Capital Punishment: modern invention or grounded in tradition?

[catholictiger]

sorry for all these back to back posts but

4 things are the purpose of punishment

1. Retribution (primary)
2. Defense of society (not primary but still important and can’t be ignored)
3. Deterrence (not primary but still important and can’t be ignored)
4. Rehabilitation (not primary but still important and can’t be ignored)

I believe if 4 is ignored then it is not a just punishment. I believe if 3 is ignored it is not a just punishment and so on and so forth.

If someone justifies the DP on retribution alone he isn’t in line with the Church because all 4 things are important in determining the punishment. Also it goes against what the pope says in evangilium vitae.

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.

edit Source

 

[Ender]

Of course people should be punished for the wrongs they do, but the punishment should seek to redeem the man not just punish him.

Yes it should, but redemption requires repentance on the part of the sinner, which is not always given but the fact that the criminal is not redeemed does not change the justness of his punishment.

I believe that if a criminal is just locked up and ignored than there is an issue with it. Even the worst of criminals have human dignity and deserve justice.

And by definition they receive justice when they are punished according to the severity of their crime.

You are putting your focus on 2266 I’m just making sure that people realize that the Church also speaks of a restorative aspect of justice.

I cite 2266 to make clear what the church sees as the primary objective of punishment.

When I first read your statement It seemed that you could justify using the death penalty even when its not need to protect society.

That is exactly what I’ve been saying.

That threw up a red flag because its not the understanding of the Church.

I’ll grant that this appears to be what 2267 says but it is surely not what the church taught throughout her history.

Ender

 

[Ender]

please read this part of evangelium vitae … Bolding is mine

I’m familiar with this.

The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.

This is identical to 2266: the primary purpose of punishment is retribution; that is what "to redress the disorder" means.

Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom.

This point is also contained in 2266. The “adequate punishment” being one that is “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

** In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.**

Both defense and rehabilitation are valid objectives even though both are secondary. There is nothing new so far in this part of EV. The new part is the exhortation not to execute someone unless it is necessary to protect society and the question is: is this a prudential judgment or a new doctrine? I agree with Cardinal Dulles on this point:The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.
Ender

 

[Ender]

to make some comment on EV

from my reading of it it appears that the pope while he does show importance of punishment for crimes and how this is primary. I don’t think he is saying that rehabilitation/restoring the person/protecting society, is secondary.

Isn’t that the meaning of the word primary? If I specifically state that A is primary doesn’t that automatically mean that B, C, and D are all secondary? What else can the word primary mean? That’s not to say that because something is secondary it is not important but only that it is not as important as that which is primary.

Again by wording things in this primary and secondary way …

It is the church - both the catechism and JPII in EV - that use this phrase. It is their phrase, not mine.

… and by saying that protecting society/ rehabilitating the criminal is secondary …

But even if something is important if it is not primary it must be secondary.

…makes me think people will justify the death penalty only on an eye for an eye type of moral system. You killed my family and because the Church says punishment for what you did is primary you deserve the death penalty. That way of thinking is dangerous and not in line with the Church.

It is more in line with it than you might think. It is the individual who is forbidden avenge a crime but the state is obligated to.*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. *(St. Bellarmine)

Why would the pope say that the need for the DP is non existence if protection of society is second. Why would a secondary factor make the need for the DP almost non existence.

Yes, this is the question and I don’t think it has a good answer unless one accepts Dulles’ belief that JPII (et al) were opposed to the use of capital punishment because of the conditions of modern societies and not because of a change in doctrine.

I guess for clarification sake are you for or against the Death Penalty? If yes what crime would warrant the use of the DP?

I accept the constant teaching of the church that the death penalty is the just punishment for the crime of murder, based on Gn 9:6, and that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (CCC 2260)

Ender

 

[Ender]

4 things are the purpose of punishment

1. Retribution (primary)
2. Defense of society (not primary but still important and can’t be ignored)
3. Deterrence (not primary but still important and can’t be ignored)
4. Rehabilitation (not primary but still important and can’t be ignored)

I believe if 4 is ignored then it is not a just punishment. I believe if 3 is ignored it is not a just punishment and so on and so forth.

Is it possible for a punishment to satisfy only one of the four objectives and for it to nonetheless be an appropriate punishment, and if so, which one?

From the extremely high recidivism rates we know that many (and probably most) criminals are not rehabilitated so we know rehabilitation is not mandatory.

It is also clear from the number of criminals we have that large numbers are undeterred by the punishments of others but again, no one would argue that the punishments the others received were unjust because deterrence was not achieved.

There are also an unfortunate number of cases where a criminal escapes conviction for his serious crimes and is convicted only of lesser ones but there is no argument to be made that he should be punished more harshly than is appropriate for the crime on which he was convicted. That is, he does not receive the punishment necessary to protect society because it would be unjust.

There is only one objective that must be satisfied in every case, and it is that the punishment be just, which is the obligation of retribution. This is why it and it alone is primary because it is the only objective that must always be met.

Nor does the situation where someone cannot be fully punished because of the danger to others change this. The first objective of punishment is retribution (justice):*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. *(Aquinas)
Ender

 

[catholictiger]

I’m familiar with this.
This is identical to 2266: the primary purpose of punishment is retribution; that is what "to redress the disorder" means.
This point is also contained in 2266. The “adequate punishment” being one that is “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”
Both defense and rehabilitation are valid objectives even though both are secondary. There is nothing new so far in this part of EV. The new part is the exhortation not to execute someone unless it is necessary to protect society and the question is: is this a prudential judgment or a new doctrine? I agree with Cardinal Dulles on this point:The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.
Ender

Isn’t that the meaning of the word primary? If I specifically state that A is primary doesn’t that automatically mean that B, C, and D are all secondary? What else can the word primary mean? That’s not to say that because something is secondary it is not important but only that it is not as important as that which is primary.
It is the church - both the catechism and JPII in EV - that use this phrase. It is their phrase, not mine.
But even if something is important if it is not primary it must be secondary.
It is more in line with it than you might think. It is the individual who is forbidden avenge a crime but the state is obligated to.*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. *(St. Bellarmine)
Yes, this is the question and I don’t think it has a good answer unless one accepts Dulles’ belief that JPII (et al) were opposed to the use of capital punishment because of the conditions of modern societies and not because of a change in doctrine.
I accept the constant teaching of the church that the death penalty is the just punishment for the crime of murder, based on Gn 9:6, and that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (CCC 2260)

Ender

I feel like this discussion on primary vs secondary is getting lost. You are mostly correct in what you are saying I just you are incorrectly tying Church teaching to being in favor of capital punishment.

so I’m going to set the reset button for myself for this discussion because you are correct about the primary and secondary stuff. BUT you are incorrect in saying the death penalty is the just punishemnt for the crime of murder. This is incorrect for the CURRENT Magisterium. Let me explain to you why and I think its very simple. For a moment forget what St. Thomas Aquinas said, forget what other Church fathers said. I don’t think that what they say is unimportant but you must realize that St Thomas Aquinas lives in a much different time period then we do and morality in some ways is different then what it is for us. We aren’t the Catholic Church of St. Thomas Aquinas or any other Church Father. The Church devlops because it is a living body of believing people. Just because some pope or theologian said X in the 13th century or 8th century or whatever doesn’t mean it applies to us today.

For example St. Thomas didn’t believe in the immaculate conception of the BMV, does this mean we should not believe in this? No the Church has declared this to be dogma and it is morally binding for us to believe it. The same can go for the death penalty. We must obey the current magisterium not a past or future magisterium.

What has the current magisterium said on the death penalty. Easy refer to CCC 2267. What does that say that the death penalty can be only be justified if no other means to protect society are possible. No matter what people said before 1995 the Church has developed to say that the death penalty is almost completely unnecessary.

When I speak against capital punishment I do it with the backing of the current magisterium. It hasn’t come fully out against it but I think it is moving in that direction. Actually it is possible that it already is universally preached by the popes which would make it infallible dogma, but because it hasn’t been declared in that way its just speculation on our part.

also four years after EV JPII said this

I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

Papal Mass in St. Louis 1999

Pope Benedict in at a General Audience in 2011 called for more countries to end the death penalty.

Its simple the Church has developed its understanding of Capital punishment to a point where they see it as no longer necessary. The fact that most if not all the countries in the world can incarcerate criminals for life with little risk of escape I believe shows the DP is no longer necessary.

couple of sources I used to back up what I’m saying

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-benedict-end-the-death-penalty/
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

even Pope Francis calls for the abolishment of the DP

ncregister.com/daily-news/papal-message-reaffirms-call-to-abolish-death-penalty/

 

[catholictiger]

because I have a feeling I know how you are goign to respond let me just add this

the death penalty use to be just but now due to an increase in the success in keeping criminals locked up the DP is very rarely just. One day if not already the DP is unjust.

Note: on CCC2260 if you read it in context it has nothing to do with if you shed blood you should have blood shed in return.

you took that out of context it says and I qoute

The OT always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.

not blood shedding requires blood shedding

but that blood is a sacred sign of life.

if this was the case all murders should require the DP.

also if you look at how the CCC uses that qoute it talks about the constant conflict between God’s gift of human life and humans Murderous violence.

I know you are going to qoute Dulles and agree with what he says. You have every right to do that but I’m not morally obliged to believe that and I don’t know yet if I agree with him

its a complex issue but what is clear is that the Church moves to abolish the DP. I hold that the Church states that the DP can no longer be just in contemporary society which is a development of doctrine. Doctrine never changes it is only further clarified.

 

[Ender]

I just you are incorrectly tying Church teaching to being in favor of capital punishment.

Church teaching does support capital punishment. The current Magisterium, not so much. *Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment *(Cardinal Dulles)

BUT you are incorrect in saying the death penalty is the just punishment for the crime of murder. This is incorrect for the CURRENT Magisterium.

How is the “justness” of a punishment determined? According to the catechism a punishment is just if it is commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime. Since the severity of the crime of murder is determined by man’s divine nature, which cannot change, if capital punishment was just in the past it is just as just today.

For a moment forget what St. Thomas Aquinas said, forget what other Church fathers said. I don’t think that what they say is unimportant but you must realize that St Thomas Aquinas lives in a much different time period then we do and morality in some ways is different then what it is for us.

Morality is constant; it is the same for all times and places.

Just because some pope or theologian said X in the 13th century or 8th century or whatever doesn’t mean it applies to us today.

It matters if we believe what the church believes about herself.…sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. (Dei Verbum #10)
The teachings of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church are basic to her existence.

We must obey the current magisterium not a past or future magisterium.

We must understand the words of the current Magisterium in light of the past. We cannot believe they contradict one another without believing the church has failed."… the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church…"
How can we claim the current Magisterium has discerned the truth if we believe that earlier ones were wrong? What about the church’s claim to be protected from serious error? All of that goes out the window if we dismiss earlier teachings as wrong.

It hasn’t come fully out against it but I think it is moving in that direction. Actually it is possible that it already is universally preached by the popes which would make it infallible dogma, but because it hasn’t been declared in that way its just speculation on our part.

Why would you think what has been implied for 20 years would become infallible doctrine and that what was taught for nearly 2000 is not?*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Note: on CCC2260 if you read it in context it has nothing to do with if you shed blood you should have blood shed in return.

you took that out of context it says and I qoute

The OT always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.

not blood shedding requires blood shedding

but that blood is a sacred sign of life.

The comment that blood was seen as a sign of life is an explanation of an obscure fact, and since facts don’t change with time it is hardly necessary to state the point. The teaching referred to here is Gn 9:6, which is the passage most consistently referred to throughout church history when this topic was examined.

its a complex issue but what is clear is that the Church moves to abolish the DP.

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

if this was the case all murders should require the DP.

Yes, pretty much (absent extenuating circumstances).It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. 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)

I hold that the Church states that the DP can no longer be just in contemporary society which is a development of doctrine. Doctrine never changes it is only further clarified.

It is hard to claim that doctrine never changes while at the same time claiming that what was just in the past is now unjust.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

The comment that blood was seen as a sign of life is an explanation of an obscure fact, and since facts don’t change with time it is hardly necessary to state the point. The teaching referred to here is Gn 9:6, which is the passage most consistently referred to throughout church history when this topic was examined.

first we don’t disagree with the fact that blood is a sign of life. But second the CCC verse you qoute doesn’t come out saying explicitly that this justifies the DP. Sure fathers of the Church may have used that passage to justify the DP but that doesn’t mean that 2260 refers to the DP. For the Jews and maybe even the early Christians this could mean that the death penalty is justifiable. I have no issue with this but we aren’t jews and we aren’t early Christians. 3 things go into determining a teaching. 1 Sacred Scripture (unchangeable) 2 Sacred Tradition (Unchangeable) 3 The Magisterium (grows and develops). Something could develop in our interpretation of a certain passage or how a certain passage applies to us today. what I’m trying to get at is that the current magisterium states that the Death Penalty is practically an unnecessary and unjust means of punishment, because simpler means of punishment are available which will restore justice to all involved, and protect society.

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2005)
Yes, pretty much (absent extenuating circumstances).It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. 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)

look this very well could be the literal meaning of this passage I don’t see any reason why this wouldn’t be. The problem I have is I think you take it to far and I think you are reading something in the Catechism that simply isn’t there. If it was there then the death penalty should be used for all murders even crimes of passion. Even misdemeanors would require the DP. Looking at the context of ALL of divine revelation and taking into account the current teaching of the magisterium there is no way you can hold this view. Even a lesser view can’t be held. If your application of this interpretation is correct than it makes no sense.

It is hard to claim that doctrine never changes while at the same time claiming that what was just in the past is now unjust.

you are correct in a sense but I think you may have a lack of understanding here which may actually be causing our little debate here.

Doctrine and Dogma are one and are unchangeable, this is obvious and I don’t think either of us would reject this understanding.

But let me ask you this question, did you know as much as you did when you were a kid as you do now? No. Are there some things that you believed in the past that now you better understand while both are true? I suspect you do. Example as a kid you believed that I need to eat my vegetables that is a truth. As a kid you probably believed it because Mom or Dad told me to. Now as a mature adult you believe it because you know vegetables are good for you and help you have good health. You believed a truth but your understanding of that truth was very elementary.

the same holds true for the Catholic Church and our understanding of that truth.

Even the dogma of the trinity was questioned and debated and there are those who are considered saints of the Church who would be heretics today. Did Dogma and Doctrine change NO. Our understanding of it developed.

the same may be at play here.

I think there is a central truth in the DP issue. If the circumstances allow it there can be a just use of the Death Penalty. But now that the Church has developed its understanding and cultural circumstances have changed the Church now realizes that those circumstances can no longer be applied because the situation is so rare and almost non existent. So this is why I say at one point the DP was just but now it is unjust. Not based on the act itself but rather the circumstances surrounding the act.

I believe that in the time of Aquainas Augustine the crusades ect. in most cases the DP was a just action. But now it is mostly unjust.

One last thing something that may look like a change in doctrine isn’t actually a change in doctrine.

Look up Vatican I’s dealing with the modern wold

then compare it to Vatican II

the doctrine that was at issue here developed it didn’t change.

 

[Ender]

But second the CCC verse you quote doesn’t come out saying explicitly that this justifies the DP. Sure fathers of the Church may have used that passage to justify the DP but that doesn’t mean that 2260 refers to the DP.

The meaning of that passage is rather simple and clear: it means what it says and the church has always understood it that way. This is just another problem that 2267 has created - how do we correlate 2267 with 2260 and 2266 when they seem to contradict one another?

For the Jews and maybe even the early Christians this could mean that the death penalty is justifiable. I have no issue with this but we aren’t jews and we aren’t early Christians.

You keep trying to push the church’s support of capital punishment off into the distant past to justify ignoring that teaching but Vatican City had the death penalty in her laws until 1969.

what I’m trying to get at is that the current magisterium states that the Death Penalty is practically an unnecessary and unjust means of punishment, because simpler means of punishment are available which will restore justice to all involved, and protect society.

You’ve gone beyond what 2267 actually says. It does make the claim that prisons can adequately protect society but that is undeniably an opinion and no serious claim can be made that it is doctrine. It says nothing whatever about justice and it makes no statement that capital punishment is unjust.

I think you take it to far and I think you are reading something in the Catechism that simply isn’t there. If it was there then the death penalty should be used for all murders even crimes of passion. Even misdemeanors would require the DP.

You misjudge my position which is nothing more than this: the just punishment for first degree murder is death.

Even the dogma of the trinity was questioned and debated and there are those who are considered saints of the Church who would be heretics today. Did Dogma and Doctrine change NO. Our understanding of it developed.

The great difference between the doctrine of the trinity and that of capital punishment is this: there weren’t two doctrines of the trinity, no before and after versions. If you are correct in your perception that 2267 is a new doctrine on capital punishment then it exists as a repudiation of the previous doctrine which existed at least through the first version of the catechism in 1992.

I think there is a central truth in the DP issue. If the circumstances allow it there can be a just use of the Death Penalty. But now that the Church has developed its understanding and cultural circumstances have changed the Church now realizes that those circumstances can no longer be applied because the situation is so rare and almost non existent. So this is why I say at one point the DP was just but now it is unjust. Not based on the act itself but rather the circumstances surrounding the act.

I reject the idea that the church’s understanding of the nature of capital punishment has changed. I accept that circumstances can determine whether the death penalty ought to be used and I believe this is why JPII opposed its use, not because of some new insight into the punishment itself but simply because he felt its use was harmful in modern societies. That is, I will accept prudential arguments against its use but not moral ones.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

The meaning of that passage is rather simple and clear: it means what it says and the church has always understood it that way. This is just another problem that 2267 has created - how do we correlate 2267 with 2260 and 2266 when they seem to contradict one another?

I don’t disagree I just think you are misreading 2260

The Church is trying to show how for all time spilling blood is a serious thing. For the people who lived during the exile and in the promise land. An eye for an eye sheed blood for blood was something that was necessary for them. But Humans changed and became less barbaric. There was such a large change that when Jesus came he rebuked those who lived by violence. He didn’t try to defend himself when someone attacked him. He turned the other Cheek. Christ on calvary also fulfilled all of the mosaic law. There is nothing in scripture or the teaching of the Catholic Church that says Genesis 9:5-6 that this is a clear justification of the DP. If you read 2260 in context you will see that it doesn’t exclusively support the death penalty.

Another thing CCC 2258-2262 talk about the history of the 5th commandment. To use the church talking about history to justify the death penalty is a stretch. What it seems the Church is saying in CCC 2260 is that blood is a sacred sign of life and this will always be the case. Off topic: to think about the implications of this sacred sign of life is amazing. Christ shed his blood which brought death but that shedding of blood brought us light. Truly amazing.

You keep trying to push the church’s support of capital punishment off into the distant past to justify ignoring that teaching but Vatican City had the death penalty in her laws until 1969.

but they changed them?

I’m not even saying this I’ll explain what this says later

You’ve gone beyond what 2267 actually says. It does make the claim that prisons can adequately protect society but that is undeniably an opinion and no serious claim can be made that it is doctrine. It says nothing whatever about justice and it makes no statement that capital punishment is unjust.

It says that if certain circumstances applied the use of the death penalty would be unjust.

how the DP is always just if there are situations where it isn’t just I don’t get.

You misjudge my position which is nothing more than this: the just punishment for first degree murder is death.

This is incorrect.

the way I read what the Church says is as follows

the death penalty can be just if and only if it is used for self defense or another way to put it, let me qoute the CCC

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor

to me that is clear. The Church says that the death penalty can be used when protection of life is at stake. Nothing in 2260 or 2266 changes this. Using the death penalty can be an unjust and in most cases now of days the use of the DP is an unjust use of punishment. By unnecessarily taking away someone’s life you are taking away their human dignity. When you kill someone when there is no reason to you are making him less of a human being you are taking away his common good you are taking away his right to life which can ONLY be taken away justly by legitimate defense. If I’m misreading very clear statements by the Church and a very clear movement of the Church to completely abolish the DP by all of the popes since JPII I’m sorry and you are correct. But to me its clear society has developed to a point where the DP is almost no longer necessary. The current teaching of the magisterium is that the DP should only be sued when no other means of protecting human life are possible.

Again for clarification can we at-least agree with what the CCC says. That the death penalty can be used if an only if this is the only way of defending society against the unjust agreesor? If you say yes than our disagreement only comes down to what is just and unjust.

The great difference between the doctrine of the trinity and that of capital punishment is this: there weren’t two doctrines of the trinity, no before and after versions. If you are correct in your perception that 2267 is a new doctrine on capital punishment then it exists as a repudiation of the previous doctrine which existed at least through the first version of the catechism in 1992.

I never said doctrine changed I said it developed. The circumstances of our society no longer required the use of the DP. (well almost doesn’t) I don’t see how EV and the revised edition of the Catechism don’t make that clear. I also in no way reject what Cardinal Dulles says.

I reject the idea that the church’s understanding of the nature of capital punishment has changed. I accept that circumstances can determine whether the death penalty ought to be used and I believe this is why JPII opposed its use, not because of some new insight into the punishment itself but simply because he felt its use was harmful in modern societies. That is, I will accept prudential arguments against its use but not moral ones.

and I argue that the current magisterium holds that the death penalty is like just war. If certain conditions apply it can be a just punishment. These conditions are simple, if the death penalty is the only way to defend life it must be used. BUT if you can defend life with non lethal methods from the unjust aggressor the use of the Death Penalty would be an attack on the common good of the individual and his human dignity.

 

[Ender]

Part 1 …

The Church is trying to show how for all time spilling blood is a serious thing. For the people who lived during the exile and in the promise land. An eye for an eye shed blood for blood was something that was necessary for them. But Humans changed and became less barbaric.

I think our perceptions of retributive punishment is the primary reason for our differences on the issue of capital punishment. I’ll come back to this in another post.

There was such a large change that when Jesus came he rebuked those who lived by violence. He didn’t try to defend himself when someone attacked him. He turned the other Cheek.

Not exactly. When Jesus was struck by the temple guard he challenged the guard; he did not turn the other cheek and thus allow the guard to sin twice.

Christ on calvary also fulfilled all of the mosaic law.

What does that mean; that the law no longer has any force? If he said he did not come to change the law how can we believe he came to nullify it? Besides, Gn 9:6 is not part of Mosaic law; it is part of God’s covenant with Noah.

There is nothing in scripture or the teaching of the Catholic Church that says Genesis 9:5-6 that this is a clear justification of the DP.

You’re guessing here based on the fact that you’re not aware of such a teaching - like this one for example:*It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. 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)

If you read 2260 in context you will see that it doesn’t exclusively support the death penalty.

I’m just not aware of any context that could change the plain meaning of the words.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Part 2 …

catholictiger:

Another thing CCC 2258-2262 talk about the history of the 5th commandment. To use the church talking about history to justify the death penalty is a stretch.

Part of the history of this commandment is that capital punishment has always been expressly noted as an exception.

What it seems the Church is saying in CCC 2260 is that blood is a sacred sign of life and this will always be the case.

It is ironic that the passage people (and the church as well) regularly cite to show the sacred nature of man’s life is this one: man is made in the image of God. So it is hard to understand why that statement is so easily removed from its context. It is not given as an explanation of man’s nature but as an explanation of why murder is such a heinous crime … and why the penalty for that crime is the life of the murderer.

It says that if certain circumstances applied the use of the death penalty would be unjust.

No, it makes no comment at all about justice. That concept, which is in fact indirectly addressed in 2266, is ignored here. Certain things are implied but not stated and what is implied conflicts with what was in fact stated in 2266.

how the DP is always just if there are situations where it isn’t just I don’t get.

I recognize times when capital punishment would be unwise and if you accept Aquinas’ statement that at such times *“the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice.” *then we can agree that situations exist where it is unjust to use it. Let’s be clear about this though, we are not saying that there is anything wrong with capital punishment but only that conditions in society are such that its imposition causes more problems than it solves. That is a prudential judgment about which we may disagree but it is not a moral objection.

the death penalty can be just if and only if it is used for self defense …to me that is clear. The Church says that the death penalty can be used when protection of life is at stake. Nothing in 2260 or 2266 changes this.

The problem is that this position conflicts with both 2260 and 2266, not to mention 2000 years of church teaching. What justifies you in ignoring all of that?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Part 3 of 3

By unnecessarily taking away someone’s life you are taking away their human dignity.

Surely this cannot be true. We clearly do not feel that the martyrs sacrificed their human dignity along with their lives. Even crucifying Peter upside down did not take away his dignity and no one would believe that Christ lost his human dignity on the cross. If we don’t believe the good lose their humanity when they are wrongfully killed why would we believe the bad lose theirs when they are lawfully executed?

When you kill someone when there is no reason to you are making him less of a human being you are taking away his common good you are taking away his right to life which can ONLY be taken away justly by legitimate defense.

The church has never taught this, rather she has been quite clear about when life can lawfully be taken and she does not include capital punishment as part of self-defense:Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

• 1. In self-defense… *
     2. In a just war…
     *3. By the lawful execution of a criminal … *(Baltimore Catechism)

But to me its clear society has developed to a point where the DP is almost no longer necessary.

The justness of a penalty is not dependent on the development of society but on whether the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The severity of the crime of murder cannot change and neither can the punishments which can be justly imposed for that crime. If death was a just punishment 2000 years ago it is equally just today.

Again for clarification can we at-least agree with what the CCC says. That the death penalty can be used if an only if this is the only way of defending society against the unjust aggressor?

I’ll agree that this is what is implied but it is not what is said. Rather than saying the death penalty “can” only be used when necessary for defense it actually says it “should not” be used otherwise. I’ll also assert that the first sentence in 2267 is factually incorrect in its description of the traditional teaching of the church. Nowhere in that teaching was capital punishment ever limited in its use to its necessity for defense.

I never said doctrine changed I said it developed.

It isn’t clear how a doctrine that went from justifying capital punishment as divinely ordained to justifying it based on the secondary objective of personal safety cannot be said to have changed.

and I argue that the current magisterium holds that the death penalty is like just war. If certain conditions apply it can be a just punishment. These conditions are simple, if the death penalty is the only way to defend life it must be used. BUT if you can defend life with non lethal methods from the unjust aggressor the use of the Death Penalty would be an attack on the common good of the individual and his human dignity.

This is a new doctrine (if one believes 2267 is doctrinal).

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

Part 1 …

I think our perceptions of retributive punishment is the primary reason for our differences on the issue of capital punishment. I’ll come back to this in another post.
Not exactly. When Jesus was struck by the temple guard he challenged the guard; he did not turn the other cheek and thus allow the guard to sin twice.

not going to adress this because it’s not going to help me get to the point of my argument

What does that mean; that the law no longer has any force? If he said he did not come to change the law how can we believe he came to nullify it? Besides, Gn 9:6 is not part of Mosaic law; it is part of God’s covenant with Noah.

I could write a book on laws in the Noah Covent Mosaic Covenant etc. that are no long practiced by Christians and even Catholics. Christ fulfills the laws in that his death is teh perfect covenant and we no longer have to worry about holding up our end of the covenant because Christ as Man did it for us.

But many of the laws (no shell fish, don’t mix fabrics, etc.) were written for people of the of the time and place of the people of God. This is why in the Old Testament God would order people to go pillage towns and kill everyone in sight while today the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says that a war must be just and there can be no killing of non-combatants. God gave laws and ordered the people to do things because of the circumstances of that time. Genesis 9:6 is the same exact thing

You’re guessing here based on the fact that you’re not aware of such a teaching - like this one for example:It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. 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)
I’m just not aware of any context that could change the plain meaning of the words.

as I have said many times

doctrine can develop our understanding of truth develops. Just because St. Bellarmine says something doens’t mean we today as catholics are obligated to follow it.

Part 2 …
Part of the history of this commandment is that capital punishment has always been expressly noted as an exception.
It is ironic that the passage people (and the church as well) regularly cite to show the sacred nature of man’s life is this one: man is made in the image of God. So it is hard to understand why that statement is so easily removed from its context. It is not given as an explanation of man’s nature but as an explanation of why murder is such a heinous crime … and why the penalty for that crime is the life of the murderer.

so now you are saying the life long teaching of the Church about man is created in the image and likeness of God has nothing to do with man’s nature but rather an explination why murder is so horrible?

The pages of the first book of Sacred Scripture, which describe the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27), contain a fundamental teaching with regard to the identity and the vocation of the human person.

No, it makes no comment at all about justice. That concept, which is in fact indirectly addressed in 2266, is ignored here. Certain things are implied but not stated and what is implied conflicts with what was in fact stated in 2266.

I’ll address this later

I recognize times when capital punishment would be unwise and if you accept Aquinas’ statement that at such times *“the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice.” *then we can agree that situations exist where it is unjust to use it. Let’s be clear about this though, we are not saying that there is anything wrong with capital punishment but only that conditions in society are such that its imposition causes more problems than it solves. That is a prudential judgment about which we may disagree but it is not a moral objection.

it has everything to do with morality. A morally licit action must a morally good act (which I can agree the DP can be) its end, and circumstances. So because the circumstances go to determine a moral act the circumstances of the DP is in fact a moral discussion. (refer to CCC 1755) Prudence decides circumstances but it is still a moral discussion.

The problem is that this position conflicts with both 2260 and 2266, not to mention 2000 years of church teaching. What justifies you in ignoring all of that?

ok look I don’t know if you are correct in saying what you are saying. Even St. Thomas Aquinas realizes that the circumstances determine if the DP can be used. Plus I trust the magisterium and what she says. If it says very clearly in 2267 that the DP can only be used if it is the necessary way to defend life than I trust what the magisterium says in that statement. Plus in Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II backs up what the Catechism says. While ok yeah its not infallible, I don’t see how he would be incorrect. I haven’t seen any theologians reject what he says.

 

[catholictiger]

part 2 of 3

Part 3 of 3

Surely this cannot be true. We clearly do not feel that the martyrs sacrificed their human dignity along with their lives. Even crucifying Peter upside down did not take away his dignity and no one would believe that Christ lost his human dignity on the cross. If we don’t believe the good lose their humanity when they are wrongfully killed why would we believe the bad lose theirs when they are lawfully executed?

those who martyred said did an immoral act by denying them their right to life because they decided to follow God even unto death. I never claimed that martyrs sacrificed their human dignity what I’m saying is that human dignity and a right to life are given to us by God. Killing someone if not legit defense is a taking away of their human dignity. The reason legit defense doesn’t take away someone’s right to life and their dignity is because that person is that person is a threat to human dignity of other people. So out of a respect for the common good of all people and their own right to life.

Read the compendium of catholic social doctrine on human rights and dignity.

The church has never taught this, rather she has been quite clear about when life can lawfully be taken and she does not include capital punishment as part of self-defense:Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

• 1. In self-defense… *
     2. In a just war…
     *3. By the lawful execution of a criminal … *(Baltimore Catechism)

but again what about 2267 and what about evangelium vitae. You can’t ignore what the Pope has said or what the Catechism that is fully accepted by the Catholic Bishops. I don’t even know if your statement on the 2000 year history of the Church is correct. You pick a choose quotes to back up your position. I trust what the Church says when she speaks, espically through the Pope and the authors of the Catechism.

The justness of a penalty is not dependent on the development of society but on whether the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The severity of the crime of murder cannot change and neither can the punishments which can be justly imposed for that crime. If death was a just punishment 2000 years ago it is equally just today.

not necessarily. I hope you understand development of doctrine. The Church taught that we should not use the historical critical method about 100 years ago (if memory serves me correctly) now the Church encourages the use. Also The Church preached against interaction with the modern world, but than in Vatican II it wrote a document talking about the Church in the Modern world. Just because the Church taught something 100 200 500 1000 2000 years ago doesn’t mean that it must be accepted today. It is very possible and has happened many times that the Church has taught something and wasn’t clear in it which cause peopel to interoperate the truth wrong and the Church later further clarified that teaching which may look like a change but isn’t.

I’ll agree that this is what is implied but it is not what is said. Rather than saying the death penalty “can” only be used when necessary for defense it actually says it “should not” be used otherwise.

not the way I read it

I’ll also assert that the first sentence in 2267 is factually incorrect in its description of the traditional teaching of the church.

so you believe the catechism is in error?

This is very problematic. You could be in fact correct I’m sure that Catchecism has issues and maybe some mistakes. But you go about saying that the Church has always taught that the punishment for Murder is death. You teach it like it is Catholic truth. When both Pope John Paull II and the Catechism speak to the country. CCC 2267 and EV 56 clearly state that “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. JPII uses wording very similar if not the same exact wording.” (bolding mine)

Nowhere in that teaching was capital punishment ever limited in its use to its necessity for defense.

I just quoted something that clearly shows it.

It isn’t clear how a doctrine that went from justifying capital punishment as divinely ordained to justifying it based on the secondary objective of personal safety cannot be said to have changed.

This is a new doctrine (if one believes 2267 is doctrinal).

 

[catholictiger]

to summarize what I’ve said. I have made my points plenty of times I have not changed my view on this. This discussion will not go anywhere and I feel like the best thing to do is step away from this conversation. I have given my best respresentation of Catholic Teaching as I understand it on this issue.

but again you claim that Genesis 9:6 is a justification of capital punishment. I have issues with this because the Church in CCC 2260 doesn’t explicitly say this and just because god ordained it with Noah doesn’t necessitate that it applies to us today. Just like we can eat shell fish even though God clearly preached against it.

you claim taht the 2000 year tradition of the Church is that the DP is the just punishment of murder. I’m not to sure that is the case mainly because it disagrees with what is said in 2267 and EV, where it says the tradition of the Church says it can be used if it is the only necessary way to effectively defend human life.

Lastly you seem to be dissenting with what the Church says in EV and CCC 2267, by the fact that you don’t call it doctrine and that you think part of it is in error. I’ve tried to explain the Catholic Church position correctly but you still dissent. Its not on me to show why 2267 is correct it is on you to prove why this is in error and I don’t think you have done it. I’ll let you try again but I will only respond if you make new points. You continue to make the same points over and over.

Your interpretation of Catholic tradition on the DP is that it is the moral thing to do if someone murders someone. But that disagrees with what JPII says and I’m positive that both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis affirm this teaching.

no disrespect but I trust what my Church says over what you have to say. When I read these things its clear to me that the Church teaches the following. I QOUTE

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267** Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.**

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

bolding mine taken from vatican.va

 

[catholictiger]

one last thing I qoute St Thomas

Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump”

now this does justify the use of the Death Penalty but it does say that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good. It backs up what I and I believe the Church supports.

 

[carn]

One should include a limitation about what country one is talking about. As i have written in another thread, even today there are situations in which the conditions for death penalty are fulfilled:

To make an example, Saddam Husseins execution probably was acceptable in light of catholic teaching, but not because he massacred, gased, raped, robbed thousands or hundreds of thousands or gave orders to do so, but because during the process Hussein had declared his intent to again be ruler of Iraq by suggesting the US should reinstate him so he can end the civil war (so he declared his intention to commit the crimes again, Saddam ending civil war would probably have looked similar to the worst parts of his reign), because Iraq was a state torn apart by a civil war and foreign nations interfering on the brink of failure (no state can imprison somebody for life if the state might fall apart 5 years later) and because their were about 5000-10000 armed, fighting and murdering followers of the old regime, who would have certainly considered an organized attempt to free Saddam, which might have put him with his intent to commit his crimes again at the head of a fighting force numbering up to 10000.

Also, imprisoned criminals can escape or commit crimes against other prisoners. If a murderer imprisoned for life murders another inmate, its questionable whether society can be realy kept safe from him.

To give a further example, that it realy makes a difference, which is the country in question:
news.yahoo.com/al-qaida-surges-back-iraq-reviving-old-fears-061740950.html
"Al-Qaida has come roaring back in Iraq since U.S. troops left in late 2011 and now looks stronger than it has in years. The terror group has shown it is capable of carrying out mass-casualty attacks several times a month, driving the death toll in Iraq to the highest level in half a decade. It sees each attack as a way to cultivate an atmosphere of chaos that weakens the Shiite-led government’s authority.

Recent prison breaks have bolstered al-Qaida’s ranks, while feelings of Sunni marginalization and the chaos caused by the civil war in neighboring Syria are fueling its comeback."

Death penalty would certainly a moral option, if prisons are not secure at the moment and the near future and if the criminals in question are likely to use their escape to detonate bombs among civilians.