capital punishment

[LongingSoul]

There is no valid reason to assume that a restriction has existed for 2000 years without ever once being expressed or even suggested. If it was implicit in the doctrine where was it implied, and how could it have gone completely unnoticed by so many for so long? There is no reason to assume the restriction was implicit in the doctrine since there is nothing in the doctrine that implies it. To the contrary, if anything is implied it is that the restriction is inaccurate. This has been asked before: how can a secondary objective override the demands of the primary objective?

There’s every valid reason because that is the way of the world from generation to generation. Fr. Feeney for example, could not accept that for 2000 years the Church taught that only Catholics go to heaven and then suddenly we are to believe that any old one might be there!!

Over the years, you have been given loads of examples of seeming changes to Church doctrine that took a generation to accept as valid Catholic teaching. It is a common flaw in mortal man that reflects a lack of Catholic faith at the end of the day.

It is asserted that modern society has improved its penal system over that of the past so that criminals can be safely locked away, but I have never read anything to substantiate this claim. Life sentences were used in the past and I’m willing to bet that in the past those who were imprisoned weren’t continuing to run their criminal enterprises from their cells.

This really is one of the secondary arguments that go to support abolition. In Queensland where I live, capital punishment was abolished in 1922. The main State prison still exists and is a tourist attraction. It’s obvious to see the primitive conditions. The wooden beams criss crossing through the structure still show the wear and tear of the ropes that people were hung by their necks from when they were sentenced to death. There were no of the state of art measures that ensure security today. And yet, it was recognised that prison was advanced enough to accommodate the non lethal means of punishment.

The reason was the growing awareness of the injustices within the system at the time, that didn’t sit right with people. The over representation of the marginalised and vilified in front of the judge and jury, spoke of systemic injustice in the imperialist English governors. Taking a persons life for any reason, has to be as close to perfectly justified as can be for it to both avoid savagery and to be any benefit to the common good.

As the Church stresses, abolition is primarily pushed by growing awareness of mans dignity coupled with the revulsion at his death at human hands. That is the sign of natural moral law influencing society from within the heart of man and the heart of the community.

 

[LongingSoul]

Agreed.

This is a bit misleading. What Kaczor said was: “*Traditional Catholic teaching does not demand the death penalty for every single case of murder.” *This is certainly true; the church has always acknowledged the possibility of external circumstances that could determine what punishment was appropriate. The application of punishment is always prudential. That said, it is clear that “crime and punishment must be proportionate”, and capital punishment has always been accepted as the proportionate punishment for murder.

That would make some sense if the Catholic Church had ‘invented’ the institution of capital punishment or even if Noah had begun using it on Gods command to kill every person and beast who kills a human being. However, death as a sentence in human law has existed before and apart from the Jews and the Christian teachings.

It was seen to be ‘deserved’ according to how it served the good of the community who convicted the criminal. There was no direct communication with God with which to measure ‘just desserts’. The ‘common good’, although not fully realised by primitive people, still excerpted influence on justice right from the beginning.

So when you are saying “it is clear that “crime and punishment must be proportionate”, and capital punishment has always been accepted as the proportionate punishment for murder”… you seem to be suggesting that ‘death for murder’ means a divine command that has always represented the primary measure of just punishment. The theologian however, recognises that God revealed Himself to give focus to the reason and moral law He had already planted in the human person at the beginning of the species. Aquinas…

“For just as grace presupposes nature, so must the Divine law presuppose the natural law.”

And for human beings, not being God, all knowing, all seeing… justice is measured in terms of its service to the common good. Aquinas again…

“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; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others.”

 

[Tomdstone]

That said, it is clear that “crime and punishment must be proportionate”, and capital punishment has always been accepted as the proportionate punishment for murder.

What if you deny the Trinity and believe in an eternity of various worlds? Would that be a proportionate reason to be burned alive at the stake? The idea of proportionate reason is vague and subjective.

 

[billcu1]

What if you deny the Trinity and believe in an eternity of various worlds? Would that be a proportionate reason to be burned alive at the stake? The idea of proportionate reason is vague and subjective.

If God is a perfect being and has perfect justice, then he says if you know not it’s a sin it’s not a sin must be just. Our justice system certainly doesn’t work like that. There are varying degrees of culpability. Sometimes Just saying the wrong thing or not saying the right thing. Or saying nothing at all gets you put away for nothing.

 

[Tomdstone]

If God is a perfect being and has perfect justice, then he says if you know not it’s a sin it’s not a sin must be just. Our justice system certainly doesn’t work like that. There are varying degrees of culpability. Sometimes Just saying the wrong thing or not saying the right thing. Or saying nothing at all gets you put away for nothing.

Some jails are easy to take, such as where Martha Stewart was placed or the many programs in Russia where the emphasis is on rehabilitation. But burning someone alive at the stake is painful and once executed, the person cannot be returned to society.

 

[adrift]

There’s every valid reason because that is the way of the world from generation to generation. Fr. Feeney for example, could not accept that for 2000 years the Church taught that only Catholics go to heaven and then suddenly we are to believe that any old one might be there!!

Over the years, you have been given loads of examples of seeming changes to Church doctrine that took a generation to accept as valid Catholic teaching. It is a common flaw in mortal man that reflects a lack of Catholic faith at the end of the day.

.

There is not ONE moral teaching of the Church that was changed. It was never taught that only Catholics go to heaven. There is much ignorance of what teaching actually are which causes confusion. It is why Pope John Paul II didn’t outright condemn capitol punishment. What you are advocating is that the Church is not infallible nor is it indefectible. An untenable position that would lead to chaos.

 

[Rau]

There is not ONE moral teaching of the Church that was changed. It was never taught that only Catholics go to heaven. There is much ignorance of what teaching actually are which causes confusion. It is why Pope John Paul II didn’t outright condemn capitol punishment. What you are advocating is that the Church is not infallible nor is it indefectible. An untenable position that would lead to chaos.

Be wary of the idea of “changing” doctrine. It is a broad word. Doctrine does evolve, broaden deepen, new emphases are brought to light. What we know is that doctrine one day is not contradicted by doctrine another day.

 

[LongingSoul]

Some jails are easy to take, such as where Martha Stewart was placed or the many programs in Russia where the emphasis is on rehabilitation. But burning someone alive at the stake is painful and once executed, the person cannot be returned to society.

Burning as a sentence, had a spiritual significance to the ancients. It was seen as a way to consume evil spirits. In Jewish and Christian cultures, Gehenna and hell are represented by consuming fire. In Eastern religious cultures, the pyre has deep spiritual relevance.

It seems barbaric to us, which it is… but in the past it was seen as justifiable for its spiritual effects.

 

[LongingSoul]

Be wary of the idea of “changing” doctrine. It is a broad word. Doctrine does evolve, broaden deepen, new emphases are brought to light. What we know is that doctrine one day is not contradicted by doctrine another day.

Exactly. Immutable Truth doesn’t change, but doctrine (which literally means teaching) expresses immutable Truth accordingly and that will depend on what aspects of Truth require emphasising more strongly from time to time.

 

[billcu1]

Burning as a sentence, had a spiritual significance to the ancients. It was seen as a way to consume evil spirits. In Jewish and Christian cultures, Gehenna and hell are represented by consuming fire. In Eastern religious cultures, the pyre has deep spiritual relevance.

It seems barbaric to us, which it is… but in the past it was seen as justifiable for its spiritual effects.

And a good example of how things work on a deeper level. Pureland Buddhism teaches they “go away to prepare a place”. Sounds like what Jesus said. A better place for the followers to reach God. So like mentioned in #104. Only Catholics can make progress? Well hate to break the monopoly but sounds like this has went on before. But I don’t want to go OT. Number #104 mentioned only Catholics “making it.” I don’t agree. Just thought I’d speak.

Bill

 

[Tomdstone]

There is not ONE moral teaching of the Church that was changed.

Torture is not allowed today. Was it allowed during the Inquisition?

 

[Tomdstone]

Burning as a sentence, had a spiritual significance to the ancients. It was seen as a way to consume evil spirits. In Jewish and Christian cultures, Gehenna and hell are represented by consuming fire. In Eastern religious cultures, the pyre has deep spiritual relevance.

It seems barbaric to us, which it is… but in the past it was seen as justifiable for its spiritual effects.

So burning at the stake is a proportionate punishment for teaching that there are many eternal worlds? What happened to the teaching that torture is morally offensive?

 

[adrift]

Be wary of the idea of “changing” doctrine. It is a broad word. Doctrine does evolve, broaden deepen, new emphases are brought to light. What we know is that doctrine one day is not contradicted by doctrine another day.

Right but “changing” doctrine is not the same as evolving.

 

[billcu1]

Torture is not allowed today. Was it allowed during the Inquisition?

You know Inocent viii and that Bull for the “Hammer against the witch”. I believe he’s got a lot of blood on his hands. And his successor Alexander vi was definitely no prize. He supported torture. Now whether it was he or the civil law against witches idk.

Bill

 

[LongingSoul]

Torture is not allowed today. Was it allowed during the Inquisition?

Torture was used by the authorities throughout the middle ages as a way of extracting confessions and information and punishing some crimes. We’ve advanced from there because we have a greater sensitivity to what offends human dignity. Justice is no longer served and seen to be served by those measures now. Not only that, we have international standards which if broken will attract some form of censure.

 

[LongingSoul]

So burning at the stake is a proportionate punishment for teaching that there are many eternal worlds? What happened to the teaching that torture is morally offensive?

We can learn from the past with the advantage of our current awareness, but its beyond our scope to actually judge the moral culpability of the act as they applied it.

 

[adrift]

You know Inocent viii and that Bull for the “Hammer against the witch”. I believe he’s got a lot of blood on his hands. And his successor Alexander vi was definitely no prize. He supported torture. Now whether it was he or the civil law against witches idk.

Bill

the papal bull Summis desiderantes was issued by Inocent VIII. Heinrich Kramer wrote the treatise Malleus Maleficarum (literally “The Hammer of Witches”). In 1490, three years after its publication, the Catholic Church condemned it.

 

[Rau]

Right but “changing” doctrine is not the same as evolving.

Something changes when it is not identical to what went before. An additional plank perhaps, or another angle is added, relativities among the constituent parts are identified, and so on. Our capacity to grasp the “full truth” is not unlimited the first time we express it, so change - “evolutionary change” if you prefer - is to be expected.

 

[Ender]

There’s every valid reason because that is the way of the world from generation to generation. Fr. Feeney for example, could not accept that for 2000 years the Church taught that only Catholics go to heaven and then suddenly we are to believe that any old one might be there!!

Over the years, you have been given loads of examples of seeming changes to Church doctrine that took a generation to accept as valid Catholic teaching. It is a common flaw in mortal man that reflects a lack of Catholic faith at the end of the day.

Whether it is true that the restriction (making capital punishment dependent on a need for protection) was implicit in the traditional teaching or not doesn’t change the fact that it was never taught that way. Since the discussion is about which description of the traditional teaching of the church is more accurate, that would have to be the one that describes what was actually taught, not what should have been taught. The description in the 1997 version is inaccurate.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What if you deny the Trinity and believe in an eternity of various worlds? Would that be a proportionate reason to be burned alive at the stake? The idea of proportionate reason is vague and subjective.

There is certainly a degree of subjectivity in determining a just punishment, but the church teaches the severity of the punishment must (not may) be commensurate with the severity of the crime. Certainly the application of punishment is prudential. We have, however, been given some guidelines on the subject…as when God informed us that the just punishment for murder was death.

Ender