capital punishment

[LongingSoul]

I don’t think you understand what is being said here. “Medicinal” does not mean what you seem to think it does.*…temporal punishment itself serves as "medicine***"** to the extent that the person allows it to challenge him to undertake his own profound conversion. (JPII)

For the punishment which one suffers after the forgiveness of sin is necessary to bring the mind to cleave more firmly to good, – punishments being medicines, – (Augustine)

The medicinal goal is not tantamount merely to stopping future evildoing, but rather entails manifesting the truth of the divine order of justice both to the criminal and to society at large. This means that mere stopping of further disorder is insufficient to constitute* the full medicinal character of justice***, which purpose alike and primarily entails the manifestation of the truth. Thus this foundational sense of the medicinality of penalty is retained even when others drop away. (Steven A. Long)

I understand perfectly. You quote Pope StJPII from a teaching on the Sacrament of Penance and mans relationship with God in that context… not regarding human law and penal punishment.

Next you quote(mine) Aquinas (although you attribute it to Augustine) again, talking about the nature of sacramental penance not penal punishment.

The last quote is irrelevant. Pro death penalty US centric arguments don’t speak for the Church.

In fact, what Aquinas does say in regards to the medicinal nature of human punishment is this…

“Even the punishment that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged, this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the punishment, according to Proverbs 19:25: “The wicked man being scourged, the fool shall be wiser.”” – Summa Theologica.

 

[LongingSoul]

The issue is not whether it is mandatory but whether it should be the default punishment in the absence of extenuating circumstances.

I’ve been trying to understand what you mean by ‘in the absence of extenuating circumstances’. Aren’t human acts of evil all subject to extenuating circumstances? I know that the Calvinists believe that people are born evil, which I’m thinking could account for your belief that an act could be a result of pure evil that emanates from the very nature of a person. Catholic teaching on Original Sin is that we are born with the* inclination* to do evil, not that we are born evil.

 

[LucyEm]

I’ve been trying to understand what you mean by ‘in the absence of extenuating circumstances’. Aren’t human acts of evil all subject to extenuating circumstances? I know that the Calvinists believe that people are born evil, which I’m thinking could account for your belief that an act could be a result of pure evil that emanates from the very nature of a person. Catholic teaching on Original Sin is that we are born with the* inclination* to do evil, not that we are born evil.

Hi again!! Extenuating circumstances would be circumstances making it immoral. That is, more harm than good results. Note that the criminal dying is on the “harm” side of that pesky ledger!!

 

[billcu1]

Hi again!! Extenuating circumstances would be circumstances making it immoral. That is, more harm than good results. Note that the criminal dying is on the “harm” side of that pesky ledger!!

CP is extenuating in the justice system.

 

[billcu1]

I understand perfectly. You quote Pope StJPII from a teaching on the Sacrament of Penance and mans relationship with God in that context… not regarding human law and penal punishment.

Next you quote(mine) Aquinas (although you attribute it to Augustine) again, talking about the nature of sacramental penance not penal punishment.

The last quote is irrelevant. Pro death penalty US centric arguments don’t speak for the Church.

In fact, what Aquinas does say in regards to the medicinal nature of human punishment is this…

“Even the punishment that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged, this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the punishment, according to Proverbs 19:25: “The wicked man being scourged, the fool shall be wiser.”” – Summa Theologica.

What is quoted by Aquinas here idk. A wicked man I don’t think cares about punishment. Have you ever read the things said by persons just before executed? If someone is moral they can make a mistake but they want to change. The system doesn’t always allow that. If one does not care. I don’t think he has much fear of punishment. The people I know that are habitual offenders spend their time in prison/jail and get out and they’re right back. Either they don’t care or the system is preventing them from straightening up. Moral conscience must be formed properly when in that young phase of life.

Bill

 

[adrift]

See the entry Torture in the
New Catholic Encyclopedia
Publisher: Gale Group (February 1967)
ISBN-13: 978-0787639990 or ISBN-10: 0787639990
For a non-Catholic discussion, see the books by Henry Charles Lea.

Hey Tom this sidesteps the issue. You are making a claim you are the one who needs to support it. So produce a document of the Church that says it was o.k. to use torture. Just because it was “allowed” doesn’t mean it was a teaching.

 

[LongingSoul]

Hi again!! Extenuating circumstances would be circumstances making it immoral. That is, more harm than good results. Note that the criminal dying is on the “harm” side of that pesky ledger!!

However, murder is always immoral. It’s not a case of some being licit and others immoral. Ender states “The issue is not whether it is mandatory but whether it should be the default punishment in the absence of extenuating circumstances.” If death is the default punishment for murder I’m thinking that he means extenuating circumstances as those that make the persons culpability less. That leaves the proposition that there is actually an act which is not subject to any external influence, but comes from the innate evil within.

Catholic teaching is that we are made in Gods image and due to original sin, are inclined to evil. Not that we were made evil by OS. Only the devil could be described as intrinsically evil unable to be redeemed by extenuating circumstances.

 

[Rau]

However, murder is always immoral. It’s not a case of some being licit and others immoral. Ender states “The issue is not whether it is mandatory but whether it should be the default punishment in the absence of extenuating circumstances.” If death is the default punishment for murder I’m thinking that he means extenuating circumstances as those that make the persons culpability less. That leaves the proposition that there is actually an act which is not subject to any external influence, but comes from the innate evil within.

Catholic teaching is that we are made in Gods image and due to original sin, are inclined to evil. Not that we were made evil by OS. Only the devil could be described as intrinsically evil unable to be redeemed by extenuating circumstances.

CP is not an intrinsically evil act. Let’s accept it may be just for murder. Extenuating circumstances would be circumstances in which the act is immoral. These days, it maybe that it is immoral most of the time. That seems to be what the Popes and LucyEm are saying.

 

[Tomdstone]

Hey Tom this sidesteps the issue. You are making a claim you are the one who needs to support it. So produce a document of the Church that says it was o.k. to use torture. Just because it was “allowed” doesn’t mean it was a teaching.

The article I referred to gives the details: Ad extirpandum.

 

[LongingSoul]

CP is not an intrinsically evil act. Let’s accept it may be just for murder. Extenuating circumstances would be circumstances in which the act is immoral. These days, it maybe that it is immoral most of the time. That seems to be what the Popes and LucyEm are saying.

No, I’m not saying that capital punishment is an intrinsically evil act. This is how the sequence of posts read…

Originally Posted by Rau
Yet you know that CP is not the only just punishment for murder, nor is it mandatory.

So ender is saying that he doubts that there are other just punishments for murder than CP. He then suggests that while its not mandatory, it is a ‘default’ for particular murders… ie. those without ‘extenuating circumstances’.

I’m asking what would be extenuating circumstances that make a murder not rate CP and what is the definition of a murder that does warrant CP?

I’m trying to understand what the core quality is that makes ‘murder’ death worthy… and who gets to judge on that?

I’m trying to find out what drives this belief that there can be a ‘default’ punishment that exists outside human reason and human law. I would have always said that the default would always have been preservation of life or protection of life, in keeping with the spirit of the fifth commandment.

 

[adrift]

The article I referred to gives the details: Ad extirpandum.

Unless you have a link it is a useless reference.

 

[adrift]

However, murder is always immoral. It’s not a case of some being licit and others immoral. Ender states “The issue is not whether it is mandatory but whether it should be the default punishment in the absence of extenuating circumstances.” If death is the default punishment for murder I’m thinking that he means extenuating circumstances as those that make the persons culpability less. That leaves the proposition that there is actually an act which is not subject to any external influence, but comes from the innate evil within.

Catholic teaching is that we are made in Gods image and due to original sin, are inclined to evil. Not that we were made evil by OS. Only the devil could be described as intrinsically evil unable to be redeemed by extenuating circumstances.

I agree with your post up to the devil. I know that you state as could be but I don’t believe that the all Good God could make a being that was intrinsically evil that by the very nature is immoral. The Devils were created in grace by choice they sinned.
This definition is from Father John Hardon’s dictionary

A fallen angel or evil spirit, especially the chief of the rebellious angels, Lucifer or Satan (Matthew 25). Adorned at his creation with sanctifying grace, he sinned by pride and along with many other angelic beings was denied the beatific vision. His abode is hell and he does not enjoy the benefits of Christ’s redemption. Yet the devil remains a rational spirit, confirmed in evil, who is allowed by God to exercise some influence on living and inanimate creatures. (Etym. Greek diabolos, slanderer.)

 

[Tomdstone]

Unless you have a link it is a useless reference.

. “. . . homicidas animarum, et fures sacramentorum Dei, et fidei christianae . . . cogere citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum . . . errores suos fateri et accusare alios . . . , sicut coguntur fures et latrones”. Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.
This official papal teaching is well known so it is somewhat surprising that you have not heard about it: Translated into English the teaching states that captured heretics, being “murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb”.
The Council of Vienne (1311-1312) added a further check on the use of torture, but did not ban it outright.

 

[billcu1]

No, I’m not saying that capital punishment is an intrinsically evil act. This is how the sequence of posts read…

So ender is saying that he doubts that there are other just punishments for murder than CP. He then suggests that while its not mandatory, it is a ‘default’ for particular murders… ie. those without ‘extenuating circumstances’.

I’m asking what would be extenuating circumstances that make a murder not rate CP and what is the definition of a murder that does warrant CP?

I’m trying to understand what the core quality is that makes ‘murder’ death worthy… and who gets to judge on that?

I’m trying to find out what drives this belief that there can be a ‘default’ punishment that exists outside human reason and human law. I would have always said that the default would always have been preservation of life or protection of life, in keeping with the spirit of the fifth commandment.

Say the judge hears the cops screwed up or there was a sentence coming up and the evidence was questionable. That should be an extenuating circumstance to avoid CP. Sometimes if the defendant is cooperative and there was question as to degree of intent. The prosecutors might not go for CP.

Bill

 

[Rau]

Say the judge hears the cops screwed up or there was a sentence coming up and the evidence was questionable. That should be an extenuating circumstance to avoid CP. Sometimes if the defendant is cooperative and there was question as to degree of intent. The prosecutors might not go for CP.

Under some of the above, acquittal might be appropriate! If Intent is in doubt, “murder” may no longer by the appropriate charge.

It is fine to say that CP may be a part of the continuum of punishment severity if properly commissioned authority chooses and (like all punishment) applied only when the case si made. But to award that punishment (if that decision is to be taken consistent with moral principles) must take account of all the circumstances - the goods of justice seen to be done, the goods of protection, the bad of loss of human life, the bad of such violence in our midst, etc. The moral analysis can’t be limited just to the matter of how vile was the crime. What is or isn’t the prime purpose of punishment cannot change that! The Morality of acts trumps that consideration.

 

[adrift]

. “. . . homicidas animarum, et fures sacramentorum Dei, et fidei christianae . . . cogere citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum . . It . errores suos fateri et accusare alios . . . , sicut coguntur fures et latrones”. Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.
This official papal teaching is well known so it is somewhat surprising that you have not heard about it: Translated into English the teaching states that captured heretics, being “murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb”.
The Council of Vienne (1311-1312) added a further check on the use of torture, but did not ban it outright.

This document was a regulatory document not one on doctrine. It told secular authorities in a particular region to conform the secular law to certain regulations because of contingent circumstances it was not intended, nor was it, a statement of an immutable moral stance. I am speaking of a continuous teaching that has been propagated from the time of the Apostles not a regulatory letter that has no real moral force. This was not the Church teaching that it was o.k. to torture but if torture was to be used how it was to be used.

that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)
that it was used only once
that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain.

What does the Catechism say:

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, **the Church always taught **the duty of clemency and mercy. **She forbade clerics to shed blood. **In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors

 

[Ender]

The severity of every crime is determined by the good of the community. How can any crime be measured other than its impact on the common relationship between men?

If this was true then the severity of a murder would be determined by the nature of the person killed. Clearly - according to you - if a bad man was murdered, inasmuch as it would be beneficial to the community, that wouldn’t be a very serious crime and wouldn’t merit a very serious punishment. Only murdering a good man would be serious. Your position is simply preposterous. The severity of the crime of murder is constant across societies and across time because the nature of man is unchanging.

By human reason we know that crime deserves punishment and the severity of that punishment is determined by the authorities charged with safeguarding the common good.

The severity of the punishment is determined by the authorities, but the severity of the crime is not. It is inherent in the nature of the act itself.

“Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments…" Aquinas

Yes, punishment is proportionate to the sin, not proportionate to the good of the community.

I’ll repost what I wrote to demonstrate your fave unethical tactic…. quotemining.

It is difficult to communicate with you not only because you often fail to understand what I’ve said but you appear to frequently fail to understand what you’ve said, like the Aquinas citation above which proves my point rather than yours. If this continues I won’t need to provide any quotes at all; I can simply use yours.

Now if you could summon the integrity to address what I actually wrote.

Let’s start by recognizing that quote mining has nothing to do with not addressing a comment someone has made. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of an insult before you employ it. Secondly, it doesn’t require integrity to address what you wrote. What it requires is the belief that your observation is worth responding to. What I lacked was not integrity but interest.

Outside of the biblical diaspora through the ages, how did human law determine ‘just desserts’?

I don’t know, but I don’t see any relevance to the question.

2266 does not say that just desserts in human law are ordered by divine command.

It also doesn’t explain the offsides rule or the Pythagorean Theorem, but since I never suggested that it addressed any of these points the observation is - yet again - irrelevant.

In fact 2266 starts “The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.”

I think it is fairly well established that the overall objective of any State is the common good. This general statement does not change the specific directive that the State has a duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not the good of the community.

Ender

 

[billcu1]

Under some of the above, acquittal might be appropriate! If Intent is in doubt, “murder” may no longer by the appropriate charge.

It is fine to say that CP may be a part of the continuum of punishment severity if properly commissioned authority chooses and (like all punishment) applied only when the case si made. But to award that punishment (if that decision is to be taken consistent with moral principles) must take account of all the circumstances - the goods of justice seen to be done, the goods of protection, the bad of loss of human life, the bad of such violence in our midst, etc. The moral analysis can’t be limited just to the matter of how vile was the crime. What is or isn’t the prime purpose of punishment cannot change that! The Morality of acts trumps that consideration.

Your lawyer doesn’t bring anything up in court. He basically sits there and does nothing. They want Murder and murder the jury gives. Sentencing is coming up. You hire a new attorney they say something. The judge might take CP off the table. I have been through something similar. Of course not a felony or murder. But In a murder case the verdict can be voided or a retrial.

Bill

 

[LongingSoul]

Say the judge hears the cops screwed up or there was a sentence coming up and the evidence was questionable. That should be an extenuating circumstance to avoid CP. Sometimes if the defendant is cooperative and there was question as to degree of intent. The prosecutors might not go for CP.

Bill

I understand that in the course of due process there can be variations in the certainty of a persons guilt and the degrees to which it can be proved, but what I’m wanting to understand about Enders perspective is by what measure can we come to the conclusion that death is the ‘default’ for murder, barring extenuating circumstances?

The Church is saying that the default is preservation of life because human life is inviolable and his relationship with God is such that he is infused with dignity by virtue of that Fatherly love. The Church is presenting a truth of doctrine that everyone deserves to live, even the worst criminal… barring extenuating circumstances of which there are few that can be properly justified these days.

This isn’t a change of doctrine because the Church in the past has always regarded the act of killing a human being, as defiling a person regardless of whether it was murder or other. The Church has always held that the death of a person is destructive to humanity. Prior to Christ there were times where a person might represent a sacrifice in reparation for sin and regarded as healing for the soul of the community. However, by Christs death for us, we are raised above that pagan awareness, to know of the immense esteem within which God holds man. We are forbidden to kill a human being specifically with this belief that it serves as divine reparation.

Ender seems to me to be relying on a belief that the death of a murderer is essential for this very purpose. That divine good is somehow served directly by the sacrifice of the murderers life. That’s why I want to know from him, what Church justification he is using to defend CP, that trumps the natural moral law which exists within the heart of every person whether they have known faith in God or not.

 

[adrift]

The Church is presenting a truth of doctrine that everyone deserves to live, even the worst criminal… barring extenuating circumstances of which there are few that can be properly justified these days.

Would you please tell me where I can find this doctrine? It seems to me that the first part of your statement contradicts the second part.

This isn’t a change of doctrine because the Church in the past has always regarded the act of killing a human being, as defiling a person regardless of whether it was murder or other.

I agree there is no change in doctrine. The doctrine that government has the right to kill is intact.

The Church has always held that the death of a person is destructive to humanity.

Absolutely true

Prior to Christ there were times where a person might represent a sacrifice in reparation for sin and regarded as healing for the soul of the community.

Not understanding

However, by Christs death for us, we are raised above that pagan awareness, to know of the immense esteem within which God holds man. We are forbidden to kill a human being specifically with this belief that it serves as divine reparation.

Not what the catechism states. Perhaps you don’t mean It the way it reads? The Catechism makes it clear that killing in self defense is not forbidden.

Ender seems to me to be relying on a belief that the death of a murderer is essential for this very purpose. That divine good is somehow served directly by the sacrifice of the murderers life. That’s why I want to know from him, what Church justification he is using to defend CP, that trumps the natural moral law which exists within the heart of every person whether they have known faith in God or not.

I wouldn’t use words such as sacrifice. A person who is justifiably executed is NOT a sacrifice. That term should only be used for Jesus.
I would believe that as you state Divine Good may be served by the defense of society as the Catechism states emphasis mine

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. 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.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party