Capital punishment

[Ender]

Anyway, here’s what Romano Amerio has to say: From St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to Taperelli d’Azeglio, the traditional teaching is that the decision as to the necessity and legitimacy of capital punishment depends on historical circumstances, that is, on the urgency of the need to hold society together in the face of the disruptive behavior of individuals who attack the common good. (Iota Unum 187)

This is perhaps the strongest statement I have seen in defense of the position that capital punishment depends on historical circumstances. Against this, however, is Pius XII’s comments:*Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” *(Fr. John Hardon)
I am not aware of what Amerio is referring to with regard to the comments of Augustine and Aquinas.

My understanding is that more than just physical defense is meant when 2267 uses “defense” in the first sentence. I think Evangelium Vitae shows quite nicely that a proper sentence will obtain all four objectives of punishment.

EV at least addresses other aspects of punishment but I don’t think it is accurate to read that into 2267. We know it ought to be there, but it is a shortcoming of that section that it contains nothing beyond the appeal to personal safety. It refers only to “defending lives”, “defend and protect”, and “rendering inoffensive”. There is a passing reference to rehabilitation, but nothing about deterrence or, more significantly, retribution.

CCC 2265 says the following: The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

It is debatable whether capital punishment can or should be considered as an aspect of self defense. We know, for example, that while one may kill in self defense, such killing must not be intentional. In the case of capital punishment, however, the killing is very much intended; that is the purpose of the punishment, not some unintended effect.

56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty.

This is another troubling quote about which there is some debate.The Holy Father is obviously invoking the principle of double effect in the passage, for his concern is to deny that the “fatal outcome” is attributable to the self-defender’s intention; accordingly, he cites Part II-II, Question 64, Article 7 of the Summa at this point. Paragraph 56 then begins with the remark, “It is in this context that the question of capital punishment arises.” But this is false, at least historically, for the question was never considered by the Church within that context. (Kevin L. Flannery, S.J., Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)

I don’t think so. Clearly the traditional way of explaining capital punishment breaks up “defense” into retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and (physical) defense against the criminal. But it seems to me that the Catechism has chosen to explain it more broadly under the title of defense.

I don’t think this is supportable; that is simply not what the words mean. One might consider deterrence to be defense by other means, but defense carries no concept of retribution or rehabilitation.

In fact, however, the Pope says nothing against the traditional doctrine…It is at least plausible to think, with Professor Steven Long, that when the Pope speaks of the protection of society as grounds for using the death penalty, he may have more in mind than mere physical defense against the individual criminal. - Avery Dulles, SJ

Dulles at least recognizes the problem, just as he recognizes that the wording of the relevant sections in EV and the catechism is at best confusing, but I’m not sure Professor Long provides much support for the positions those documents put forth.*From a Thomistic vantage point, the reductionist interpretation of Evangelium vitae is difficult to reconcile with Catholic tradition, because this tradition must consider the political state as providentially bound to acknowledge and implement a morally transcendent order of justice. So long as Catholics do not become contract theorists or Hobbesians, they must conceive the state as executing an order of justice that transcends it in origin, majesty, and truth. Only on such a ground does punishment as a righting of moral imbalance make sense. This is, implicitly, the trouble faced by largely secular societies that aren’t themselves any longer sure why they should punish if society may be otherwise physically protected. *(Prof. Steven Long)
Ender

 

[loveandlight]

I couldn’t speak so confidently and in defiance of critics about being pro life and anti euthanasia if at the same time I was not a vocal critic and opponent of the Death Penalty anywhere in the world.

Life is life it is the most precious gift we have from God and only the Lord should cast judgement on those that have abused it. While any of us have breathe in our lungs there is always the opportunity for us to turn to the Lord and his mercy and forgiveness clear our Sins.

x

 

[Ender]

I couldn’t speak so confidently and in defiance of critics about being pro life and anti euthanasia if at the same time I was not a vocal critic and opponent of the Death Penalty anywhere in the world.

The church has declared that abortion and euthanasia are intrinsic evils. She has also declared that the use of capital punishment is a right of the State. She has a totally different perspective on these issues.

Life is life it is the most precious gift we have from God and only the Lord should cast judgement on those that have abused it.

It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). (Innocent I)

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

While any of us have breathe in our lungs there is always the opportunity for us to turn to the Lord and his mercy and forgiveness clear our Sins.

We should recognize that repentance, and the forgiveness that follows from it, does not expiate our sins. The debt of punishment remains even after the sin has been forgiven. Even dying does not cancel the debt.*At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” *(JPII, General Audience, 1999) Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

While any of us have breathe in our lungs there is always the opportunity for us to turn to the Lord and his mercy and forgiveness clear our Sins.

loveandlight was not suggesting all penal punishment be done away with altogether. Just what St JP was saying in EV…

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

 

[nmgauss]

loveandlight was not suggesting all penal punishment be done away with altogether. Just what St JP was saying in EV…

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

By the term, “bloodless means”, is there an implication of non-violence? Hanging, injection, electric chair, are bloodless. Certainly firing squad and stoning are violent acts.
Perhaps “acts which minimize suffering” would be a better expression.

 

[LongingSoul]

By the term, “bloodless means”, is there an implication of non-violence? Hanging, injection, electric chair, are bloodless. Certainly firing squad and stoning are violent acts.
Perhaps “acts which minimize suffering” would be a better expression.

No ‘bloodness means’ in this context means ‘without taking away the life’. St John Paul in Evangelium Vitae says… “Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[Ender]

loveandlight was not suggesting all penal punishment be done away with altogether.

Suppose that after committing a murder the person repents completely, turns his life over to God, and expresses the desire to enter an order and live as a cloistered monk. If we assume (for the sake of this argument) that he is absolutely sincere, what is your argument for keeping him in prison? He no longer represents a threat to anyone so the concern about the defense of society is satisfied. What other justification is there?

Ender

 

[nmgauss]

Suppose that after committing a murder the person repents completely, turns his life over to God, and expresses the desire to enter an order and live as a cloistered monk. If we assume (for the sake of this argument) that he is absolutely sincere, what is your argument for keeping him in prison? He no longer represents a threat to anyone so the concern about the defense of society is satisfied. What other justification is there? Ender

Becoming a monk is an excellent way to eliminate society’s burden of supporting this criminal. As long as the criminal remains in a monastery, he is no threat. Perhaps that could be offered as an alternative to prison time.

 

[LongingSoul]

Suppose that after committing a murder the person repents completely, turns his life over to God, and expresses the desire to enter an order and live as a cloistered monk. If we assume (for the sake of this argument) that he is absolutely sincere, what is your argument for keeping him in prison? He no longer represents a threat to anyone so the concern about the defense of society is satisfied. What other justification is there?

Ender

"**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. **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.

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity:"

The punishment must be carefully evaluated and serve the common good by redressing the disorder caused. Now mind … “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.” -Card. Avery Dulles.

In redressing the disorder by the authority given it by God, the State regards the common good first and foremost in making its evaluation. Since it is not God, it cannot effect Divine justice other than in its earthly capacity to serve the common good of all.

 

[Ender]

In redressing the disorder by the authority given it by God, the State regards the common good first and foremost in making its evaluation. Since it is not God, it cannot effect Divine justice other than in its earthly capacity to serve the common good of all.

nmgauss gave a very straightforward, reasoned answer. You cited Cardinal Dulles and gave no answer at all. This is pretty much a yes or no question and I’d like you to choose one or the other and let us know which it is.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

nmgauss gave a very straightforward, reasoned answer. You cited Cardinal Dulles and gave no answer at all. This is pretty much a yes or no question and I’d like you to choose one or the other and let us know which it is.

Ender

Well, I’m happy to agree with nmgauss here. Exile and slavery have served as penal punishments in the past, so I think it would be a just option for those who repentence might warrant that sort of ‘community service’ now.

 

[nmgauss]

The punishment must be carefully evaluated and serve the common good by redressing the disorder caused. Now mind … “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.” -Card. Avery Dulles.

In redressing the disorder by the authority given it by God, the State regards the common good first and foremost in making its evaluation. Since it is not God, it cannot effect Divine justice other than in its earthly capacity to serve the common good of all.

Why must a criminal be punished? What good would that do? Why is retribution so important? The problem is only being exacerbated by concentrating on punishment and retribution. Are these measures designed to “teach the criminal a lesson?” They all cost taxpayers a lot of money, and when failure occurs, recidivism is the result, incurring more taxpayer expense. What a waste!

What would Divine justice look like, and would it be monetarily expensive?

 

[Ender]

Well, I’m happy to agree with nmgauss here.

Well nmgauss’ position is consistent with his secular humanism; it is not, however, consistent with Catholicism. It is reasonable for him (?) to hold that position, just not for you to.Why must a criminal be punished? What good would that do? Why is retribution so important? (nmgauss)
This goes to the nature of sin, and if one doesn’t believe in sin (I don’t know what secular humanists believe) then punishment for sin is irrational. If one does believe in sin, however, (and I do know what Catholicism teaches), then punishment is obligatory regardless of whether one repents or not.

To answer nmgaussunishment *“is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium.” *(Pius XII)

*A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty. *(Pius XII)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Why must a criminal be punished? What good would that do? Why is retribution so important? The problem is only being exacerbated by concentrating on punishment and retribution. Are these measures designed to “teach the criminal a lesson?” They all cost taxpayers a lot of money, and when failure occurs, recidivism is the result, incurring more taxpayer expense. What a waste!

What would Divine justice look like, and would it be monetarily expensive?

Why must a criminal be punished? Because the common good demands it. Justice is ithe proper relationship of one man to another and and a man to the community. To that end “The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.” - Card. Avery Dulles

Here we note that retribution is not ‘divine’ retribution. If the criminal himself is appropriately repentant, his punishment can serve as an expiation of his sins before God, but as Card. Dulles notes…"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. "

The Catholic Church teaches that… “It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 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.” - St John Paul II

So punishment for crime meets the demands of justice in serving the common good and as is horribly remiss in the current ‘culture of death’, the awareness of the inviolability of all human life, needs urgent addressing in business of that justice.

“The commandment regarding the inviolability of human life reverberates at the heart of the “ten words” in the covenant of Sinai (cf. Ex 34:28). In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13); “do not slay the innocent and righteous” (Ex 23:7). But, as is brought out in Israel’s later legislation, it also prohibits all personal injury inflicted on another (cf. Ex 21:12-27). Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty. But the overall message, which the New Testament will bring to perfection, is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person. It culminates in the positive commandment which obliges us to be responsible for our neighbour as for ourselves: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18).” . Evangelium Vitae.

 

[LongingSoul]

This goes to the nature of sin, and if one doesn’t believe in sin (I don’t know what secular humanists believe) then punishment for sin is irrational. If one does believe in sin, however, (and I do know what Catholicism teaches), then punishment is obligatory regardless of whether one repents or not.

Since we are playing “answer the question with a yes or no only”… are you fully on board with Card. Dulles statement that…

“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.”

Yes or no?

 

[BellsMom]

Suppose that after committing a murder the person repents completely, turns his life over to God, and expresses the desire to enter an order and live as a cloistered monk. If we assume (for the sake of this argument) that he is absolutely sincere, what is your argument for keeping him in prison? He no longer represents a threat to anyone so the concern about the defense of society is satisfied. What other justification is there?

Ender

There was a sci-fi show that featured something like this in one of its episodes. We punished violent criminals like murderers by wiping their personalities clean and implanting a new one where the person lived a life in service of others instead of incarceration.

My brother and I talked for a long time about that and whether it was a just way to handle murderers. We couldn’t decide.

 

[Ender]

Since we are playing “answer the question with a yes or no only”… are you fully on board with Card. Dulles statement that…

“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.”

Yes or no?

Yes. I do not take this to mean, however, that the state should forgo retribution simply because it is imperfect. Retribution by the state remains not just a right but an obligation. As Dulles said:

• …the common good demands it. Justice is the proper relationship of one man to another and and a man to the community.*
  Ender

 

[nmgauss]

There was a sci-fi show that featured something like this in one of its episodes. We punished violent criminals like murderers by wiping their personalities clean and implanting a new one where the person lived a life in service of others instead of incarceration.

My brother and I talked for a long time about that and whether it was a just way to handle murderers. We couldn’t decide.

To magically turn an anti-social person into one that contributes to society would be an excellent way to solve the criminal problem. To exact punishment is stupid.

 

[nmgauss]

Since we are playing “answer the question with a yes or no only”… are you fully on board with Card. Dulles statement that…

“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.”

Yes or no?

What is God’s perfect justice? Does it solve the problem? Waiting until the final judgment for punishment does nothing for the present.

Secular humanists concentrate on today, not some day in future when judgment is finally rendered.

 

[Ender]

There was a sci-fi show that featured something like this in one of its episodes. We punished violent criminals like murderers by wiping their personalities clean and implanting a new one where the person lived a life in service of others instead of incarceration.

My brother and I talked for a long time about that and whether it was a just way to handle murderers. We couldn’t decide.

The greatest affront to a person’s dignity is to not consider him a moral agent, that is, to not hold him responsible for his actions. The “treatment” you describe would be proper for animals. If they are dangerous we simply change them into docile creatures that can still be useful, but this would be an affront to human dignity to do it to a person.*There can be no morality without freedom. *(Veritatis Splendor #34)

Human dignity requires man to act through conscious and free choice, as motivated and prompted personally from within, and not through blind internal impulse or merely external pressure. (VS #42)

CCC 1730* God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions.
*
CCC* 1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.
*
CCC 1734* Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary.*

CCC 1781 *Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed.
*This is why punishment remains necessary even if the threat of future crimes can be eliminated. Man is responsible for his actions, which means he must bear the consequences of his sins.

Ender