Capital Punishment

[graciew]

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

It hadn t crossed my mind, Cain and Abel ,I mean.
But us,today. And men and women throughout.
And the writings of the last two Popes I cited and the visit of St.John Paul to the person who attempted to kill him.
And this,which us how the Chapter I told you about starts:
1803. Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."62

This gracious,lovely,honorable and anything worth if praise isn t us…
We seek the face of Jesus.
And I was thinking how that sparkle that makes us recognize a brother may shine through inspite if whatever a person may do.
And what was it that John Paul saw i
n the eyes of the man he visited.
There is a long road to go.

 

[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.

I understand this point, and just responded to it. Nor is it accurate to claim that anyone, let alone the Maisterium or Aquinas, has asserted that it cannot be justly imposed solely on the basis of a deserved vengeance. That is what you infer from their comments. I’ll also repeat what I just said: the common good is a much broader concept than “defend(ing) human lives.” Given that justice is assuredly one of the greatest “common goods”, whatever is done must clearly satisfy that requirement. I have earlier raised concerns about this claim, until those are addressed it isn’t clear that repeating the claim is productive.

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.

First, this “clear” teaching doesn’t mean what you think it does, nor (unsurprisingly) does it conflict with what he says elsewhere. That you think it does ought to have been a clue that a more robust interpretation was required. Second, it hardly seems fair to chastise me for cherry picking too narrowly on the one hand, and excoriate me for “searching everywhere” on the other. Can’t you just deal with my arguments?

Aquinas always recognized that the impact of the punishment on the entire community was to be considered if the punishment was to be considered just in its fullest sense.*But if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed, the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice. *(ST II-II 43, 7 a1)
The meaning the passage you (exclusively) cite is not that capital punishment must satisfy both justice and protection, but is actually about who is authorize to impose it - the physician in the case of amputating a limb, and the magistrate in the case of executing vengeance.

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 demonize thoroughness as what? Watermelon picking?

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.

I’m not as optimistic as the little girl searching for the pony. I don’t think there’s an argument in here anywhere.

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,

Now we see the advantage of not attempting an argument: it doesn’t provide any targets. The argument you make is that a person cannot be executed *even if he deserves it *if it is harmful to the common good. But determining what is or is not best for the common good is a prudential judgment, about which people may reasonably disagree. That you accept that a person may deserve to die for his crime, however, is a moral judgment with which I concur. So while we might properly disagree on whether or not it is wise to execute (e.g.) a murderer, we are at least in agreement that he deserves death for his crime.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

I think this is the quote you’re looking for.*Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution, much less take the form of social retaliation or a sort of institutional vengeance. Punishment and imprisonment have meaning if, while maintaining the demands of justice and discouraging crime, they serve the rehabilitation of the individual by offering those who have made a mistake an opportunity to reflect and to change their lives in order to be fully reintegrated into society. *(JPII, Homily - Jubilee in Prisons, 2000)
Ender

 

[graciew]

I think this is the quote you’re looking for.*Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution, much less take the form of social retaliation or a sort of institutional vengeance. Punishment and imprisonment have meaning if, while maintaining the demands of justice and discouraging crime, they serve the rehabilitation of the individual by offering those who have made a mistake an opportunity to reflect and to change their lives in order to be fully reintegrated into society. *(JPII, Homily - Jubilee in Prisons, 2000)
Ender

What a man! What a Saint! Gosh!

 

[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.

The notable difference between your assertions and mine is that I provide citations in support of all mine and you rarely ever provide anything beyond “Here, read this document. It proves my point.” Your comment about the Lex Talionis is pure invention; the church has never taught that. The argument is all the more ironic in that while you believe man is denied the use of “pure vengeance” as a control on his baser instincts, you reserve such (base?) action to God. Besides, this restriction does not exist. What is just for God is just for his ministers (and please, no Nazi ministers in the response).

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.

We are agreed that if mercy speaks for a lesser sentence then the harsher one (in this case death) is the just one. That said, it is necessary to recognize that there are times when mercy is inappropriate (e.g. there is no contrition), and now, having accepted death as the just punishment, what argument is left against it?

The Magisterium has made the practical moral judgement that in modern times bloodless alternatives are now reasonably available.

Yes, it is agreed: their opposition is a prudential judgment about what leads to the best outcome.

Therefore, if that be agreed, then it follows necessarily from the above moral principles that imposing CP is always and everywhere immoral.

There are no moral principles that can make capital punishment per se immoral as you have recognized that its application may be just - it is what is deserved. How can doing what is just be immoral?

Ender

 

[Ender]

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

Actually, responding to that citation was the largest section of my post (#370). I don’t expect you to agree with what I said, but to be fair I neither overlooked nor ignored that citation.

Ender

 

[Rau]

How can doing what is just be immoral?

Just here refers to the justice received by the criminal. What is just in that context can be immoral as the latter notion is sensitive to the balance of good and harm for ALL persons.

 

[Ender]

This quote is not counter to what Rau stated.

Good eye…it was meant to confirm it.

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?

Far off? 1954? And if my position is to be “well embedded in a huge tradition” wouldn’t it be necessary for me to cite someone from the past who actually expressed it? I mean, what else would make it traditional? I cite Pius XII because he wrote so extensively on the subject, more so than anyone else I have discovered.

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.

Given that (at a minimum) Pius XII, Pius X, Leo XIII, Clement XIII, Pius V, Innocent III, and Innocent I all agree with the essential points re capital punishment, I’m pretty confident of my position. Throw in the nearly unanimous agreement among the Fathers and Doctors and I really feel pretty secure.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Just here refers to the justice received by the criminal. What is just in that context can be immoral as the latter notion is sensitive to the balance of good and harm for ALL persons.

Doing what is just is a moral obligation, but there is no moral obligation to agree on what constitutes the best course of action. If it is conceded that the prisoner deserves a particular punishment then the basic requirement of justice has been met. Whether we agree or not on whether it is the best course of action to apply it in his case is a judgment, not a moral choice.

Ender

 

[graciew]

That said, it is necessary to recognize that there are times when mercy is inappropriate (e.g. there is no contrition), and now, having accepted death as the just punishment, what argument is left against it?

Ender

Misericordia.

 

[Rau]

Doing what is just is a moral obligation, but there is no moral obligation to agree on what constitutes the best course of action. If it is conceded that the prisoner deserves a particular punishment then the basic requirement of justice has been met. Whether we agree or not on whether it is the best course of action to apply it in his case is a judgment, not a moral choice.

Ender

That is true. My point stands though - that doing what is just can (and should) be rejected by the actor were he to conclude that while just, it causes more harm than good.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Good eye …

So the point was…?

I mean, what else would make it traditional? I

Hmmmn. Perhaps clear, repeated and unopposed views from apostolic times, perhaps clear agreement from the last 3 Popes and the CCC etc etc.

Given that (at a minimum) Pius XII, Pius X, Leo XIII, Clement XIII, Pius V, Innocent III, and Innocent I all agree with the essential points re capital punishment…

Please give us these points succinctly as they seem to have escaped this thread and some youve mentioned are not clearly articulated in the CCC (as you yourself stated) and also seem incompatible with statements by more recent Popes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually, responding to that citation was the largest section of my post (#370). I don’t expect you to agree with what I said, but to be fair I neither overlooked nor ignored that citation.

Ender

Apologies, I somehow missed that post.

 

[Rau]

So the point was…?

I guess it was to add to the debate by pointing out that Pius XII had expressed a position on the subject of retributive justice somewhat similar to my own (expressed in post #362).

…also seem incompatible with statements by more recent Popes.

The Popes of earlier times were in no position to comment on the morality of acts of CP in the present era, and the Popes of the present era have not condemned the attitude to CP of Popes in prior eras. Is the appearance of incompatibility really any more than reflective of changed circumstances and differing prudential judgements?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I guess it was to add to the debate by pointing out that Pius XII had expressed a position on the subject of retributive justice somewhat similar to my own (expressed in post #362).

The Popes of earlier times were in no position to comment on the morality of acts of CP in the present era, and the Popes of the present era have not condemned the attitude to CP of Popes in prior eras. Is the appearance of incompatibility really any more than reflective of changed circumstances and differing prudential judgements?

Is the Church’s current stand on usury, soldiering or slavery (even Communion and the adultery of some irregulars) at odds with apostolic times?
Did large sectors of the Church at the time say it was a break with “tradition”?
Who knows, it is still debated by antagonised weighty sides even unto today.

 

[Ender]

That is true. My point stands though - that doing what is just can (and should) be rejected by the actor were he to conclude that while just, it causes more harm than good.

This is true inasmuch as true justice includes concern for all of society, as I acknowledged before.
*if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed, the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice.
*Ender
**

 

[o_mlly]

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?

Sources of equal gravity to Archbishop Gregory in interpreting Scripture are only other bishops in communion with the pope. I have asked for such citations from you in this thread (magisterial sources) but have not seen any that support your interpretation of EV which is essentially as regards capital punishment: nothing new, possible error, just one man expressing his non-binding prudential judgment.

We understand that Archbishop Gregory’s interpretation of Gen 9:6 does not withstand ***your ***scrutiny but, unless you are a bishop, that is not relevant.

*The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. *

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)

This quote is from BXVI address to the Brazilian bishops titled, “Christian formation of the conscience crucial for social development.” The topic was on social issues making no reference to capital punishment (The last execution carried out by Brazil was on April 28, 1876). His holiness uses Gen 9:5-6 to affirm the sanctity of human life, not to affirm the state’s right to end it.

Please do not data-mine for Gen 9:5-6 in papal documents and post as a citation as if it is applicable to this thread’s topic when the documents clearly are not.

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)
This citation is not from 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)

The citation does not give as an interpretation of Gen 9:5-6 that the state has license to capital punishment. It does not even mention the passage. It decries the murderer. Furthermore, in its list of remedies for murder Trent’s most severe is that God only commands that animals that kill man be put to death. It gives no license to the state to take human life.

Remedies Against The Violation Of This (5th) Commandment
So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. Trent’s Catechism​

​

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)

Remembering that the cardinal priest, a saintly and scholarly man, was not a bishop, Dulles merely confirms that the pope wrote correctly in EV: the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. No more than that.

*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)

The footnote to #2260 cites its authority as coming from CDF’s document:
INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION
REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.

The questions of the day are about procreation; not about the state’s license to kill. 2260 uses this “blood” reference to underline the sacredness of human life as evident in the Old Testament as it applies directly to the fifth commandment.
Ender;14687829:

Where is anything suggesting that Gn 9:6 was not taken literally by the church?

Again, it appears you dismiss Archbishop Gregory’s exegesis out of hand.
Ender;14687829:

And this question remains entirely unanswered:*How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? *(J. Budziszewski)
Ender

Budziszewski’s rhetorical skills notwithstanding, the question has been thoroughly answered in EV. It’s just not the answer that Budziszewski or you want.​

 

[Ender]

Sources of equal gravity to Archbishop Gregory in interpreting Scripture are only other bishops in communion with the pope. I have asked for such citations from you in this thread (magisterial sources) but have not seen any that support your interpretation of EV which is essentially as regards capital punishment: nothing new, possible error, just one man expressing his non-binding prudential judgment.

How many times must I cite Cardinal Dulles, who said exactly that? Really? You’re playing “My source is higher up the food chain than yours”?

We understand that Archbishop Gregory’s interpretation of Gen 9:6 does not withstand ***your ***scrutiny but, unless you are a bishop, that is not relevant.

It is not that his interpretation is contrary to mine but that it is not supported by the interpretation the church has given it. That was why I provided all those citations.

This quote is from BXVI address to the Brazilian bishops titled, “Christian formation of the conscience crucial for social development.” The topic was on social issues making no reference to capital punishment (The last execution carried out by Brazil was on April 28, 1876). His holiness uses Gen 9:5-6 to affirm the sanctity of human life, not to affirm the state’s right to end it.

So which part of that citation does Abp Gregory feel is merely poetic? The part where we are told murderers are to die for their crime or the explanation given for why they should receive this punishment? If the part about shedding the blood of killers is only a literary device then what sense does it make to provide an explanation for why we are to do something we’re not even supposed to do? At least be clear that the part about being made in the image of God is given not specifically as an explanation for why man is so special, but why murderers should die for their crimes.

Please do not data-mine for Gen 9:5-6 in papal documents and post as a citation as if it is applicable to this thread’s topic when the documents clearly are not.

They are applicable for the simple fact that they were cited. Gn 9:6 is not the first reference to man being made in God’s image, the first time we are told this is in Gn 1:27*So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
*That is a direct statement about man’s creation, but in the passage cited by BXVI and JPII this fact is presented as an explanation for the directive given in the first part of the statement. There is more there than a simple expression of man’s nature.

This citation is not from Evangelium Vitae.

True, I mis-cited this. It is from his Regina Caeli in 2002.

The citation does not give as an interpretation of Gen 9:5-6 that the state has license to capital punishment.

That Trent permitted capital punishment is really not open to debate. That was clearly the case.* Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *

Remembering that the cardinal priest, a saintly and scholarly man, was not a bishop, Dulles merely confirms that the pope wrote correctly in EV: the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. No more than that.

Dulles was certainly one of the preeminent American Catholic theologians of the 20th century. You’re right, he wasn’t a bishop. He was one of the very few men to become a cardinal without first becoming a bishop, and that was entirely due to his theological brilliance.

Nor was that all Dulles said. As I pointed out before he understood the opposition of JPII and the Magisterium to be prudential.

The footnote to #2260 cites its authority as coming from CDF’s document:
INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION
REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.

The questions of the day are about procreation; not about the state’s license to kill. 2260 uses this “blood” reference to underline the sacredness of human life as evident in the Old Testament as it applies directly to the fifth commandment.

I don’t see the footnote you refer to, but whatever it refers to, the passages in that section of the catechism are about killing, not procreation.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Regarding whether the new teaching on the death penalty is doctrine or judgment, can we recognize that only doctrine obliges our assent, prudential opinions do not?*- “It is not one of those teachings a Catholic has to accept, like, for example, abortion. Abortion has clearly been defined by the church as a moral evil, which is never accepted under any circumstances or any justification.” …"If they’ve thought it through and prayed about it, they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this (death penalty) issue.” *(Bishop James Conley, 2016)

*- The Catholic Church has always taught that legitimate governments have the right to impose the death penalty on those guilty of the most serious crimes. This teaching has been consistent for centuries — in the Scriptures, in the writings of the Church Fathers and in the teachings of the popes.

**The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion. *(Archbishop Jose Gomez, 2016)

*- “While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)If we may dissent from the bishops’ position is it reasonable to believe that the dispute involves doctrines?

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

Regarding whether the new teaching on the death penalty is doctrine or judgment, can we recognize that only doctrine obliges our assent, prudential opinions do not?- “It is not one of those teachings a Catholic has to accept, like, for example, abortion. Abortion has clearly been defined by the church as a moral evil, which is never accepted under any circumstances or any justification.” …"If they’ve thought it through and prayed about it, they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this (death penalty) issue.” (Bishop James Conley, 2016)

*- The Catholic Church has always taught that legitimate governments have the right to impose the death penalty on those guilty of the most serious crimes. This teaching has been consistent for centuries — in the Scriptures, in the writings of the Church Fathers and in the teachings of the popes.

*The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion. (Archbishop Jose Gomez, 2016)

- "While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty" (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)If we may dissent from the bishops’ position is it reasonable to believe that the dispute involves doctrines?

Ender

I think we’ve exhausted this issue for this year. (See you next year?)

It seems to me that hell – eternal death – has a parallel with temporal death in the sense that God’s authority and our sinfulness make hell a real possibility just as the state’s authority and the criminal’s criminality make the death penalty a real possibility.

Universalists (not me) argue that although hell exists, its population is zero. If hell did not exit then the evil in this world would increase. If the state did not have the death penalty then the crimes in this world would increase. Hell, like the death penalty, is the loaded gun that never gets fired.
*Karl Rahner, another representative of the more liberal trend, holds for the possibility that no one ever goes to hell. We have no clear revelation, he says, to the effect that some are actually lost. The discourses of Jesus on the subject appear to be admonitory rather than predictive. Their aim is to persuade his hearers to pursue the better and safer path by alerting them to the danger of eternal perdition. While allowing for the real possibility of eternal damnation, says Rahner, we must simultaneously maintain “the truth of the omnipotence of the universal salvific will of God, the redemption of all by Christ, the duty of men to hope for salvation.” Rahner therefore believes that universal salvation is a possibility. *(Avery Dulles)
Another thread for another day.