.
Ender

Its really, really strange how you do that only with arguments where you become increasingly illogical even to yourself .

 

[Rau]

As usual you do your “sniper thing” of asking things of others you won’t answer yourself .

What a rediculous response. I make an accurate (non-insulting) observation about your post, and look at your reaction - and apparrently all because I’ve not yet responded to a prior post of yours. Was there a particular time-limit?

 

[Ender]

There is no NT OT contradiction in what I said.

In that case it is not possible to contend that capital punishment was opposed in the NT, because there is certainly nothing in the OT to suggest this.

Ambrose and Augustine clearly exhibit the pacifist tradition i speak of as did Jesus …

You assert this but provide no evidence it is true, which is not surprising because it isn’t.
Ambrose (in response to a Christian magistrate on this question):25 I RECOGNIZE in your application to me a pure intention of mind, zeal for the faith, and fear of our Lord Jesus Christ. And indeed I should fear to reply to it, being checked on the one hand by the obligation of the trust committed to you for the maintenance of the laws, and on the other by claims of mercy and clemency, had you not in this matter the Apostle’s authority that he who judgeth beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the avenger of God, upon him that doeth evil.
*You see therefore both what power your commission gives you, and also whither mercy would lead you; you will be excused if you do it, and praised if you do it not. (Letters, #25)
Nor was Augustine’s position any different:Only evil people do violence against evil people. But this is quite different from those who must act because of their position in society. A judge must often condemn some to be executed even though he is not pleased with the necessity. As far as he can he avoids the shedding of blood, but at the same time he must protect the public order. To use violence in such instances is part of the duties of his profession. (Sermon 302) Nor was Jesus the pacifist you portray him to be. Otherwise we would have to believe he used very questionable parables.
Parable of the 10 gold coins: …"*Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me." (Lk 19:11-27)

Parable of the tenant farmers: …*What will the owner of the vineyard do to them? *He will come and put those tenant farmers to death and turn over the vineyard to others. (Lk 20:9-16)

Notably you have not responded re the only matter I asked you to respond to…the intrinsically evil silver bullet of yours.

I don’t know what you refer to. Try phrasing your question again.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

[/INDENT]Nor was Augustine’s position any different:

Only evil people do violence against evil people. But this is quite different from those who must act because of their position in society. A judge must often condemn some to be executed even though he is not pleased with the necessity. As far as he can he avoids the shedding of blood, but at the same time he must protect the public order. To use violence in such instances is part of the duties of his profession. (Sermon 302)
Ender
​

This quote from Augustine seems to be the source from Tradition JPII used to teach:

“… In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety … punishment … ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. … ‘If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons …’” (EV p. 56).

Does your research show that Augustine also taught that the magistrate has a higher duty to punish, i.e., retribution, over protecting the public order?​

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What a rediculous response. I make an accurate (non-insulting) observation about your post, and look at your reaction - and apparrently all because I’ve not yet responded to a prior post of yours. Was there a particular time-limit?

Discussion isnt all about servicing you, always when you want , how you want.
Me I appreciate natural progression of thought on a shared basis.
I gave you my thoughts on your out of the blue question and requested same of you.

If there was ever an academic equivalent to a guy who prefers one night stands to a real relationship…well, that seems to be you here.
This is the fourth time you have done this thing in my discussions with you…its a strange intellectual habit.
I am cool, but simply not interested in being treated like that.
Bye.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In that case it is not possible to contend that capital punishment was opposed in the NT, because there is certainly nothing in the OT to suggest this.
You assert this but provide no evidence it is true, which is not surprising because it isn’t.
Ambrose (in response to a Christian magistrate on this question):25 I RECOGNIZE in your application to me a pure intention of mind, zeal for the faith, and fear of our Lord Jesus Christ. And indeed I should fear to reply to it, being checked on the one hand by the obligation of the trust committed to you for the maintenance of the laws, and on the other by claims of mercy and clemency, had you not in this matter the Apostle’s authority that he who judgeth beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the avenger of God, upon him that doeth evil.
*You see therefore both what power your commission gives you, and also whither mercy would lead you; you will be excused if you do it, and praised if you do it not. (Letters, #25)
Nor was Augustine’s position any different:Only evil people do violence against evil people. But this is quite different from those who must act because of their position in society. A judge must often condemn some to be executed even though he is not pleased with the necessity. As far as he can he avoids the shedding of blood, but at the same time he must protect the public order. To use violence in such instances is part of the duties of his profession. (Sermon 302) Nor was Jesus the pacifist you portray him to be. Otherwise we would have to believe he used very questionable parables.
Parable of the 10 gold coins: …"*Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me." (Lk 19:11-27)

Parable of the tenant farmers: …*What will the owner of the vineyard do to them? *He will come and put those tenant farmers to death and turn over the vineyard to others. (Lk 20:9-16)
I don’t know what you refer to. Try phrasing your question again.

Ender

Your capacity for not understanding those who disagree with you is indeed startlkng.

Are you attempting to demonstrate that either Ambrose or Augustine, in their capacity as bishop, personally condemned individuals with the power of the sword within their own Christian communities to keep order?
Are you saying the same of the Apostles?

If not we are agreed.

You still havent advised how you see NT views on indissolubility squared with OT divorce and why my observations re CP (necessary in a fallen world but not what God really intended as normatively good) cannot be related similarly.

Nor have you explained why you suddenly exited the debate, which you started, that SKillings cannot be IEvil because some instances are not immoral.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This quote from Augustine seems to be the source from Tradition JPII used to teach:

“… In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety … punishment … ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. … ‘If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons …’” (EV p. 56).

Does your research show that Augustine also taught that the magistrate has a higher duty to punish, i.e., retribution, over protecting the public order?

Exactly so.

Augustine is actually quite the opponent of Ender’s extreme view that vengeance is actually a positive duty of a magistrate that must be pursued to the full extent possible unless there are serious reasons not to!

One does not have to go very far at all into his corpus to find repeated sentiments such as the following:

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2750&pictureid=19119

In short the sword is a sad necessity in a fallen world that good magistrates unwillingly must exercise and even then only for the protection of the commonweal.
Why? Because the sword has limited power to effect good, even in the hands of a good magistrate it is still a violent solution.

And violence begets violence - just as Jesus observed…even if Bellarmine didn’t fully understand this.

 

[IWantGod]

Exactly so.

Augustine is actually quite the opponent of Ender’s extreme view that vengeance is actually a positive duty of a magistrate that must be pursued to the full extent possible unless there are serious reasons not to!

One does not have to go very far at all into his corpus to find repeated sentiments such as the following:

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2750&pictureid=19119

In short the sword is a sad necessity in a fallen world that good magistrates unwillingly must exercise and even then only for the protection of the commonweal.
Why? Because the sword has limited power to effect good, even in the hands of a good magistrate it is still a violent solution.

And violence begets violence - just as Jesus observed…even if Bellarmine didn’t fully understand this.

 

[IWantGod]

This quote from Augustine seems to be the source from Tradition JPII used to teach:

“… In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety … punishment … ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. … ‘If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons …’” (EV p. 56).

Does your research show that Augustine also taught that the magistrate has a higher duty to punish, i.e., retribution, over protecting the public order?

 

[Ender]

This quote from Augustine seems to be the source from Tradition JPII used to teach:

“… In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety … punishment … ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. … ‘If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons …’” (EV p. 56).

Does your research show that Augustine also taught that the magistrate has a higher duty to punish, i.e., retribution, over protecting the public order?

Good question…but I am no scholar of Augustine. We can note, however, that protecting the public order means more than merely protecting “the safety of persons”, as JPII indicated by listing these objectives separately. Also, I don’t think it is a valid distinction to separate retributive punishment from protecting the public order since the former is a means of attaining the latter. Retribution is an essential part of justice, and justice is an essential part of the public order. Why does God punish the wicked after their death if it is not a matter of justice? It is what Augustine refers to as “[the great law of] retribution, that they who do evil should suffer evil.” (City of God, Bk15, chap 15)

Beyond that, sin incurs the debt of punishment, which must be paid.*But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next… *(Bk 21,ch 13)
It is better to pay the debt now than later.*it is better to be punished and cleansed now than to be sent to the torment to come, when it will be time for punishing only, and not for cleansing *(St. Gregory Nazianzus)
We are losing sight of the fact that justice demands that sins be punished; it is justice that demands retribution. To oppose retribution is to oppose justice.*Almighty God, because he is merciful and full of pity, taketh no pleasure in the torments of wretched men: but because he is also just, therefore doth he never give over to punish the wicked. *(St. Gregory the Great)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Augustine is actually quite the opponent of Ender’s extreme view that vengeance is actually a positive duty of a magistrate…

Is it now extreme to repeat what the church teaches? Vengeance (“the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned” - Aquinas) is in fact a positive duty of the magistrate.
*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)

… that must be pursued to the full extent possible unless there are serious reasons not to!

Whatever you mean by “the full extent possible”, I have been clear that the punishment must be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” That you do not honestly represent my position, which has been clearly set out in countless posts, is probably the best indication that you are unable to refute it.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is it now extreme to repeat what the church teaches? Vengeance (“the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned” - Aquinas) is in fact a positive duty of the magistrate.
Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)
Whatever you mean by “the full extent possible”, I have been clear that the punishment must be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” That you do not honestly represent my position, which has been clearly set out in countless posts, is probably the best indication that you are unable to refute it.

Ender

You still havent advised how you see NT views on indissolubility squared with OT divorce and why my observations re CP (necessary in a fallen world but not what God really intended as normatively good) cannot be related similarly.

Nor have you explained why you suddenly exited the debate, which you started, that SKillings cannot be IEvil because some instances are not immoral.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is it now extreme to repeat what the church teaches? Vengeance (“the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned” - Aquinas) is in fact a positive duty of the magistrate.
Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)
Whatever you mean by “the full extent possible”, I have been clear that the punishment must be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” That you do not honestly represent my position, which has been clearly set out in countless posts, is probably the best indication that you are unable to refute it.

Ender

Clearly this quote is not to be understood as an absolute in the context of the other CCC balancing principles. Just as Augustine always held. The commensuration must be measured and even limited against thd higher principle of public good, another essential end of justice that full retribution can conflict with.

Just as Jesus said in the story of the darnel and the wheat.
Sometimss full retribution must be left to God…as I am sure Greg N would agree.
The below from Augustine shows that, in this life, the public good is a higher principle than retribution in so far as it may determine the measure of its imposition.

The magistrate does not have an absolute right to simply impose retribution fully according to the seriousness of the crime. He has a moral obligation to ensure such does not conflict with the common good. This is obvious even from Augustine below.

In the below case the presumption is clearly to avoid bloodshed, unfortunately the public good required it as there was no other way to ensure it.
In other cases the if public good can be upheld by bloodless means then Augustine would be in favour of it. Just as the Popes say.
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2750&pictureid=19119