Capital Punishment

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Which is why I supplied the website link below.
Its no secret that Aquinas in his Summa section that actually deals with Capital Punishment says its for the common good and I cannot see anything about retribution.

I am not denying that enthusiastic opponents may well have searched outside of here to find something else (why? ) to oppose his dedicated section but why would one do that? Its silly.

If there is a seeming contradiction I suggest a true truth seeker would seek to find the harmony that Aquinas actually writes from. Aquinas is not a schizto!

I don’t know what that synthesis needs to be because Ender’s views are so full of cracks re retribution and Justice that in the end I do not know what he is on about and am not yet convinced there is a contradiction in the Summa…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I suspect that is an inadequate reading of Aquinas. 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

Here’s an example of what I mean by a theologian attempting to solve things by seeking a harmony in opposing views.
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty

I note he also concludes what I independently concluded by logic to you further below:
“In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices. This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty.”

That is retribution is necessary but not sufficient as I concluded is the natural harmonising principle that squares your view with that of your opponents.
You simply ignored that contribution .
Typical “I must be right you must be wrong” attitude that isn’t helpful to truth seeking or real debate…

Other comments of interest there:
"Aquinas wrote: "if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since ‘a little leaven corrupts the whole lump’ (Summa Theologiae II-II:64:2). For Aquinas, the death penalty is similar to amputating a diseased limb to save the body or self-defense in which one person kills another to defend the innocent. "

"Thus, if capital punishment were simply a form of community self-defense governed by the same norms as private defense, then justified capital punishment should not be described as “rare, if not practically non-existent” but rather as “entirely non-existent.”

"The contemporary Catholic teaching on the death penalty is not a simple rejection of traditional Catholic teaching on the topic, but it does substantially deepen the Church’s perennial dedication to the dignity of the human person and the common good of society. "

 

[Rau]

Nah, retrib justice isn’t justice being seen to be done in my book, quite the reverse…so no common good argument there!

I guess this is where we differ in opinion. I don’t view retributive justice as inconsistent with, or necessarily separate from, the interests of the common good. Nothing in that statement obligates CP of course.

 

[Rau]

Here’s an example of what I mean by a theologian attempting to solve things by seeking a harmony in opposing views.
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty

I note he also concludes what I independently concluded by logic to you further below:
“In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices. This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty.”

That is retribution is necessary but not sufficient…

Clearly JP 2 teaches this. The question unclear is what is the basis for ccc2267 as per my earlier post #358?

 

[o_mlly]

… If it really is the traditional teaching of the church that capital punishment is valid only when it is necessary for protection you should be able to provide at least one citation that actually says that, or something like it, or something that suggests it.

In 1974, after a resolution against capital punishment by the U.S. bishops conference passed by a vote of 108 to 63, some American prelates sought assistance from Rome to find out whether such a position was consistent with the Catholic tradition. A response prepared by the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace made the following four points:

1. The Church has never directly addressed the question of the state’s right to exercise the death penalty;
2. The Church has never condemned its use by the state;
3. The Church has condemned the denial of that right;
4. Recent popes have stressed the rights of the person and the medicinal role of punishment.

Are there any precedents in the Catholic tradition for John Paul II’s position? Statements made by St. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Lactantius, and St. Cyprian of Carthage suggest efforts to distance early Christians from all killing, including the execution of criminals. St. Ambrose, cited in Evangelium Vitae §9, appeals to the protection of Cain as evidence of God’s preference for the correction rather than the death of a sinner. Even St. Augustine is not always consistent. While he supports the right of the state to use capital punishment, in Sermon 13, no. 8, he exhorts: “Do not have a person put to death, and you will have someone who can be reformed.” This anticipates the teaching of Evangelium Vitae §27, viz., we should seek to render “criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”
Robert Fastiggi
Associate Professor of Systematic Theology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary

 

[Ender]

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

I lean toward yes. At least I am unfamiliar with convincing arguments to the contrary. First, we have God’s decree on the matter, and reversing that seems like a steep hill to climb. Second, it isn’t at all clear that LWOP is actually better for the felon, however warm it makes us feel.*… man remains in his guilt before the supreme necessity upon which his final destiny depends. This necessity can wait and often does wait at length, but in the end it consigns the culprit to the guilt from which he is unwilling to desist, and to the consequences of that guilt. It is indeed sorrowful to have to say about a man: “It were better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26, 24). Therefore, if someone or something can contribute toward warding off such an evil, even though it be penal law or the execution of a lawful penalty, no effort should be spared. *(Pius XII)
Certainly a strong argument can be made that leaving a man in the company of other criminals for the remainder of his life provides him with little inclination to change his ways and repent. Does it ever happen, probably, but does it provide as much incentive as his impending execution? That’s not at all clear. Beyond this it would appear that it is better to be punished in this life than in the next one. *Sometimes the guilty one is not punished now bodily, which is to his disadvantage since punishment of the body may be borne with patience and is conducive to the remission of sins; but nevertheless he shall be punished in the fu**ture life. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)
Beyond all that is the expiation of the sin, which is required, and to which a natural death does not contribute.
*Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.
*(I cannot positively identify this last citation. Romano Amerio cites it from the Summa, but I have been unable to locate it.)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor.

Justice consists in treating people the way they deserve to be treated - to give them what is due them. What is regularly overlooked is that people are punished because that is the treatment they deserve as a result of their actions. Criminals deserve to be punished. If the punishment was not deserved then it would be unjust to apply any, but if it is deserved then it would be unjust not to.

The real question here is: does a person who commits a deliberate murder deserve to die? Since God himself said he does, it isn’t clear why we should hold the contrary view.*Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Gn 9:6)
** *Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

With regard to Aquinas it is unlikely that he held contradictory views. What you have on the one hand is an unambiguous statement of his position, and on the other hand a personal interpretation of other statements he made relevant to the subject. Given that the interpretation of one set of statements conflicts with the clear meaning of the other, it seems the more reasonable explanation is that the proposed interpretation is flawed.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

…
The real question here is: does a person who commits a deliberate murder deserve to die? Since God himself said he does, it isn’t clear why we should hold the contrary view.*Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Gn 9:6)
** *Ender

Look, you have now banished me from the ground. I must avoid you and be a constant wanderer on the earth. Anyone may kill me at sight.”
Not so! the LORD said to him. If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times. So the LORD put a mark* on Cain, so that no one would kill him at sight Gen:4 14-15)*
To avoid playing “bible bingo” (like our Protestants brothers), Catholics have the Magisterium to integrate and give us the meaning of the the whole of Scripture. You have Archbishop Wilton Gregory’s exegesis of this verse that you so often cite. Why do you dismiss his teaching in favor of your own?

 

[graciew]

Justice consists in treating people the way they deserve to be treated - to give them what is due them. What is regularly overlooked is that people are punished because that is the treatment they deserve as a result of their actions. Criminals deserve to be punished. If the punishment was not deserved then it would be unjust to apply any, but if it is deserved then it would be unjust not to.

The real question here is: does a person who commits a deliberate murder deserve to die? Since God himself said he does, it isn’t clear why we should hold the contrary view.*Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Gn 9:6)
** *Ender

Punishment or prison aren t in dispute.
There isn t any warm feelings when someone is still at large after having kidnapped,or assaulted people,put a bomb,or raped and such. That is a real danger .

  And God Himself didn t do it. He could have and He still can

That isn t the nature of God.
Deus caritas est and God is Mercy. Can we approach Him like this?
Look at the person of Jesus. What harm did He inflict ?

If there is something to highlight in Restorative Justice is that sense of community that seeks to restore dialogue and integration when possible.
And there must be more
It is a step.

 

[Ender]

Here’s an example of what I mean by a theologian attempting to solve things by seeking a harmony in opposing views.

Kaczor is a serious thinker; I have cited this document myself.

“In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices.”

This is a conclusion Kaczor reaches; it is not something JPII actually asserted. We should also be clear that Kaczor uses the term “defense of society”, as distinct from the phrase used in the catechism which is “defend human lives.” The latter is only a subset of the former, which is a much more inclusive term. Pius XII noted this:‘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 and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’.
So, even assuming Kaczor is right that both retribution and “defense of society” are necessary to support capital punishment, that still doesn’t reduce merely to personal protection.

As to the claim that both ends (retribution, defense) are required, I find that argument weak. First, it recognizes that death is a just punishment, and then says it should not be used in favor of a lesser one, but how can both the harsher and less harsh punishment be considered equally just? Surely one would be too harsh or the other too lenient, but if death is too harsh it ought never be used, and if it is just right where is the moral argument for doing less?

"This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty."

Capital punishment is a particular form of the general term punishment, so whatever is true of the latter is also true of the former. Thanks to Mr. Kaczor, and the fact that you cited him, we have settled the issue about whether retribution is the primary end of punishment, and therefore of capital punishment as well.*Retribution, in John Paul’s view, is still the “primary” aim of punishment—primary in the sense that it is the necessary condition for all just punishments.
*His point is that while retribution is a necessary condition it is not sufficient alone to justify capital punishment. Is this reasonable? Suppose we look at it from the perspective of what is needed for the defense of society. If we suppose LWOP is the just punishment for their crimes, would we be willing to execute those we would normally just imprison if we thought it would make us safer? You cannot now argue that this would be unjust, so if was suddenly determined that executions provided significant deterrence, how could anyone reasonably oppose vastly expanding its use? The fact that virtually no one would take that step should indicate a problem with suggesting that retribution and defense are equally required.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Other comments of interest there:
"Aquinas wrote: "if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since ‘a little leaven corrupts the whole lump’ (Summa Theologiae II-II:64:2). For Aquinas, the death penalty is similar to amputating a diseased limb to save the body or self-defense in which one person kills another to defend the innocent. "

Having already recognized that capital punishment is not subsumed under self-defense…*The treatment of the death penalty is itself within Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism explicitly put in the context of punishment, not within the treatment of killing in self-defense.
*…it is too late to claim this is what Aquinas believed. That particular citation is inadequate to suggest the extent of Aquinas’ teaching on the subject, especially in light of what he said in response to the Objection that a person ought not be put to death.*On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law as appears from what we have said above *(ST I-II, 105, 2).
There is nothing of self-defense in that assertion.

"Thus, if capital punishment were simply a form of community self-defense governed by the same norms as private defense, then justified capital punishment should not be described as “rare, if not practically non-existent” but rather as “entirely non-existent.”

You misread this comment. Kaczor was not using it to defend his self-defense analogy but to show the point at which the analogy failed.

"The contemporary Catholic teaching on the death penalty is not a simple rejection of traditional Catholic teaching on the topic, but it does substantially deepen the Church’s perennial dedication to the dignity of the human person and the common good of society. "

I agree with you that Kaczor attempted to harmonize opposing views on capital punishment; I just don’t think he succeeded. How is our understanding of the common good of society deepened by limiting the concept merely to public safety? How is our dedication to man’s dignity improved by concluding that capital punishment is an affront to his dignity…but it’s OK to do it anyway if we feel threatened by our prisoners?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I guess this is where we differ in opinion. I don’t view retributive justice as inconsistent with, or necessarily separate from, the interests of the common good. Nothing in that statement obligates CP of course.

*“it would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of principle, the function of retributive punishment. The result of retributive penalties is in no way opposed to the function of punishment, which is the re-establishment and restoration of the order of justice which has been disrupted, a function which is essential to all punishment.” *
(Pius XII Discourse of December 5, 1954, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLVI, p. 67)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Are there any precedents in the Catholic tradition for John Paul II’s position? Statements made by St. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Lactantius, and St. Cyprian of Carthage suggest efforts to distance early Christians from all killing, including the execution of criminals.

This is true of Lactantius, who opposed all killing. Aside from Tertullian, however, none of the other Fathers and Doctors shared that position.*From the beginning there were two variant interpretations of State authority relating to war and capital punishment. One interpretation was openly pacifist, and the other was non-pacifist. Two names especially stand out that wrote belligerently against all war, and therefore espoused universal pacifism. Tertullian, 160-220, and Lactantius, 240-320 also fought strenuously against capital punishment of condemned criminals. At the same time, the accepted Fathers of the Church never adopted these extreme positions, either outlawing all war as unjust or forbidding all capital punishment as inherently evil. *(Fr. John Hardon)

St. Ambrose, cited in Evangelium Vitae §9, appeals to the protection of Cain as evidence of God’s preference for the correction rather than the death of a sinner.

Being opposed to its use is very different than raising a moral objection, which Ambrose did not do. He did not want to see it used, but he recognized its legitimacy.I RECOGNIZE in your application to me a pure intention of mind, zeal for the faith, and fear of our Lord Jesus Christ. And indeed I should fear to reply to it, being checked on the one hand by the obligation of the trust committed to you for the maintenance of the laws, and on the other by claims of mercy and clemency, had you not in this matter the Apostle’s authority that he who judgeth beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the avenger of God, upon him that doeth evil.

Even St. Augustine is not always consistent. While he supports the right of the state to use capital punishment, in Sermon 13, no. 8, he exhorts: “Do not have a person put to death, and you will have someone who can be reformed.” This anticipates the teaching of Evangelium Vitae §27, viz., we should seek to render “criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”

But again, while Augustine did not want to see capital punishment used (for obvious reasons) he recognized that its use was valid. He raised no moral objection to it, but only prudential reservations.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Look, you have now banished me from the ground. I must avoid you and be a constant wanderer on the earth. Anyone may kill me at sight.”
Not so! the LORD said to him. If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times. So the LORD put a mark on Cain, so that no one would kill him at sight Gen:4 14-15)*
To avoid playing “bible bingo” (like our Protestants brothers), Catholics have the Magisterium to integrate and give us the meaning of the the whole of Scripture. You have Archbishop Wilton Gregory’s exegesis of this verse that you so often cite. Why do you dismiss his teaching in favor of your own?

Don’t suggest that I am merely presenting my own opinion when in fact I am citing what others have said. Why should I accept an opinion that cannot withstand scrutiny, especially when it doesn’t coincide with what sources of equal or greater gravity have said?*The conviction of right reason and the certainty of faith that human life, from its conception to natural death belongs to God and not to the human being, gives the human being that sacred character and personal dignity which the one legal and correct moral attitude inspires: profound respect. For the Lord of life said: “For your life-blood I will surely require a reckoning… for God made man in his own image” (Gen 9: 5-6). (BXVI)

The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: “If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man”, is said in Genesis (9,6)*. (JPII, Evangelium vitae)
*The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man, since God declares that He created all things for man’s sake. Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, 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)
If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Dulles)

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *
​

*The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time. *(CCC 2260)
Where is anything suggesting that Gn 9:6 was not taken literally by the church? And this question remains entirely unanswered:*How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? *(J. Budziszewski)
Ender

 

[Ender]

And God Himself didn’t do it. He could have and He still can
That isn’t the nature of God.
Deus caritas est and God is Mercy. Can we approach Him like this?
Look at the person of Jesus. What harm did He inflict?

Don’t make too much of the story of Cain; that is not one the church refers to in discussing capital punishment, for if God did not smite Cain, he certainly took a different approach with Sapphira and Ananias.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Justice consists in treating people the way they deserve to be treated - to give them what is due them. What is regularly overlooked is that people are punished because that is the treatment they deserve as a result of their actions. Criminals deserve to be punished. If the punishment was not deserved then it would be unjust to apply any, but if it is deserved then it would be unjust not to.

The real question here is: does a person who commits a deliberate murder deserve to die? Since God himself said he does, it isn’t clear why we should hold the contrary view.*Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Gn 9:6)
** *Ender

The principle you keep foundering on is not simply whether CP of a sinner is deserved but whether it is justly imposed…especially if vengeance is the sole motive.

Clearly vengeance is a necessary condition if CP is deserved for it is that which intrinsically determines as true that the sinner has gravely violated the community and deserves punishment. Everybody including Aquinas accepts that.

The Magisterium however asserts, following Aquinas amongst others, that it cannot be justly imposed by man simply on the basis of it being deserved (vengeance). That is not a sufficient condition, only a necessary one. The 2nd condition necessary to make imposition of CP sufficient and thus moral is the Common Good as numerous authors including the Magisterium and Aquinas make very clear.

Why would you search everywhere in the Summa to gainsay this clear teaching of Aquinas in his dedicated section on CP where he raises and answers this very question so clearly and explicitly. It may only be imposed if the CG is also taken into account.

But no, you feel the need to look everywhere but there, in particular in his more abstract section in another earlier book of the Summa dealing somewhat indirectly with justice and punishment.

And you make no effort to harmonise the two sections at all but blindly choose to pit one against the other because it suits your own erroneous view which you call traditional.

One only needs to face value read the Magisterium of more recent times to see the harmony that is clearly in the Summa on this point.

Which is why, if bloodless means are reasonably available, it is true that imposition of CP cannot be justified even if deserved. Because it does not serve the Common Good,

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Don’t suggest that I am merely presenting my own opinion when in fact I am citing what others have said. Why should I accept an opinion that cannot withstand scrutiny, especially when it doesn’t coincide with what sources of equal or greater gravity have said?*The conviction of right reason and the certainty of faith that human life, from its conception to natural death belongs to God and not to the human being, gives the human being that sacred character and personal dignity which the one legal and correct moral attitude inspires: profound respect. For the Lord of life said: “For your life-blood I will surely require a reckoning… for God made man in his own image” (Gen 9: 5-6). (BXVI)

The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: “If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man”, is said in Genesis (9,6)*. (JPII, Evangelium vitae)
*The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man, since God declares that He created all things for man’s sake. Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, 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)
If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Dulles)

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *
​

*The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time. *(CCC 2260)
Where is anything suggesting that Gn 9:6 was not taken literally by the church? And this question remains entirely unanswered:*How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? *(J. Budziszewski)
Ender

It never ceases to amaze me that the Lex Talionis only allowed from a loving desire to limit the escalation of vengeful killings in a hard of heart world, in better times is used by “Christians” to allow the State to do exactly what it was intended to limit…killing from pure vengeance …something ultimately reserved to God not man. .

This is where Grace’s valid mercy motive comes in. Mercy implies justice was deserved. But mercy often gets better conversion and common good results than justice alone ever could.
Therefore it is immoral for a ruler to impose justice when the common good is served by other means.

The Magisterium has made the practical moral judgement that in modern times bloodless alternatives are now reasonably available.
Therefore, if that be agreed, then it follows necessarily from the above moral principles that imposing CP is always and everywhere immoral.

It’s not rocket science.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Having already recognized that capital punishment is not subsumed under self-defense…The treatment of the death penalty is itself within Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism explicitly put in the context of punishment, not within the treatment of killing in self-defense.
…it is too late to claim this is what Aquinas believed. That particular citation is inadequate to suggest the extent of Aquinas’ teaching on the subject, especially in light of what he said in response to the Objection that a person ought not be put to death.*On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law as appears from what we have said above *(ST I-II, 105, 2).
There is nothing of self-defense in that assertion.
You misread this comment. Kaczor was not using it to defend his self-defense analogy but to show the point at which the analogy failed.
I agree with you that Kaczor attempted to harmonize opposing views on capital punishment; I just don’t think he succeeded. How is our understanding of the common good of society deepened by limiting the concept merely to public safety? How is our dedication to man’s dignity improved by concluding that capital punishment is an affront to his dignity…but it’s OK to do it anyway if we feel threatened by our prisoners?

Ender

D’oh boy. You do your wrong and right thing still with quotes I put up simply as a matter of interest to demonstrate the contrary views he attempts to harmonise .
I was making no “argument” other than show his mature approach to handling seemingly contrary material.

And the actual quote I did present to balance your unbalanced views on this thread you overlooked and ignored:

"In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices. This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty

."

 

[Blue_Horizon]

*“it would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of principle, the function of retributive punishment. The result of retributive penalties is in no way opposed to the function of punishment, which is the re-establishment and restoration of the order of justice which has been disrupted, a function which is essential to all punishment.” *
(Pius XII Discourse of December 5, 1954, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLVI, p. 67)
Ender

This quote is not counter to what Rau stated.

Don’t you find is strange you rely so heavily on one far off Pope to make your point which is supposed to be well embedded in a huge tradition?

That would suggest to me I do not well hold the point or actually fully understand it relative to other principles and I have likely taken my supporter out of context.