Capital punishment debate: Dr. Feser and Msgr. Swetland

[Blue_Horizon]

Good question…but I am no scholar of Augustine.

Give us a break.
You fair rape the ambiguous meaning of anybody whose unlikely reading can be bent in your favour but when a major Father/Doctor contradicts you unambiguously then suddenly you arent a scholar…then go on to be one anyways .

Also, I don’t think it is a valid distinction to separate retributive punishment from protecting the public order …

This is begging the question. Of course you dont like to accept this as it would destroy your position that no other justice principle may interfere with a magistrate returning full vengeance that a crime deserves.

The fact is these two principles of justice can and often do come into conflict. The fact that the first is primary does not mean it can never be subordinate to the second.
Nor does it mean the first is essential to justice while the second is not.

It is clear that the secondary principle of publjc good is essential to determing the extent to which the primary principle of retribution may be exercised.

And given the further Catholic understanding that all killing is violent, non normative and essentially a perogative of God alone…the presumption is that a magistrate will only fully wield the Sword when the public good principle itself requires there is no other way. God will see the remaining retribution paid either in the next life or the conversion of the sinner by his own means in this life. Just as the darnel wheat parable says.

Retribution is an essential part of justice, and justice is an essential part of the public order.

Mad Ender logic again. You really would benefit from doing a course in logic, especially syllogisms involving wholes and parts .

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

Yes they should. But as above the public good may require that in the next life. And Gods justice, unlike Enders, is for conversion and even compassionate remittance of the punishment due to that sin. Which is why God is patient in administering full retribution so sinners may heed the end of a broader common good justice which is the opportunity for all to repent.

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

.
The Popes, nor Augustine, are not opposing retribution.
They are opposing your unbalanced view that no rightly deserved CP can ever conflict with the public order.
Clearly it can.
In such cases the principle of public good do require bloodless means of retribution…with the remainder being left to Gods providence to alot or remit as he sees fit.
To do otherwise a magistrate acts immorally and attempts to wrest from God an authority given from above that is not absolute and which he has abused.

 

[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.

You have to show some reasonable connection between divorce and capital punishment that suggests they were meant to be seen in the same light. This seems unlikely to me given that Christ explicitly talked about why divorce was accepted before him and was no longer acceptable, while he said nothing of the kind relative to capital punishment. Another significant difference is that it was Moses who set the law regarding divorce, but it was God who set it for CP. Finally, capital punishment as an aspect of justice really cannot change from one age to another. As a punishment it is only just if it is deserved, but to be deserved it must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. But if it is deserved because it is a penalty appropriate to the crime then this will be eternally true because the severity of e.g. the crime of murder cannot ever change.

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

The definition of an intrinsic evil is that it is evil in all instances. Since some executions (state killings) are not immoral then by definition CP (state killings/executions/the death penalty) cannot be considered intrinsically evil.

Ender

 

[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 the higher principle of public good, another essential end of justice that full retribution can conflict with.

This is the rule: the state has a duty to punish the guilty. That said, the church has always recognized that particular circumstances may limit the type or degree of punishment applied. These are the exceptions to the rule, but the existence of exceptions to the rule does not change the nature of the rule itself.

Just as Jesus said in the story of the darnel and the wheat.
Sometimes 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.

Not exactly. Retribution is a means; the common good is an end. The end is not retribution for the sake of retribution but for the sake of justice - which is an aspect of the common good - but if it is harmful then it is not a part of justice. I cited Aquinas on this point before:*In the infliction of punishment it is not the punishment itself that is the end in view, but its medicinal properties in checking sin; wherefore punishment partakes of the nature of justice, in so far as it checks sin. But if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed, the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice. *(ST II-II 43, 7 ad 1)

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.

Yes, I have made this point myself. This is how I understand the opposition to capital punishment of the last three popes.

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

This is an assumption on your part, and not one I agree with if for no other reason than it conflicts with the plain meaning of Gn 9:6. Regarding what Augustine would be in favor of, if the “public good” could be upheld by bloodless means what would that mean about God’s instruction? Was he mistaken? Bloodthirsty? God didn’t say to execute murderers to secure our own safety, he said they were to be executed because their action was so heinous, and I don’t think that was something Augustine would have disagreed with.*What is more hideous than a hangman? What is more cruel and ferocious than his character? And yet he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws, and he is incorporated into the order of a well-regulated state; himself criminal in character, he is nevertheless, by others’ arrangement, the penalty of evildoers. *(On Order, 2-4-12)
Ender

 

[e_c]

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

Deterrence of future killing also defends life - and it may be the best way. If a bank robber has taken hostages and knows he is going to prison for life if he gets caught, what motivation does he have for not killing a hostage? The goodness in his heart? A second life sentence? Or… perhaps the death penalty.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is the rule: the state has a duty to punish the guilty. That said, the church has always recognized that particular circumstances may limit the type or degree of punishment applied. These are the exceptions to the rule, but the existence of exceptions to the rule does not change the nature of the rule itself.

1. Noone denies there is a “principle” (it is not a rule as in law from what I can see).
2. Everybody agrees the principle does not always apply in practice.
3. There is no reason why the reason for 2. above could not be due to a secondary principle that must always be satisfied before 1. is allowed free reign.

And “bloodless means reasonably available” is clearly a recent practical “rule” or norm that the Magisterium has determined instantiates a second ancient traditional principle
called “common good” which has always been responsible for limiting the type and degree of retribution that can be morally imposed.

Not exactly. Retribution is a means; the common good is an end. The end is not retribution for the sake of retribution but for the sake of justice - which is an aspect of the common good - but if it is harmful then it is not a part of justice.

Sounds very confused to me.

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

This is an assumption on your part, and not one I agree with if for no other reason than it conflicts with the plain meaning of Gn 9:6. Regarding what Augustine would be in favor of, if the “public good” could be upheld by bloodless means what would that mean about God’s instruction? Was he mistaken?

No more than the Magisterium .

Obviously it is the Magisterium that interprets Scripture - especially the ambiguities of the OT regardless of how much Ender likes it or what a first pass private reading suggests.

Are you saying the last three Popes, when saying the availability of life imprisionment renders CP immoral, are mistaken in understanding Gn 9:6?

Or are you rather “confused” like the 4-1=3Cardinals.
Me, I will go with the Magisterium even if confused.

BTW
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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote:

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

So your logic for State Killings seems to be:

1. Something is intrinsically evil if evil in all cases.
2. Some types of SKillings are good.
3. Therefore no types of SKilling can be always evil.

Well lets see how that logic works with Private Killings:

1. Something is intrinsically evil if evil in all cases.
2. Some types of PKillings are good (e.g. lethal self defence).
3. Therefore no types of PKilling can be always evil.
4. But killing innocent people is a type of PKilling:
5. Therefore murder is not always evil

Where did I go wrong with my logic if you are correct?

But I think we can resolve the obviously wrong conclusion above by changing your logic a little as follows:

1. Something is intrinsically evil if evil in all cases.
2. Some types of SKillings are good.
3. Therefore other types of SKillings may be bad
4. SKilling of those able to be imprisioned for life is a type of SKilling
5. Recent Popes say this type of SKilling is always bad
6. Therefore IFL SKillings are intrinsically evil.

Now you might personally disagree with the Popes…but the logic above still holds does it not in contradiction to your own.

And following my logic with PKillings we get:

1. Something is intrinsically evil if evil in all cases.
2. Some types of PKillings are good.
3. Therefore other types of PKillings may be bad
4. PKilling of those who are innocent is a type of PKilling
5. The CCC says this type of PKilling is always bad.
6. Therefore murder killings are intrinsically evil.

Sweet, the logic here is Catholic now. Do you disagree?
If so at what step does the logic fail?

 

[Ender]

Deterrence of future killing also defends life - and it may be the best way. If a bank robber has taken hostages and knows he is going to prison for life if he gets caught, what motivation does he have for not killing a hostage? The goodness in his heart? A second life sentence? Or… perhaps the death penalty.

Deterrence is a valid objective of punishment. It is a secondary one (like protection), but it is certainly a proper one. Interestingly, in 1980 when the USCCB published a lengthy paper on capital punishment they listed only three objectives. They didn’t even include protection as a valid objective.*The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution, deterrence, and reform.
*An interesting aspect of deterrence is this: suppose social scientists determined that capital punishment had a significant deterrent effect? Given that 2267 implies that public safety is the most important aspect of punishment, if it was shown that that safety was significantly improved by a generous use of the death penalty, the same passage that now opposes it would instead become the passage that most effectively encouraged it. That the same statement can lead to completely opposite conclusions depending on social circumstances is a pretty good indication that the objection is prudential, because it certainly couldn’t be a moral one.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And “bloodless means reasonably available” is clearly a recent practical “rule” or norm that the Magisterium has determined instantiates a second ancient traditional principle called “common good” which has always been responsible for limiting the type and degree of retribution that can be morally imposed.

No, it is a judgment of the Magisterium about whether the common good is helped or harmed by the use of capital punishment in today’s societies.

Obviously it is the Magisterium that interprets Scripture - especially the ambiguities of the OT regardless of how much Ender likes it or what a first pass private reading suggests.

There is no ambiguity in Gn 9:6. It is a simple declarative statement.

Are you saying the last three Popes, when saying the availability of life imprisonment renders CP immoral, are mistaken in understanding Gn 9:6?

I’m saying you are mistaken in believing this is what JPII et al have said.

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.

I responded to this in post #200.

Ender

 

[e_c]

BTW
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.

Marriage was always indissoluble - even in the OT. Moses allowed people a legal loophole that let them commit sin in order to avoid even larger sin, such as despairing of the law altogether.

There is not supposed to be sin or death at all. But here we are nonetheless.

 

[Ender]

So your logic for State Killings seems to be:

1. Something is intrinsically evil if evil in all cases.
2. Some types of SKillings are good.
3. Therefore no types of SKilling can be always evil.

No, your conclusion is invalid, and that was never my position. Here is your form (P is the major term, M is the middle term, S is the minor term):

• All P (intrinsically evil acts) are M (evil).
• Some S (instances of capital punishment) are not M (evil).
• Therefore no S (instances of capital punishment) is P (intrinsically evil).

This is known as the fallacy of the illicit minor.A premise that refers only to some members of the class designated by the major or minor term of a syllogism cannot be used to support a conclusion that claims to tell us about every member of that class.
All I have said is: given that some instances of capital punishment are not evil it cannot be considered intrinsically evil, because something that is intrinsically evil has no exceptions - and capital punishment has exceptions. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil by definition.

Well lets see how that logic works with Private Killings:

1. Something is intrinsically evil if evil in all cases.
2. Some types of PKillings are good (e.g. lethal self defence).
3. Therefore no types of PKilling can be always evil.
4. But killing innocent people is a type of PKilling:
5. Therefore murder is not always evil

Where did I go wrong with my logic if you are correct?

Since conclusion (3) has nothing to do with my argument, conclusion (5) is nothing more than your own invention.

But I think we can resolve the obviously wrong conclusion above by changing your logic a little as follows:

1. Something is intrinsically evil if evil in all cases.
2. Some types of SKillings are good.
3. Therefore other types of SKillings may be bad
4. SKilling of those able to be imprisioned for life is a type of SKilling
5. Recent Popes say this type of SKilling is always bad
6. Therefore IFL SKillings are intrinsically evil.

Let’s simplify this:
Your claim is that recent Popes have said that executing someone who could be safely imprisoned for life is intrinsically evil.

Now you might personally disagree with the Popes…but the logic above still holds does it not in contradiction to your own.

Given that your interpretation of my logic in no way represents what I’ve said, and your “logic” is nothing more than an assertion, let’s address the only real issue: is it your assertion accurate?

Given that the ability to imprison people for life is not a new capability, but has in fact existed since before the Romans, and given that numerous popes had people executed, if your claim is accurate then we have had a rather large number of popes commit intrinsically evil acts.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Marriage was always indissoluble - even in the OT. Moses allowed people a legal loophole that let them commit sin in order to avoid even larger sin, such as despairing of the law altogether.

There is not supposed to be sin or death at all. But here we are nonetheless.

So why can you not accept the validity of concluding similar of Gods Kingdom on earth and nor should there be a need for the wielding of the sword by authorities and is hence not normative and very circumscribed in just usage nevertheless it is necessary in a mixed world whsre the Kingdom is still expanding so here we are .
There is no opposing of New and Old Tesaments in the view espoused by the non retributionist Catholic camp as you opine.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1. Therefore no types of SKilling can be always evil

So you now agree that some types of SKilling can be always evil afterall?

 

[Ender]

So you now agree that some types of SKilling can be always evil afterall?

There is a significant difference between claiming that no types of executions can be intrinsically evil and claiming only that some can be. Of course some can be: intentionally executing the innocent, executing for trivial offenses… That’s never been in question, but this is little more than semantics. The question is whether the position of the last three popes is that the execution of a person who could be safely imprisoned is intrinsically evil, or simply that they believe it to be unwise in current circumstances.

Ender

 

[e_c]

So why can you not accept the validity of concluding similar of Gods Kingdom on earth and nor should there be a need for the wielding of the sword by authorities and is hence not normative and very circumscribed in just usage nevertheless it is necessary in a mixed world whsre the Kingdom is still expanding so here we are .
There is no opposing of New and Old Tesaments in the view espoused by the non retributionist Catholic camp as you opine.

If nobody sinned, there would be no need of punishment.

I don’t know if I understand what you are saying… whether and how we are disagreeing or what. Sooooo…

My recommendation to posters in this thread is to get the book. I’ve started, it is very thorough.

Peace,
-e_c

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There is a significant difference between claiming that no types of executions can be intrinsically evil and claiming only that some can be. Of course some can be: intentionally executing the innocent, executing for trivial offenses… That’s never been in question, but this is little more than semantics. The question is whether the position of the last three popes is that the execution of a person who could be safely imprisoned is intrinsically evil, or simply that they believe it to be unwise in current circumstances.

Ender

For the last long while you have been the one playing semantics then.
You have asserted that it is logically impossible for SKillings to be intrisically evil because some CP can be moral. You somehow interpretted ABishop Chaput to have absolutely asserted this also.

I have just demonstrated to you that is a logically incoherent position and below you yourself just agreed that the proposition : “no types of SKilling can be IE” is flawed.

Logic dictates you therefore agree with me, as a possibility, that some types of SKillings may be IE even though SKillings as a whole cannot.

I would further agree with your proposition that those types of SKillings called “CP” can never be IE. But you would have to accept you have been playing semantic games, or confused the discussion on this point, because up until now you have always asserted that CP, DP, SKillings and SExecutions are the same moral reality.

Obviously you disagree that there is practical reason for asserting that there is a identifiable sub class of SKillings (SKBM, SKillings bloodless means) which is fair enough…however to keep asserting on logical, apriori grounds that such a type cannot exist cannot hold.

If there can be numerous types of PKillings (which you must agree is not always wrong) that are named intrinsically evil (killing of non aggressors, commonly called murder) then this is obvious.

Further, if we take the lead from the 5th C then even in those types of killings that a good and moral (whether CP or Self defence) we must still accept it is a regretful and non normative means to achieving justice…and the need would not exist in a kingdom committed to God even in a Fallen World. Just as divorce and remarriage should not have existed in the OT and there is even less excuse in the Christian Church. It should not be.

Admittedly the reasons SK and PK are necessary sometimes in a fallen world are different (apart from the fact men’s hearts are not always ordered to God). For SK as you state, punjshment is due to match the crime. However there is little agreed tradition to support your contention that killing another can only be duly punished by killing the criminal.
Also, the wheat and darnel story shows that a nominally just killing may be rendered immoral by circumstances that mean worse evils re the common good would follow…in those cases the guilty may have to be punished in a lesser way than they deserve and the rest left to God.

Given that there is a strong tradition that even just killing is non normative and thus to be avoided if equal substitute means are available, as is the case with self defence, then if an equivalent punishment is available it must be chosen as a matter of morality not counsel.

The Popes clearly imply that life imprisonment is an equivalent punishment to death.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If nobody sinned, there would be no need of punishment.

I don’t know if I understand what you are saying… whether and how we are disagreeing or what. Sooooo…

My recommendation to posters in this thread is to get the book. I’ve started, it is very thorough.

Peace,
-e_c

Jesus seemed to think that in his Church it was possible for divorce to be eradicated. He also felt that in his Church the same would hold for CP according to Ambrose and Augustine. Yes it may be sought from the secular authority…but Church Leaders or courts should never be involved in CP proceedings directly. Priests may not kill for any reason.

 

[e_c]

Jesus seemed to think that in his Church it was possible for divorce to be eradicated. He also felt that in his Church the same would hold for CP according to Ambrose and Augustine. Yes it may be sought from the secular authority…but Church Leaders or courts should never be involved in CP proceedings directly. Priests may not kill for any reason.

There are some problems here.

1. Jesus doesn’t have “opinions”
2. Divorce is not the issue, indissolubility of the sacrament is the issue - one might conceivably be bound to divorce, but remarriage would only be possible if there was no marriage in the first place for two baptized persons
3. Not all marriages “ratum et consummatum” are perfectly indissoluble while both parties live (Petrine and Pauline privileges)
4. Divorce in the OT is not comparable with capital punishment in the OT, which I have shown
5. Ambrose and Augustine do not present a very broad range views, as the one was the disciple of the other
6. They both supported capital punishment anyway
7. The Church sometimes legitimately holds temporal power and therefore must wield temporal authority, which includes distributing temporal justice
8. Canonical irregularity is a separate issue altogether - we are not inquiring of whether it is good, right, or legal for a priest to be an executioner, we are inquiring of the nature of capital punishment “in se” and as a tool of the State

I think I’m going to leave this conversation now and just push on with the book.

Peace,
-e_c

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There are some problems here.

1. Jesus doesn’t have “opinions”
2. Divorce is not the issue, indissolubility of the sacrament is the issue - one might conceivably be bound to divorce, but remarriage would only be possible if there was no marriage in the first place for two baptized persons
3. Not all marriages “ratum et consummatum” are perfectly indissoluble while both parties live (Petrine and Pauline privileges)
4. Divorce in the OT is not comparable with capital punishment in the OT, which I have shown
5. Ambrose and Augustine do not present a very broad range views, as the one was the disciple of the other
6. They both supported capital punishment anyway
7. The Church sometimes legitimately holds temporal power and therefore must wield temporal authority, which includes distributing temporal justice
8. Canonical irregularity is a separate issue altogether - we are not inquiring of whether it is good, right, or legal for a priest to be an executioner, we are inquiring of the nature of capital punishment “in se” and as a tool of the State

I think I’m going to leave this conversation now and just push on with the book.

Peace,
-e_c

A little petty methinks…a benign reading easily solves your concerns: e.g.

1. Jesus has counsels and conditionals and it was not this way from the beginnings… but if you want to be picky …
2. In the OT divorce left a man free to get another wife … obviously my point.
3. Are you for real
4. ?
5. Its called a mainstream tradition which is my point.
6. And so on…

 

[Ender]

You have asserted that it is logically impossible for SKillings to be intrisically evil because some CP can be moral. You somehow interpretted ABishop Chaput to have absolutely asserted this also.

I have just demonstrated to you that is a logically incoherent position and below you yourself just agreed that the proposition : “no types of SKilling can be IE” is flawed.

No, I didn’t. You’re getting tangled up because you don’t recognize the distinction between none, some, and all.

Logic dictates you therefore agree with me, as a possibility, that some types of SKillings may be IE even though SKillings as a whole cannot.

I don’t know why it’s so hard to communicate with you. My point has been nothing more than what you recognize here: “capital punishment as a whole cannot” be intrinsically evil.

I would further agree with your proposition that those types of SKillings called “CP” can never be IE.

Good, because that’s all I’ve ever said. I don’t recognize the distinction you make between capital punishment and state killing.

… up until now you have always asserted that CP, DP, SKillings and SExecutions are the same moral reality.

Since the last two terms are your own invention it isn’t clear what you mean by them. I have tried to be clear that I view capital punishment, the death penalty, and executions by state authority as synonyms. If you believe that “SKillings” and “SExecutions” mean something else, let me just point out that the thread topic is capital punishment.

Obviously you disagree that there is practical reason for asserting that there is a identifiable sub class of SKillings (SKBM, SKillings bloodless means) which is fair enough…however to keep asserting on logical, apriori grounds that such a type cannot exist cannot hold.

I always understood the term “bloodless means” (in 2267) to mean without killing, not whether blood was literally spilled or not, therefore to me there is no possibility of having a bloodless execution. Blood is used in 2267 with the same sense it has in 2260 and was “considered blood a sacred sign of life.”

If there can be numerous types of PKillings (which you must agree is not always wrong) that are named intrinsically evil (killing of non aggressors, commonly called murder) then this is obvious.

I’m not sure what “this” refers to, but the church tells us when killing is justified.*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Pius X)

Further, if we take the lead from the 5th C then even in those types of killings that a good and moral (whether CP or Self defence) we must still accept it is a regretful and non normative means to achieving justice…and the need would not exist in a kingdom committed to God even in a Fallen World.

No, I do not accept this. If the need would not exist in a kingdom committed to God, why was it extensively used by the Vatican States, which executed hundreds of criminals?

Just as divorce and remarriage should not have existed in the OT and there is even less excuse in the Christian Church. It should not be.

You keep asserting this but provide no evidence to prove it. It is simply your unsupported opinion. Capital punishment exists, and is justifiable, because it is just, because the murderer deserves to be punished in such a fashion, and justice is no different between the Old Testament and the new.

Also, the wheat and darnel story shows that a nominally just killing may be rendered immoral by circumstances that mean worse evils re the common good would follow…in those cases the guilty may have to be punished in a lesser way than they deserve and the rest left to God.

True. Nor have I ever suggested otherwise. There may surely be exceptions to the rule, but the rule stands unchanged nevertheless.

The Popes clearly imply that life imprisonment is an equivalent punishment to death.

That’s not so clear to me, nor do I think a case can be made that this is so.

Ender

 

[Rau]

…The Popes clearly imply that life imprisonment is an equivalent punishment to death.

I’m not sure they imply it, though one could speculate (as I did earlier). But even if they do - in fact, even if they said it directly, I don’t think we’d be under any compulsion to concur with that view.

More likely, the Popes are saying that LIP is as far as we may (or ought) to go. The debate is whether “may” or “ought” is the more accurate word choice.