Capital punishment never justified, Pope argues [CC]

[Ender]

The Church is clearly and forcefully calling for its abolition nowadays through encyclicals and homilies and through Popes pastoral teaching.

It is true that the last three popes, and numerous bishops, oppose the use of capital punishment. That, however, is not to suggest that the doctrine that recognizes the validity of its use has been changed.

That is because its use is clearly harming the dignity of humans and in such circumstances is forbidden by God.

Asserting that it is clearly harmful is hardly the same as demonstrating that the assertion is accurate. Nothing about this is clear.

You may think the Church is irrelevant white noise in this issue, but that’s just you.

Church doctrines are not decided based on the perceptions of popes and bishops about the effects of this or that action.*It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. And, if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. *(Christopher Ferrera)
Ender

 

[Ender]

So today the Church says that capital punishment is not needed, but it’s possible that She could change Her prudential opinion on it again later if it seems to the Church that the ability of modern society to keep murderers from killing again is seriously deficient. Even if prison systems are good today there’s no guarantee that they will be good tomorrow. And prison systems around the world are not equal.

What you said is true but it is important to recognize that the primary concern in regard to punishment is not security. Confusion over this point has been an unfortunate side effect of 2267. A punishment is just not because it protects society but because its severity is proportionate to the severity of the crime. Protection is a valid objective but it is only secondary.

A second unhelpful effect of 2267 is the implication that the good of society can be reduced to mere physical protection, which is not at all accurate.*The medicinality of penalty is not merely a function of “stopping” an offense, nor merely of deterring, but of manifesting the truth regarding the transcendent order of justice and the wickedness of the offense. Without this manifestation of truth in penalty, social healing is not promoted. *(Steven A. Long)

this retributive function of punishment is concerned* not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself**. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred*
Ender

 

[Ender]

… there is no such thing as absolute justice, and miscarriages of justice resulting in the execution of innocent people is well documented.

It is valid to raise practical objections to the use of capital punishment, but this is entirely different than raising moral objections.

Additionally, the first murder was committed by Cain who murdered his brother, Abel. The punishment inflicted by God was not physical death, but being cast out from his community with the mark of his sin on him.

The church has not based her doctrine on capital punishment on the story of Cain, rather she has referenced Gn 9:6 (part of God’s covenant with Noah) and Rm 13:1-4. The interpretation of Cain’s treatment that makes the most sense to me is that God protected Cain from the vengeance of others because there was no valid authority at the time who could legitimately punish him. Individuals are forbidden to avenge crimes even as governments are obligated to do so, but if there is no legitimate government then punishments cannot legitimately be imposed.

It seems that we are being shown here to use alternatives to the death penalty if they are available.

I think this infers too much. If God was suggesting alternatives to capital punishment by allowing Cain to live, what was he suggesting when he struck Ananias and Sapphira dead as recounted in Acts?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

No, you changed that statement in a rather significant way. What Trent said was that the end of the (fifth) *commandment *is the preservation and security of human life; it absolutely did not say that about punishment. The primary end of punishment is retribution - retributive justice.

You’re a victim of your own chronic habit of cherry picking here. Trent absolutely does say that…

The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.

I’m interested to see your word gymnastics to find fault with this.

 

[Ender]

You’re a victim of your own chronic habit of cherry picking here. Trent absolutely does say that…The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life.

Yes, the end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. What you claimed in post 187 was this: The end of civil punishment is the ‘preservation and security of human life’.
The end of the fifth commandment is not the same as the end of civil punishment. They are different concepts. Your charge against me is again unfounded.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, the end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. What you claimed in post 187 was this: The end of civil punishment is the ‘preservation and security of human life’.
The end of the fifth commandment is not the same as the end of civil punishment. They are different concepts. Your charge against me is again unfounded.

Ender

The Catechism of Trent makes no mention of retribution being the end of capital punishment… it says civil punishments naturally tend to this end, (preservation and security of human life) since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.

That makes perfect sense and fits with Aquinas…

All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character;

and also with Cardinal Dulles…

Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

 

[Ender]

The Catechism of Trent makes no mention of retribution being the end of capital punishment…

True, it does not use the word retribution; instead it uses the word vengeance. These words in this usage are synonyms.the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime…
Are you suggesting that retribution is not a valid objective of punishment, or that the concept of punishment is somehow different for capital punishment than for all other forms?

it says civil punishments naturally tend to this end, (preservation and security of human life) since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.

Yes it does; protection is a surely a benefit of punishment, but acknowledging that it is a benefit does not at all mean that it is the primary objective. Punishment can also provide deterrence as well as rehabilitation, but, like protection, they are desirable outcomes. They are not the primary objective.

That makes perfect sense and fits with Aquinas…
"But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character"

You keep repeating this phrase; perhaps you should explain what you think is meant by the “medicinal character” of punishment.

and also with Cardinal Dulles…Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

Is this the same Cardinal Dulles you accused of “pandering” to the opinions of others in post #155? I’m surprised you find him worth citing. Nonetheless since I find his comments extremely astute I’ll respond.

So? Surely we can’t discount the need for justice because man’s justice is imperfect. You cannot possibly think that Dulles believed retribution was not a valid objective of punishment.

Ender

 

[Elena321]

We are told (2266) that a just punishment is one that is “*commensurate with the gravity of the crime”, *and that not only does the state have a right to impose such a penalty but has the duty to do so. What penalty then is commensurate with the gravity of the crime of murder? The church has discussed this as well.*So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. *

*The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. … he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself! *(Catechism of Trent)
It seems very clear to me that execution is the just punishment for murder, a position the church has taken throughout her entire existence. This is not “my” position, it is that of the church, which can be seen from 2000 years of writing on the subject.

Ender

Ended,
If one thinks according to this logic,could a person also conclude that an appropriate punishment for rape would be rape?

 

[Ender]

If one thinks according to this logic,could a person also conclude that an appropriate punishment for rape would be rape?

Do you recognize that it is the church that says the severity of the punishment *must *be commensurate with the severity of the crime? This is not my personal opinion; I am simply explaining what the church teaches, but in answer to your question: no, of course not. Rape, however, is a very serious crime and requires an *equally *serious punishment.

Ender

 

[Elena321]

In a sense that is exactly what it is; it is the meaning of retributive justice. It is also what the church teaches, and she has never repudiated that concept.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)
Of course not. It is not the barbarity of the crime that needs to be matched, just its severity. Again, this is what the church teaches; this is not my personal interpretation.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. ***(CCC 2266)

Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. (Aquinas)
Ender

Them what would you suggest would be an appropriate punishment for rape?
Rape can sometimes affect the victim extremely psychologically and lifelong, and to them worse then if they were killed.
Prison sentences protect the public from further rapes but the deprivation of liberty for the rapist -even if it was a life sentence-rarely can even come close to the torment that the rape victims feel so what punishment would you suggest would be proportionate to their crime?

 

[Elena321]

I was presenting the objective truth of the matter. Did the crowd that voted to crucify Jesus earn any merit for themselves by insisting that Barabbas be set free?

What makes you think that people who are against the death penalty support abortion?
There are many Catholics and other Christians in countries such as Australia,Croatia,Poland etc who neither support the death penalty nor abortion.

Regarding support of abortion in general public, believing in the death penalty will not reduce that.
What might reduce support of abortion is the challenge of how to get people to not be “brain washed” by the medical profession who say that life only beings or matters when a being can feel or have cognitive awareness etc…

 

[Ender]

Them what would you suggest would be an appropriate punishment for rape?
Rape can sometimes affect the victim extremely psychologically and lifelong, and to them worse then if they were killed.
Prison sentences protect the public from further rapes but the deprivation of liberty for the rapist -even if it was a life sentence-rarely can even come close to the torment that the rape victims feel so what punishment would you suggest would be proportionate to their crime?

I have no expertise in that area and no experience that would allow me to make a reasoned decision. If rape is actually worse than death then death would be a punishment proportionate to the crime, but I’m not capable of making that determination. I am, however, able to say what punishment is commensurate in severity with the crime of murder. The church has already answered that question.

Ender

 

[livingwordunity]

What makes you think that people who are against the death penalty support abortion?

I said that most people who are against the death penalty support abortion. I didn’t say that absolutely everyone is like this. I was speaking of the culture which includes more than just Catholics. But even with Catholics, there have been polls which show that many, at least in western countries, believe that abortion should be unrestricted. The most prominent examples of this are with Catholic politicians in the West, most of which claim that abortion is a right. And Obama, the most pro-abortion American president in history, got the majority of Catholic votes two elections in a row. He is the most pro-abortion POTUS because he is absolutely against ANY restrictions to abortion. He’s even against trying to save the life of a baby who is “born alive” after surviving an abortion.

http://catholicexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Obama-Planned-Parenthood-2-327x328.png

 

[LongingSoul]

True, it does not use the word retribution; instead it uses the word vengeance. These words in this usage are synonyms.the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime…
Are you suggesting that retribution is not a valid objective of punishment, or that the concept of punishment is somehow different for capital punishment than for all other forms?
Yes it does; protection is a surely a benefit of punishment, but acknowledging that it is a benefit does not at all mean that it is the primary objective. Punishment can also provide deterrence as well as rehabilitation, but, like protection, they are desirable outcomes. They are not the primary objective.

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. Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins. 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.

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."*

You keep saying that retribution is the primary end of justice. 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. This we call the common good. Aquinas…

“Justice, as stated above (Article 2) directs man in his relations with other men. Now this may happen in two ways: first as regards his relation with individuals, secondly as regards his relations with others in general, in so far as a man who serves a community, serves all those who are included in that community. Accordingly justice in its proper acceptation can be directed to another in both these senses. Now it is evident that all who are included in a community, stand in relation to that community as parts to a whole; while a part, as such, belongs to a whole, so that whatever is the good of a part can be directed to the good of the whole. It follows therefore that the good of any virtue, whether such virtue direct man in relation to himself, or in relation to certain other individual persons, is referable to the common good, to which justice directs: so that all acts of virtue can pertain to justice, in so far as it directs man to the common good. It is in this sense that justice is called a general virtue. And since it belongs to the law to direct to the common good, as stated above (I-II, 90, 2), it follows that the justice which is in this way styled general, is called “legal justice,” because thereby man is in harmony with the law which directs the acts of all the virtues to the common good.” - Summa Theologica, Justice

Human justice/retribution/vengeance is symbolic of Gods justice/retribution/vengeance if it is directed to the common good. That is, if it directed to the good of the relationship between men within the community of their belonging. 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.

 

[LongingSoul]

"Is this the same Cardinal Dulles you accused of “pandering” to the opinions of others in post #155? I’m surprised you find him worth citing. Nonetheless since I find his comments extremely astute I’ll respond.

So? Surely we can’t discount the need for justice because man’s justice is imperfect. You cannot possibly think that Dulles believed retribution was not a valid objective of punishment.

Ender

That wasn’t an answer. That was another question. So answer me this time. 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."

 

[LongingSoul]

I said that most people who are against the death penalty support abortion.

But what is your point in relation to the thread? Are you trying to say that because lots of people who oppose the death penalty, support abortion… that we should keep the death penalty?

 

[livingwordunity]

But what is your point in relation to the thread? Are you trying to say that because lots of people who oppose the death penalty, support abortion… that we should keep the death penalty?

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.

 

[epower]

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

 

[simple_soul]

I have no expertise in that area and no experience that would allow me to make a reasoned decision. If rape is actually worse than death then death would be a punishment proportionate to the crime, but I’m not capable of making that determination. I am, however, able to say what punishment is commensurate in severity with the crime of murder. The church has already answered that question.

Ender

Hi Ender, I don’t know about others but I still do not follow your train of thought very well. I looked up the words “proportionate” and “commensurate” and they are two words that seem to have the same meaning.
If rape is worse than death then how can it be proportionate?
In your own words you are considering one to be worse or more sever than the other. That is not showing one to be of the same proportion.
I do believe that it is not so simple as you seem to want to try and make it. I know from first hand experience that there are some crimes that the punishment would and could never be sever enough to make it seem like justice was imparted. It is like there would never be and could never be anything done to my perpetrators that would ever correspond, compensate or be as severe or proportionate to what I have had to endur. I realized this one day. I was in so much pain and anguish and wishing those who had caused me this pain and anguish could at the very least understand the pain and anguish they have, were and are currently causing me and suddenly I realized there was no way they could ever understand it let alone be punished with enough of a severe or proportionate of a punishment to make right what they have done and continue to do to me. Yes I have cried out to God for justice in sheer anguish. But there is no justice for it! Well not the kind of justice that is in the form of punishment that you seem to be so keen on trying to promote.
The only kind of justice I have found recorse to for it is Jesus’ sacrificing Himself for those injustices done to me. I found that He was punished for them. I accept this. It is the only way I have and continue to find healing and peace for it.
I understand we have to make up for what was lacking in Jesus sacrifice as St. Paul tells us but I also know that Jesus is the one who makes up for or pays the price for what we can not make up. We are all such complex creatures. No assault or grievience will effect each of us the same way. There will always be variences and different degrees of severity and no punishment will ever be able to “pay in full” for it. Some times it might seem like the punishment helps, and maybe it does, but it never makes it like it is balanced out or paid in full or proportionate to what was done. Again, only Jesus’ sacrifice, for me anyway, has paid it in full.
I do understand that in civil communities we have to keep some semblence of order and we do need to keep society as safe as we can but I also know that the dignity of those who are our perpetrators has to be respected too. In all of yours and LongingSouls posts and in other things I have read I have found that this is what the Church has been and continues to guide us to do. I understand you see getting ride of or abolishing the death penalty as being a prudential judgement. I guess I understand and see this too, but I also beleive it is a good prudential judgement.

 

[Elena321]

I said that most people who are against the death penalty support abortion. I didn’t say that absolutely everyone is like this. I was speaking of the culture which includes more than just Catholics. But even with Catholics, there have been polls which show that many, at least in western countries, believe that abortion should be unrestricted. The most prominent examples of this are with Catholic politicians in the West, most of which claim that abortion is a right. And Obama, the most pro-abortion American president in history, got the majority of Catholic votes two elections in a row. He is the most pro-abortion POTUS because he is absolutely against ANY restrictions to abortion. He’s even against trying to save the life of a baby who is “born alive” after surviving an abortion.

Its a shame Obama feels this way about abortion.
I’ll pray God guides him.