Capital Punishment: modern invention or grounded in tradition?

[Ender]

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 the 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.

It appears to me that here you are saying that God’s covenants are no longer in force, that they have been abrogated. This is not what the catechism says:58 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.

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

The church never interpreted Gn 9:6 as being limited to pre-Christian societies. It is in fact the basis for her doctrine on capital punishment (along with Rm 13:1-4) and has been for 2000 years.

• Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? * (Innocent I)

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.

What are we obligated to follow if not the doctrine expressed by virtually all the Doctors and Fathers of the church, popes, and catechisms prior to 1995?

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 explanation why murder is so horrible?

Of course not, but surely you understand the structure of that sentence (Gn 9:6). That man is made in God’s image is given as an explanation in the second part of the passage for the command given in the first part.

So because the circumstances go to determine a moral act the circumstances of the DP is in fact a moral discussion.

If we disagree over the best course of action and make opposite choices one of us will be mistaken but neither of us will have sinned, therefore (generally) prudential choices are not moral acts.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I never claimed that martyrs sacrificed their human dignity … Killing someone if not legit defense is a taking away of their human dignity.

You can’t believe both of these statements. If wrongfully killing someone is “a taking away of their human dignity” then by that very definition the martyrs sacrificed their human dignity since they were clearly wrongfully killed. These statements are mutually exclusive.

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.

Have you ever thought about the irony involved in allowing a punishment to prevent a crime that you would disallow as punishment if the crime was committed?

but again what about 2267 and what about evangelium vitae?

Exactly - this is the problem: 2267 appears to conflict with church doctrine. We cannot simply choose one position and ignore the other without admitting that church doctrine (either now or before) is mistaken. How do you resolve this?

so you believe the catechism is in error?

No. I mean only what I said: that the first sentence in section 2267 is incorrect. *The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Professor, Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)

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.

I have done nothing more than present the constant teaching of the church as expressed over the centuries by her popes, catechisms, Doctors, and Fathers.

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.”

As Professor Flannery said, this restriction is not part of traditional teaching. You can pretty much see this for yourself by reading the 1992 version of the catechism and seeing how it describes the traditional teaching. Whatever we may change in the present we surely cannot change what is past.* The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.* (CCC 2266)
This is in fact the traditional teaching. There was never a restriction based on the necessity of defense.

Ender

 

[Ender]

one last thing I qoute St Thomas

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.

Understand that this is justification for executing someone for crimes other than murder. It is not a restriction on the use of capital punishment but an expansion. Aquinas had a different explanation for why murderers should be executed:These punishments are fixed by divine law.
Ender

 

[catholictiger]

let me say this one more time no matter how many times you qoute Church Fathers older versions of the CCC or whatever you use to defend your position. I trust what Pope John Paul II has to say about traditional catholic teaching over your opinion.

I’m going at this from the perspective that Pope John Paull II knows what he is talking about when he spoke with authority (but not infallibly). When he says that the tradition of the Church has always been the view I’m arguing for. I trust he is spot on.

Again I’m not going to try and argue point after point because its going back and forth.

But again it seems like it comes down to trust, you don’t think the thoughts of John Paul II are correct and you think he incorrectly represents the traditional Catholic Teaching. I trust the authority of the Pope and one of the greatest catholic thinkers of our time. If he says that the tradition of the Church is that the Death penalty can only be used if it is necessary for the defense of the people I trust him.

 

[Ender]

To give a further example, that it realy makes a difference, which is the country in question…

To accept this is to sacrifice the basis on which capital punishment is justified: because of the heinous nature of the crime. It is just neither to execute someone simply to protect ourselves or to fail to execute someone whose crime demands it.

Society has become uncomfortable with the entire concept of retribution yet it is retributive justice alone that justifies punishment. Sin and punishment are linked; the sinner deserves to be punished because of his action and that punishment cannot be dismissed even if he fully repents and presents no danger whatever to society.

We have focused on protection with no thought whatever given to justice. On the contrary, justice itself has become suspect.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

some articles to read and ponder

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty
ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2010/11/catholic-teaching-on-the-death-penalty.html

you can disagree with the current magisterium as long as the thing you disagree with wasn’t taught infallibly. But please when you disagree with a fallible magisterium teaching always remember what they teach when you dissent.

(one note I’m talking about the current magisterium, the current magisterium clearly teaches that the death penalty can only be used for defense of the people)

Ok I’m done talking on this thread.

 

[Ender]

you can disagree with the current magisterium as long as the thing you disagree with wasn’t taught infallibly. But please when you disagree with a fallible magisterium teaching always remember what they teach when you dissent.

(one note I’m talking about the current magisterium, the current magisterium clearly teaches that the death penalty can only be used for defense of the people)

I may disagree with the Magisterium only when what they teach is prudential; I may not disagree with doctrine, either infallible or ordinary.*As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm … that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. … prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles,2001)
Beyond this, however, I disagree with your understanding of what 2267 actually says.

Ender

 

[Ender]

some articles to read and ponder

I think you should have read these articles more closely.
[

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty

](http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty)John Paul, for his part, does not deny that the state has the right to impose the death penalty. The state retains this right, even though he thinks that the state **ought **not to make use of this right.*“He thinks” *the state “ought” not use capital punishment is a far cry from your understanding that capital punishment “can only” be used for defense.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm

the Pope states that the conditions of modern society argue against it’s use in all but rare cases
A judgement based on a personal evaluation of “the conditions of modern society” is a completely prudential opinion. That’s been a large part of my argument and, in being prudential, we may disagree with it without dissenting from any church teaching.

In fact I have not so much disagreed with JPII’s opinion about society as I have with those who see his concern about the conditions of modern society as moral objections to capital punishment itself, two very different concepts.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

I may disagree with the Magisterium only when what they teach is prudential; I may not disagree with doctrine, either infallible or ordinary.*As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm … that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. … prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles,2001)
Beyond this, however, I disagree with your understanding of what 2267 actually says.

Ender

to hopefully close this argument

it seems we really don’t disagree with the basic fact that the death penalty can be used justly but prudentially or morally shouldn’t be used if non lethal means are available to punish the criminal and protect society.

We just disagree if it is moral or prudential and some other small things.

God bless.

 

[Ender]

it seems we really don’t disagree with the basic fact that the death penalty can be used justly…

We agree on this.

… but prudentially or morally shouldn’t be used if non lethal means are available to punish the criminal and protect society.

But not on this.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

We agree on this.
But not on this.

Ender

I’m going to end this discussion here. I hope you understand but I just think its going to go back and forth and have no end so its best to close it here.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’m having the darndest time figuring out how to reconcile the idea of retribution (revenge?) killings with the teachings of Jesus about forgiveness. Like, I’m not saying it doesn’t make sense, I just don’t see how the two fit together and I think it’s fair to have some degree of confusion on this matter seeing as the two teachings appear contrary to each other on the surface.

 

[Ender]

I’m having the darndest time figuring out how to reconcile the idea of retribution (revenge?) killings with the teachings of Jesus about forgiveness. Like, I’m not saying it doesn’t make sense, I just don’t see how the two fit together and I think it’s fair to have some degree of confusion on this matter seeing as the two teachings appear contrary to each other on the surface.

The obligation to forgive is the responsibility of the individual; the obligation to punish is the exclusive right and duty of the state.*when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance; 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.” *(St. Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 13)
Ender