Capital Punishment

[Ender]

I am only interested to know where that traditional teaching will be found / was expressed, and its foundation.

This is a point you might want to press not just in this discussion but whenever this question comes up. Surely if this is truly a traditional teaching then someone, somewhere ought to be able to cite where it was actually taught.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Let’s be very clear about what is or is not still in place. Gn 9:6, wherein God himself set forth the punishment for murder is part of the Covenant with Noah, and “The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.” (CCC 58) This is the law we’re living under.
This is a misapprehension of what Christ actually taught. Nowhere in the NT or the Gospels do the writers make this point, rather there are numerous places where this assertion is flatly contradicted.
Citation?
The church is very careful to distinguish the obligations of the citizen from the duties of the magistrate. Your presumptions are not based on what the church teaches.It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine)
The subtleties you speak of appear to have escaped certain Doctors of the Church. 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. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance (Bellarmine)
I can cite support for pretty much every assertion I make; do you have citations for anything?

Ender

It is just sad your supporting arguments have to come from your personal interpretation of the OT . Magistrates, though “Christian” clearly represent the State not the Church. The fact remains Church officials in Church matters were not to kill or maim as representatives of the New Law.

And the reason that under Christ direct killing may be permitted is, as Aquinas states, the sinfulness of others and the hardness of mens hearts. Much like divorce being tolerated in OT times.

You really are picking and choosing, and scraping the barrels bottom at that if Bellarmine is your best go to man here. You do realise he adjudicated on Galileo’s trial and strongly opposed heliocentrism because he saw it as destroying faith in OT Scripture?

“Its a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture as false.”

He asserted that “the scientist on the Earth clearly experiences that it is stationary and therefore the perception that the Sun, moon and stars are moving is not in error and does not need to be corrected.”

If I had to choose between someone with reason as opposed to a someone with political correctness I would go with Aquinas on this point. I suggest you do likewise.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Cherry pick: to provide a citation for which one’s opponent has no response and needs an excuse to ignore it.
You could assert that, but it would be a misunderstanding of what Aquinas said given that retribution - justice - is the highest good achievable by punishment…which is probably why it is the primary objective.
I’m for providing logical arguments based on citations demonstrating what the church actually teaches.

Ender

More cherry picking but no harmonising … to say nothing of the observation you are more interested in rhetoric than actually replying substantively to the cracks observed in your monolithic opinions and “theological” approaches and “logic”.

And if it could be demonstrated that full retrib justice was indeed justified by the Common Good then noone here would complain. However I observe that doesn’t yet seem to be exactly the case…and if it is we do not seem to define retrib justice today as it seems to have been used of old.

 

[graciew]

Cherry pick: to provide a citation for which one’s opponent has no response and needs an excuse to ignore it.
You could assert that, but it would be a misunderstanding of what Aquinas said given that retribution - justice - is the highest good achievable by punishment…which is probably why it is the primary objective.
I’m for providing logical arguments based on citations demonstrating what the church actually teaches.

Ender

.
" Retribution- justice-is the highest good achievable by punishment " .This is what you said,Ender.

It would help to go back to the CCC and go through the Chapter the dignity of the Human Person,virtues such as prudence and justice.
Well,as usual,it is kind of difficult to know where to start and end reading,but there is an explanation of Justice there worth reading.
" Harmony",that struck me as important. You ll read it there. I basically went back to Justice ,and see how it was introduced in the CCC.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm

God bless you all.

 

[graciew]

.
" Retribution- justice-is the highest good achievable by punishment " .This is what you said,Ender.

It would help perhaps to go back to the CCC and go through the Chapter the Dgnity of the Human Person,virtues such as prudence and justice.
Well,as usual,it is kind of difficult to know where to start and end reading,but there is an explanation of Justice there worth reading.
" Harmony",that struck me as important. You ll read it there. I basically went back to Justice ,and see how it was introduced in the CCC.
Part Three Life in Christ
Section One. Man’ s vocations life in the Spirit
Chapter One. The Dignity of the Human Person

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm

God bless you all.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m for providing logical arguments based on citations demonstrating what the church actually teaches.

Ender

aquinasonline.com/Questions/cappunsh.html
Not a single mention of retribution to the criminal himself being the primary justification for CP. Everything is about the Common Good.

This is typical of most Thomistic Web sites.
That strongly suggests a non harmonious cherry picking of quotes out of context from Aquinas if you believe otherwise.

Your mission to convince us is surely to harmonise Aquinas’s allegedly discordant views, rather than feverishly fossick out a few lines that seem to back you against a mountain that appear not to, and then walk away as if case proven.
That would just be silly.

Over to you.

 

[Ender]

It is just sad your supporting arguments have to come from your personal interpretation of the OT.

Your most common form of rebuttal is to miscaracterize your opponents argument and then dismiss it. Which does have the advantage of freeing you from the burden of actually having to debate something.

Magistrates, though “Christian” clearly represent the State not the Church. The fact remains Church officials in Church matters were not to kill or maim as representatives of the New Law.

This is your own invention. It is surely true that church officials were prohibited from engaging in capital activities (and had been long before Innocent III), but that had nothing to do with any so-called New Law. Unless you are suggesting that the New Law applied to clergy only.

And the reason that under Christ direct killing may be permitted is, as Aquinas states, the sinfulness of others and the hardness of mens hearts. Much like divorce being tolerated in OT times.

Citation

You really are picking and choosing, and scraping the barrels bottom at that if Bellarmine is your best go to man here.

Even Doctors of the Church are targets of your scorn. At least I’m in good company.

You do realise he adjudicated on Galileo’s trial and strongly opposed heliocentrism because he saw it as destroying faith in OT Scripture?

I realize that once again the facts do not support your position*I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated… *(Bellarmine)

If I had to choose between someone with reason as opposed to a someone with political correctness I would go with Aquinas on this point.

I tried that. That resulted in the cherry picking charge. You are adept at dismissing citations that contradict you.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Not a single mention of retribution to the criminal himself being the primary justification for CP. Everything is about the Common Good.

I suspect that is an inadequate reading of Aquinas. These citations from Pius XII are fairly easy to understand.*Punishment properly so-called cannot therefore have any other meaning and purpose than that just mentioned, to bring back again into the order of duty the violator of the law, who had withdrawn from it.

[Punishment] is a weight placed to restore balance in the disturbed juridical order, and not aimed immediately at the fault as such.

…guilt regards not so much the damaged good of the other party, but principally the person of the culprit and his perverse will exercised to his own advantage. *…the Church in her theory and practice has maintained this double type of penalty (medicinal and vindictive), and that this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority.

This is typical of most Thomistic Web sites. That strongly suggests a non harmonious cherry picking of quotes out of context from Aquinas if you believe otherwise.

So you’re suggesting St. Thomas meant something other than what he so clearly stated in the section I cited, and that if I had only provided more of his words we would have seen where he reversed himself later on? Really?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ender: "Retribution- justice-is the highest good achievable by punishment ".

It would help to go back to the CCC and go through the Chapter the dignity of the Human Person,virtues such as prudence and justice.

I’m not really sure what point you’re making here. Perhaps my original statement wasn’t clear. I wasn’t saying justice was the highest good, only that it was the highest good that can be achieved via punishment (which was a conclusion based on the fact that retributive justice is its primary objective). Nor did I see anything in the catechism sections you referenced that made me reassess that claim, but as I said, I’m not sure what you were objecting to.

Ender

 

[graciew]

I’m not really sure what point you’re making here. Perhaps my original statement wasn’t clear. I wasn’t saying justice was the highest good, only that it was the highest good that can be achieved via punishment (which was a conclusion based on the fact that retributive justice is its primary objective). Nor did I see anything in the catechism sections you referenced that made me reassess that claim, but as I said, I’m not sure what you were objecting to.

Ender

It was this part :
“Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good”
So as I read it, it sounded different than retribution, there is more to it
And the last phrase in the paragraph brought this even higher than retribution." Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Let me check your post again anyway. As if this is disrupting your conversation here,please dismiss it.No problem.,It doesn t look like it is something one can digest all of a sudden.

 

[graciew]

It was this part :
“Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good”
So as I read it, it sounded different than retribution, there is more to it
And the last phrase in the paragraph brought this even higher than retribution." Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Let me check your post again anyway. And if this is disrupting your conversation here,please dismiss it.No problem.,It doesn t look like it is something one can digest all of a sudden.

A little more from CCC 1828.

If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.107

There is so much and so amazing in this chapter…
Worth going through it all!

 

[Ender]

It was this part :
“Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good”

Yes, justice actually has a fairly simple definition, and here is why I referenced it with regard to punishment. Justice involves treating people as they deserve according to their actions. Retribution is simply the just response given to someone who’s actions have affected someone else.We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice.* Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.* (Aquinas ST I-II 21, 3)

So as I read it, it sounded different than retribution, there is more to it

There is more to it at least in the sense that retribution also includes rewards for beneficial actions as well as penalties for harmful ones.* It is written (Isaiah 3:10:11): “Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.” *(Ibid)

And the last phrase in the paragraph brought this even higher than retribution." Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."

The point is not that justice is the only concern, only that it is the primary concern of punishment, and as such cannot be sacrificed to accomplished a subordinate end.

As if this is disrupting your conversation here,please dismiss it.No problem.,It doesn t look like it is something one can digest all of a sudden.

Not a bit. It is something of a treat responding to a mere question once in a while.

Ender

 

[Rau]

…The point is not that justice is the only concern, only that it is the primary concern of punishment, and as such cannot be sacrificed to accomplished a subordinate end.

Out of interest…do you believe LWOP (or similar), instead of CP, ever amounts to a “sacrificing” of justice?

 

[graciew]

Yes, justice actually has a fairly simple definition, and here is why I referenced it with regard to punishment. Justice involves treating people as they deserve according to their actions. Retribution is simply the just response given to someone who’s actions have affected someone else.We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice.* Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.* (Aquinas ST I-II 21, 3)
There is more to it at least in the sense that retribution also includes rewards for beneficial actions as well as penalties for harmful ones.* It is written (Isaiah 3:10:11): “Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.” *(Ibid)
The point is not that justice is the only concern, only that it is the primary concern of punishment, and as such cannot be sacrificed to accomplished a subordinate end.
Not a bit. It is something of a treat responding to a mere question once in a while.

Ender

Thank you, Ender.

Here is how it appears in the CCC 1807

Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor."68 "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."69

How would " treating people according to their actions" explain what a person is? It says in regards to " persons and the common good"

I happened to be doing laundry and playing a quizz with my daughter who was keeping me company at the same time. This was twon
days ago.
There I learnt,and I had to check it…,that it was in 1977 that the last person in France had been punished to death by guillotine.
I must admit, it moved me back to this topic.
Where were we while this was going on? This was after man landed on the moon…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your most common form of rebuttal is to miscaracterize your opponents argument and then dismiss it. Which does have the advantage of freeing you from the burden of actually having to debate something.
This is your own invention. It is surely true that church officials were prohibited from engaging in capital activities (and had been long before Innocent III), but that had nothing to do with any so-called New Law. Unless you are suggesting that the New Law applied to clergy only.
Citation
Even Doctors of the Church are targets of your scorn. At least I’m in good company.
I realize that once again the facts do not support your position*I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated… *(Bellarmine)
I tried that. That resulted in the cherry picking charge. You are adept at dismissing citations that contradict you.

Ender

Nothing of substance to respond to here.
No doctors aren’t targets of my scorn. Simply observing he wasn’t made a Doctor for his ability to reason well, understand natural phenomenon or interpret seemingly contradictory statements in the OT. As is also the case with yourself if you still believe Christ made no difference at all re Lex Talionis for the Christian…as is the case re divorce.

How is it you missed the quote I already provided from Aquinas re the New Law and the Clergy .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I suspect that is an inadequate reading of Aquinas. These citations from Pius XII are fairly easy to understand.Punishment properly so-called cannot therefore have any other meaning and purpose than that just mentioned, to bring back again into the order of duty the violator of the law, who had withdrawn from it.

[Punishment]* is a weight placed to restore balance in the disturbed juridical order, and not aimed immediately at the fault as such.

…guilt regards not so much the damaged good of the other party, but principally the person of the culprit and his perverse will exercised to his own advantage.

​

…the Church in her theory and practice has maintained this double type of penalty (medicinal and vindictive), and that this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority.*
​

Let me see. The Magisterium and the CCC do not appear to agree with Pius XII when it comes to State Executions in particular (which is really what we are talking about - not a theology of punishment in general). So that seems to strike at the air of infallible dogma that you seem to be sniffing for here.

So you’re suggesting St. Thomas meant something other than what he so clearly stated in the section I cited, and that if I had only provided more of his words we would have seen where he reversed himself later on? Really?

I am observing that its academic puerility to cherry pick a source only for views that seem to support oneself when its clear the author is widely observed to also hold a better known differing view.
The mature scholarly approach is not to cherry pick but to observe the contradiction and offer a view for harmonising/explaining the apparent contradictions.

You have been on CAF for years yet you are still arguing from a blinkered yes/no, all or nothing, I am right you are wrong perspective. Its just sad, to say nothing of being a less than smart or imaginative approach to truth seeking.​

 

[Rau]

…I am observing that its academic puerility to cherry pick a source only for views that seem to support oneself when its clear the author is widely observed **to also hold **a better known differing view.

It would seem that the only way to avoid this charge would be to recognise that the source in question holds (or held at various times) views both for and against the proposition.

 

[Rau]

Let me see. The Magisterium and the CCC do not appear to agree with Pius XII when it comes to State Executions in particular (which is really what we are talking about - not a theology of punishment in general). So that seems to strike at the air of infallible dogma that you seem to be sniffing for here.

What did Pius XII say about State Executions in that quote?

 

[Rau]

…[Ender has] been on CAF for years yet you are still arguing from a blinkered yes/no, all or nothing, I am right you are wrong perspective. Its just sad, to say nothing of being a less than smart or imaginative approach to truth seeking.

I have ready many of his posts over the years on CP and I find he is fairly consistently making only a few key points specific to CP:

1. CP is not intrinsically evil and subject to it being pursued as just punishment and in the belief it does not do more harm than good, it (instances of it) is/are a moral act(s);
2. Neither he, nor AFAIK any other poster, has uncovered evidence that the Church has traditionally taught in accord with the full claim made in ccc2267 (in particular the rider … “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”).

IMHO, advocacy by the Church to “ban” CP would not be inconsistent with (1) above, and, FWIW, would have my support. I can’t actually recall Ender saying anything that would conflict with a decision by him to support such a ban.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What did Pius XII say about State Executions in that quote?

That’s part of the problem with Ender’s hit and runs .

He gives a quote below that talks about punishment at length and gets close to speaking of the death penalty directly but he leaves out much so context is lost and thought is disconnected.
Neither does he reference properly.

So your guess is as good as mine to be honest.