Not supporting the death penalty doesn’t need to mean not supporting a sentence of life without parole.I can see why the Pope wants to eliminate capital punishment, because the theme of his Papacy is mercy. And I can see the concern that this may result in murderers having more opportunities to murder. I’m going with the Pope, but I would be lying if I said that I have no worries about it.
Muslims arn’t evil,ISIS are evil.Its very important to make that distinction especially for Christians because other people often observe how Christians speak/act.I do not know what kind of fairy tale world Pope Francis is living in. I read on catholic.org every few days about how muslims have decapitated yet more christians. These people are evil, satanic and violent. According to the Catholic Catechism society has the right to protect its citizens from those that are extremely dangerous. Our only defense against the ISIS fighters is to kill them. They can not be reasoned with.
This link below has some really terrible pictures which mainstream media will not talk about. I must warn that these images are extremely disturbing.
catholic.org/news/international/middle_east/story.php?id=56481
Retribution by God is retribution for its own sake and is of course perfect. Man has no ability to apply retribution perfectly so in that sense they are different. The state however, is the avenger of crime in this world, so in that way they are similar.What do you think Cardinal Dulles meant by this…?
“Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.”
Cardinal Dulles who you have quoted from often, makes it clear as a bell how we are to understand the concept of retribution within human justice.
"In principle, guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions.
This is the heart of Dulles’ observation: modern societies misunderstand the nature of punishment. I would add: just like most of those who comment in these forums on the death penalty.For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance."
Not quite, what I keep saying is that retribution is the primary end of punishment. Retribution is an obligation of justice. ***This is what the church teaches.You keep saying that retribution is the primary end of justice.
Not exactly. He was saying the “modern perspective” has no understanding of the true nature of retribution, therefore the natural good of retributive justice, because of this misunderstanding, can have harmful consequences. Now, since the common good is the obligation of the State, this failure of comprehension has to be taken into account in deciding what punishments are actually beneficial. There are two issues here that need to be understood separately. The first is what the church teaches about punishment, and the second is how that teaching is most effectively applied in current circumstances. It is one thing to argue that the application of capital punishment should not be used because it has harmful effects. It is entirely different to argue the church teaches that capital punishment is morally wrong. The first may be true, the second is absolutely not.Clearly Cardinal Dulles explains that although God has the power to redress the divine order of heaven and earth… mere humans not being capable of knowing the soul of the person or the nature of its affect on the divine order… is limited redressing the human order ie. the good of the relationship between between men.
Justice is always directed to the common good - that is its nature as a cardinal virtue - and it is symbolic of God’s justice only in that it is imperfect.Human justice/retribution/vengeance is symbolic of Gods justice/retribution/vengeance if it is directed to the common good.
Once again you combine both the moral and the practical aspects of the decision, but there are no moral considerations to be made. God has said that death is the just punishment for murder, as Dulles pointed out (first paragraph). That settles the moral question. There is no concern about “seeing the state of the soul” or “the divine order”. The divine issues are resolved, all that is left are the practical concerns: is capital punishment so misunderstood by modern societies that its use is harmful to the community that uses it? That is a valid question…but it is not a moral one.If God says death is the dessert of murder, man not being capable of seeing either the state of the soul nor the divine order… is limited to acting for the good of the community it serves when addressing crime. This encompasses many aspects to determine the gravity of the crime against the community and the type of redress that will best serve it for the good.
Right so retribution by the state is not determined objectively the way God determines it… it is determined by the needs of the society. Murder is deserving of death in Gods eyes since God sees and knows all, but murder is deemed deserving of death by the state, only if death serves the welfare of the society. If capital punishment as a general rule is harming society ie. the relationship between men… the Lord forbids its use (as per Aquinas). You have previously said that you can see no circumstance that would warrant the abolition of the death penalty as a general law so that suggests that you don’t believe that the state is accountable to the society or that the Church’s social teaching hold any moral weight for it. That doesn’t make sense. The state derives its authority from natural law and is accountable on that basis, to the society and its welfare. In this way, the state resembles Gods ultimate authority. To act like God, as in to govern and make laws based on the scope of personal experience and arbitrariness, is to be very ungodly. That’s a tyrant state and is illegitimate.Retribution by God is retribution for its own sake and is of course perfect. Man has no ability to apply retribution perfectly so in that sense they are different. The state however, is the avenger of crime in this world, so in that way they are similar.
Rendering to people according to their works is the very definition of justice; it is also the meaning of retribution. God does it perfectly; man does it to the best of his ability. I don’t actually see much there that is applicable to this discussion.
Ender
But even with life in prison, it sometimes happens that they commit murder while in prison, either the murder of a guard or the murder of another inmate. And it’s also possible that from prison they can order the hit of someone on the outside if they are a leader of some kind of gang or terror organization. But it’s not for practical reasons that I choose to accept the recent statement of the Pope on capital punishment.Not supporting the death penalty doesn’t need to mean not supporting a sentence of life without parole.
I don’t support the death penalty but definitely believe some prisoners need life without parole purely because their brain could have untreated psychopathic tendencies or their rehabilitation potentials are next to zero.
Your system of capital punishment doesn’t really address that anyway. If there really are prisoners on death row killing guards and other prisoners nowadays, that could be solved by expediting the sentence. The reality is though that death row is a years, even decades long journey. The death penalty needs to be immediate for those crimes to be stopped.But even with giving them life in prison, it sometimes happens that they commit murder while in prison, either the murder of a guard or the murder of another inmate. And it’s also possible that from prison they can order the hit of someone on the outside if they are a leader of some kind of gang or terror organization.
That’s actually a practical argument for capital punishment. But my reason for accepting Pope Francis’ recent opinion that capital punishment isn’t justified today is faith related rather than being for practical reasons. I see it as a sign relating to eschatology.Your system of capital punishment doesn’t really address that anyway. If there really are prisoners on death row killing guards and other prisoners nowadays, that could be solved by expediting the sentence. The reality is though that death row is a years, even decades long journey. The death penalty needs to be immediate for those crimes to be stopped.
Again, you are conflating two separate conditions and treating them as if they were one. “Murder is deserving of death in God’s eyes.” (Something on which we both agree.) That is the moral statement, the unchanging doctrine. The determination of whether it should be applied in particular circumstances is a practical consideration. It is not a moral choice.Right so retribution by the state is not determined objectively the way God determines it… it is determined by the needs of the society. Murder is deserving of death in Gods eyes since God sees and knows all, but murder is deemed deserving of death by the state, only if death serves the welfare of the society.
Not exactly. We are forbidden to deliberately do harm; that is immoral. We may inadvertently do harm; that is an error. God does not forbid errors. If you believe capital punishment is harmful and I believe it is beneficial, one of us has committed an error but neither of us has committed a sin.If capital punishment as a general rule is harming society ie. the relationship between men… the Lord forbids its use (as per Aquinas).
What makes no sense is your conclusion. It is a complete non sequitur.You have previously said that you can see no circumstance that would warrant the abolition of the death penalty as a general law so that suggests that you don’t believe that the state is accountable to the society or that the Church’s social teaching hold any moral weight for it. That doesn’t make sense.
If possible this assertion is even stranger than the preceding one. We differ over the usefulness of capital punishment. You believe it is harmful; I believe it is necessary. This is no different than taking opposing positions on raising taxes or increasing immigration. These are practical, political issues and have no moral component.The state derives its authority from natural law and is accountable on that basis, to the society and its welfare. In this way, the state resembles Gods ultimate authority. To act like God, as in to govern and make laws based on the scope of personal experience and arbitrariness, is to be very ungodly. That’s a tyrant state and is illegitimate.
My reason for changing my position (which never was firm anyway) was also practical, namely, the greater problem we have with a culture of death and indifference. Whether this is prophecy or an educated guess, I do not believe we will gain a lot of legal ground an abortion (not that we should ever stop trying), but that we will see abortion becoming socially unacceptable only after we value the even the lives of those who have shown disregard for life in the commission of murder.That’s actually a practical argument for capital punishment. But my reason for accepting Pope Francis’ recent opinion that capital punishment isn’t justified today is faith related rather than being for practical reasons. I see it as a sign relating to eschatology.