Capital Punishment

[Ender]

Of course the teaching is different: the 1997 catechism revises the earlier 1992.

My point was that both versions of the catechism described the traditional teaching on capital punishment, and they were different. You cannot revise the past. If the descriptions of the past do not agree with one another, one of them is in error.

I fear you have grossly misinterpreted Pope Francis in his letter. Your citation in context does not say what you would like it to say. Rather, Pope Francis is, perhaps, preparing you for the next development in the doctrine.

Do you believe a pope has the authority to simply declare particular acts immoral as he judges the matter?

His clear meaning in the letter is to abolish the death penalty, period – with no extreme case exceptions. The “misinterpretation” he points out in paralleling the self-defense doctrine with the capital punishment doctrine is that the lethal blow allowed in self-defense is never allowed in capital punishment because the criminal is already subdued and the immediate threat non-existent.

Well one of us has certainly misunderstood this comment.*the presuppositions of legitimate personal defense do not apply at the social level, without the risk of misinterpretation.
*Given that you suppose the “presuppositions of legitimate personal defense” do apply at the social level it’s not clear that the misunderstanding is mine.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

My point was that both versions of the catechism described the traditional teaching on capital punishment, and they were different. You cannot revise the past. If the descriptions of the past do not agree with one another, one of them is in error.

Only the wording (or English translation of the Latin wording) in the 1997 catechism lacks clarity. An explanation that synthesizes the documents is preferred to an explanation that does not. After all, the Spirit does not inspire each and every word but rather an idea. The idea in EV is clear. There is no disagreement of ideas in the catechisms – there cannot be.

Do you believe a pope has the authority to simply declare particular acts immoral as he judges the matter?

No. Nor do I believe he would or could teach in contradiction to established doctrine.

Well one of us has certainly misunderstood this comment.*the presuppositions of legitimate personal defense do not apply at the social level, without the risk of misinterpretation.
*Given that you suppose the “presuppositions of legitimate personal defense” do apply at the social level it’s not clear that the misunderstanding is mine.
Ender

I presume you have read Pope Francis’ entire letter. To take one comment and construe it as meaning something other than the plain meaning of the entire document is, well, hairesis.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually they [self-defense and capital punishment] are very different, as Francis himself noted.*Nevertheless, the presuppositions of legitimate personal defense do not apply at the social level, without the risk of misinterpretation. When the death penalty is applied, it is not for a current act of aggression, but rather for an act committed in the past.
*

Ender

Best to use the Vatican’s official translation than a blogger’s best effort. This expanded citation clearly gives Francis’ meaning. The snippet you cited from the blogger, stripped out of context, could mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150320_lettera-pena-morte.html

*In certain circumstances, when hostilities are underway, a measured reaction is necessary in order to prevent the aggressor from causing harm, and the need to neutralize the aggressor may result in his elimination; it is a case of legitimate defence (cf. Evangelium Vitae, n. 55). Nevertheless, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion. In fact, when the death penalty is applied, people are killed not for current acts of aggression, but for offences committed in the past. Moreover, it is applied to people whose capacity to cause harm is not current, but has already been neutralized, and who are deprived of their freedom.

Today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been. It is an offence to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person which contradicts God’s plan for man and for society and his merciful justice, and it fails to conform to any just purpose of punishment. It does not render justice to the victims, but rather foments revenge.*

 

[Ender]

I want to return the discussion to retribution again, and the question of its place in punishment. I have repeatedly insisted that retribution is the primary objective of punishment, a claim that has been rather strenuously resisted, but I think that until and unless we resolve the point it will be nearly impossible to make any headway on the larger issue of capital punishment. If we don’t understand punishment properly it shouldn’t be surprising that we don’t properly understand capital punishment. So, what are the arguments that the primary objective of punishment is indeed retribution?

What are the objectives of punishment?Redress: The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”…
Protection(/deterrence): In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety…
Rehabilitation: …while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. (EV #56)

Redress*: The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense…
Protection(/deterrence): Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons…
Rehabilitation: …has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender. *(CCC 2266)

*The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution, deterrence(/protection), and reform. *(USCCB 1980)

*Punishment is commonly held to have four purposes. They are: (1) **protection **(of society), (2) retribution, (3) rehabilitation, and (4) deterrence. *(Montana Catholic Conference on Capital Punishment, 1981)

*Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, **defense **against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

It is also important also to note that John Paul retains the traditional four purposes of punishment articulated in traditional Catholic teaching:

• Retribution
• Defense of society
• Deterrence
• ***Rehabilitation ***(Christopher Kaczor, 2011)

If you are not yet ready to accept all this as definitive proof at least recognize that it is highly suggestive that “redress” and retribution refer to the same thing. After all, if redress is not retribution, what is it? It cannot be protection or rehabilitation as they are identified separately, but if it is indeed primary how could the others (who mention retribution) have missed it? Moreover, if redress is something other than retribution, does this mean retribution is not a legitimate end of punishment since neither EV nor the catechism mentioned it? (More…)

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

I want to return the discussion to retribution again, and the question of its place in punishment. … (More…)

Ender

In “More” I hope your argument offers proof that capital punishment is, as a punishment, not unique. Otherwise, capital punishment must have its own ends.

As Justice Stewart stated, “The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree, but in kind. It is unique in its total irrevocability” (Furman v. Georgia).​

 

[Ender]

Only the wording (or English translation of the Latin wording) in the 1997 catechism lacks clarity. An explanation that synthesizes the documents is preferred to an explanation that does not. After all, the Spirit does not inspire each and every word but rather an idea. The idea in EV is clear. There is no disagreement of ideas in the catechisms – there cannot be.

A friend once told me he would not believe in miracles if he stood in front of the burning bush. You have a similar perspective on differences between the two catechisms: they cannot be different therefore they aren’t, despite the obvious fact that they are.*1997: The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

1992: The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. *The restrictive caveat contained in the 1997 version simply does not exist, not only in the 1992 version but in any previous catechism, magisterial document, or writing of the Fathers or Doctors of the church (that I have seen).

No. Nor do I believe he would or could teach in contradiction to established doctrine.

Then why would we ever expect to see him “abolish the death penalty, period”?

I presume you have read Pope Francis’ entire letter. To take one comment and construe it as meaning something other than the plain meaning of the entire document is, well, hairesis.

Oh goodness, not this again. I have done nothing more in the case of Pope Francis’ comment than we all regularly do with one another’s comments on this forums. I have selected one statement, one specific assertion, and used it to make a specific point. So long as the comment retains its full meaning - that is, it is not taken out of context - there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. He made a comment about the relationship between killing in self defense and killing via execution that was relevant to an assertion you had made. Nothing else in his letter was pertinent to that question. His position on capital punishment is completely immaterial to his explanation about whether the states right to use capital punishment is analogous to the right of personal self defense.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Best to use the Vatican’s official translation than a blogger’s best effort. This expanded citation clearly gives Francis’ meaning. The snippet you cited from the blogger, stripped out of context, could mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

The citation you provided is in no meaningful way different from the one I cited.Yours: the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion. In fact, when the death penalty is applied, people are killed not for current acts of aggression, but for offences committed in the past.

*Mine: **the presuppositions of legitimate personal defense do not apply at the social level, without the risk of misinterpretation. When the death penalty is applied, it is not for a current act of aggression, but rather for an act committed in the past.
*The meaning of the two passages is identical. Nor is there a question of context involved; including paragraphs regarding aspects of capital punishment unrelated to self defense change nothing about the meaning of the sentences cited. The point being made is this:
the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion Ender

 

[Ender]

In “More” I hope your argument offers proof that capital punishment is, as a punishment, not unique. Otherwise, capital punishment must have its own ends.

As Justice Stewart stated, “The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree, but in kind. It is unique in its total irrevocability” (Furman v. Georgia).​

There are certain aspects of punishment that are common to all forms. The four objectives are the same in every case, and while it is not true that what is particular about capital punishment pertains to punishment in general, it is correct to hold that whatever is true of punishment in general is also true of capital punishment.

Justice Stewart’s comment is correct, but I don’t see that it has any relevance to the discussion. Capital punishment has one unique feature: it is irrevocable. That in no way indicates it must have its own ends. It is a punishment, and everything that applies to punishment applies to it as well.

Ender

 

[Ender]

More on retribution and redress…

Although citing non-magisterial sources explaining the meaning of “redress the disorder” won’t end the debate, it is again indicative of the likelihood that this is the correct meaning given the number and nature of the people who express this position.*Retribution of damaged juridic order. Punishment aims to redress the disorder introduced by the offense, by depriving the offender of a good of a proportionate degree to that which was suffered by the offended, or—in the ultimate analysis—by the society. Hence, the punishment must be commensurate to the gravity of the offense. In any case, retribution cannot be confused with revenge. *(Fr. Jim Achacoso)

*The new framework leads me to conclude that the Catechism is laying a theoretical foundation for a change (not “development” precisely understood) in the Church’s teaching on the death penalty that would at minimum state that the exigencies of retribution (i.e., of the need to redress the disorder introduced by a criminal’s crime) are never a sufficient condition for the inflicting of capital punishment. *(E. Christian Brugger, Loyola Univ.)

The subsection briefly departs from this motif in no. 2266 to introduce punishment’s “primary purpose,” i.e., redressing the disorder introduced by deliberate crime (i.e., retribution) (Cardinal Dulles)

Evangelium Vitae *, no. 56, and the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *, no. 2266, agree that “the primary aim” of punishment is the retributive one of “redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” (Charles E. Rice, Notre Dame Law School)

**Properly speaking, retribution is a restoration of the order of justice that was disturbed by the criminal’s behavior. * (Christopher Kaczor, Loyola Marymount)

Th*e third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal *(USCCB)

T*he parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. The section on punishment in general reaffirms the traditional formulation of the triple purpose of punishment, and it describes retribution as the first of these purposes. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)
It is clear that, for these people at least, retribution is synonymous with redress.
(One more…)

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

The citation you provided is in no meaningful way different from the one I cited.Yours: the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion. In fact, when the death penalty is applied, people are killed not for current acts of aggression, but for offences committed in the past.

*Mine: **the presuppositions of legitimate personal defense do not apply at the social level, without the risk of misinterpretation. When the death penalty is applied, it is not for a current act of aggression, but rather for an act committed in the past.
*The meaning of the two passages is identical. Nor is there a question of context involved; including paragraphs regarding aspects of capital punishment unrelated to self defense change nothing about the meaning of the sentences cited. The point being made is this:
the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion Ender

Oh, please. We’ve seen this debating tactic before. Cite an authoritative reference, mine-out of the text a couple of sentences that, on their own, are ambiguous (thereby dismissing the authority of the source’s own explanation), insert one’s own authority interpreting the ambiguity just created in a way that supports one’s own bias.

OK. We’ll play this word game once again.

Cleverly(?), exclude in the citation the Pope’s first word, “Nevertheless.” Why? Because the word “nevertheless” requires the inclusion of the prior sentence in order to make sense of exactly what is “nevertheless.” My citation includes the prior sentence.
In certain circumstances, when hostilities are underway, a measured reaction is necessary in order to prevent the aggressor from causing harm, and the need to neutralize the aggressor may result in his elimination; it is a case of legitimate defence (cf. Evangelium Vitae, n. 55).
Now, examine the next sentence:
Nevertheless, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion.
In context, the sentence can now be restated in the affirmative:
Therefore, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are applicable in the social sphere with the risk of distortion.
Violently editing (distorting) and offering such a truncated citation of the Pope’s letter proves the Pope’s point: distortion is a real risk. I say violently because the result of this kind of editing attempts to turn Pope Francis’ affirmation of JPII’s clear teaching in EV n. 55, 56 - the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are applicable in the social sphere – on its head.

 

[Ender]

Oh, please. We’ve seen this debating tactic before. Cite an authoritative reference, mine-out of the text a couple of sentences that, on their own, are ambiguous (thereby dismissing the authority of the source’s own explanation), insert one’s own authority interpreting the ambiguity just created in a way that supports one’s own bias.

OK. We’ll play this word game once again.

Cleverly(?), exclude in the citation the Pope’s first word, “Nevertheless.” Why? Because the word “nevertheless” requires the inclusion of the prior sentence in order to make sense of exactly what is “nevertheless.” My citation includes the prior sentence.
*In certain circumstances, when hostilities are underway, a measured reaction is necessary in order to prevent the aggressor from causing harm, and the need to neutralize the aggressor may result in his elimination; it is a case of legitimate defence (cf. Evangelium Vitae, n. 55).*Now, examine the next sentence:
*Nevertheless, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion.*In context, the sentence can now be restated in the affirmative:
*Therefore, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are applicable in the social sphere with the risk of distortion.*Violently editing (distorting) and offering such a truncated citation of the Pope’s letter proves the Pope’s point: distortion is a real risk. I say violently because the result of this kind of editing attempts to turn Pope Francis’ affirmation of JPII’s clear teaching in EV n. 55, 56 - the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are applicable in the social sphere – on its head.

You take this statement:*Nevertheless, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion.
*reword it as this:
*Therefore, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are applicable in the social sphere with the risk of distortion.
*and accuse me of turning his teaching on its head because I omitted the word “nevertheless”? You’ve turned “are not” into “are” and find fault with me for understanding it to mean exactly what it says? I am open to discussing things even when there is virtually no expectation that opinions will change, but when it is argued that words mean the opposite of what they plainly say the effort seems utterly futile.

Everything in the sentence you excoriate me for omitting can be paraphrased as this: “Killing can be legitimate in cases of defense”. *Nevertheless *(that is, despite this truth) what applies to personal defense does not apply in the social sphere. Whether that means killing is not justifiable in the public sphere, or simply that the justification for it is different is not stated, only that the two have different criteria.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

A friend once told me he would not believe in miracles if he stood in front of the burning bush. You have a similar perspective on differences between the two catechisms: they cannot be different therefore they aren’t, despite the obvious fact that they are.1997: The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

1992: The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. The restrictive caveat contained in the 1997 version simply does not exist, not only in the 1992 version but in any previous catechism, magisterial document, or writing of the Fathers or Doctors of the church (that I have seen)…
Ender

Here we go again. Please remember that development of doctrine inherently does not require precedent. Let me correct the errors above with Archbishop Gregory’s explanation.
*The key distinction between the original and the official versions of the catechism’s exposition of the morality of the death penalty is the way in which the purposes of punishment are defined. We see that in the provisional, or first, edition the section on the death penalty upheld a traditional Catholic principle, namely, “the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”(2)

The 1992 text then asserts that “the primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”(3) Finally, it states, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”(4)

This earlier edition of the catechism retains the traditional teaching of the church, permitting the use of capital punishment to defend life and protect public order, thereby redressing the disorder caused by the offense. The preference for the use of “bloodless means” is in line with the whole tradition of the church because, even in lawfully carrying out justice for the sake of society, Christians are called to show mercy and not vengeance.

When the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church appeared in 1997, some readers were surprised to discover that the purpose of capital punishment as restitution of public order had been removed from the discussion. In addition, the corresponding notion of capital punishment as deterrence to further capital crimes was also reduced. Between the publication of the first edition and that of the official Latin version, Pope John Paul II had issued an important encyclical letter titled “On Human Life” (Evangelium Vitae, 1995) that took up a number of moral issues related to the defense of human life and dignity, including the death penalty. It appears that the late pontiff’s analysis on capital punishment had an impact on the Vatican commission charged with overseeing the revisions of a teaching instrument that is normative for the moral discernment of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics.

Once the 1997 version of the catechism eliminated the protection of public order as an argument, the only justification for the deterrent value of capital punishment was that it defended human beings against an aggressor. In looking at the revised version of the text, one would have to conclude that the only purpose that would render an execution morally licit, according to Catholic teaching, is the defense of society from the particular criminal whose sentencing is under question.

The new paragraphs conclude with an assertion taken directly from Evangelium Vitae that the U.S. bishops understand to imply “a very restrictive application of the death penalty.”(5) The new text, based on John Paul II’s moral analysis, maintains that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”(6) It appears, then, that the revised Catholic teaching on capital punishment is closely associated with the influence of the late pontiff.

One other point should be noted about these changes in the Catholic catechism. By narrowing the permissible situations for the moral application of the death penalty, the editors of the catechism also followed John Paul II’s lead in reorienting the issue to the broader discussion of legitimate defense.(7) The late pope reasserts that the primary purpose of punishment is to “redress the disorder caused by the offense,” which includes rectifying the violation of personal and social rights.

Yet punishment also provides the offender with “the condition to regain the exercise of his or her freedom.”(8) In other words, the legitimate use of punishment to defend the order of justice should include remedies for both the victims and the perpetrators of crime.*

 

[o_mlly]

You take this statement:*Nevertheless, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion.
*reword it as this:
*Therefore, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are applicable in the social sphere with the risk of distortion.
*and accuse me of turning his teaching on its head because I omitted the word “nevertheless”? You’ve turned “are not” into “are” and find fault with me for understanding it to mean exactly what it says? I am open to discussing things even when there is virtually no expectation that opinions will change, but when it is argued that words mean the opposite of what they plainly say the effort seems utterly futile.

Everything in the sentence you excoriate me for omitting can be paraphrased as this: “Killing can be legitimate in cases of defense”. *Nevertheless *(that is, despite this truth) what applies to personal defense does not apply in the social sphere. Whether that means killing is not justifiable in the public sphere, or simply that the justification for it is different is not stated, only that the two have different criteria.

Ender

Yes. Please read EV 55, 56. Do you really think that Pope Francis negates JPII teaching in EV? Of course not. Rather he reinforces this development of doctrine. Pope Francis’ letter is to the President of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, and he expressed the Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty, calling it “inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed.” I fear someone else is standing next to the burning bush and refuses to see the fire.

*55 … Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty.*

 

[Ender]

Yes. Please read EV 55, 56.

No. Re-read the specific section under discussion. Nothing else is relevant to this point.

Do you really think that Pope Francis negates JPII teaching in EV?

I think what he said in that letter has to stand on its own, and mean what it says. It’s just not that complicated.

Of course not. Rather he reinforces this development of doctrine. Pope Francis’ letter is to the President of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, and he expressed the Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty…

Can you focus on one point at a time? The “church’s” opposition to capital punishment is completely beside the point under discussion, which is whether the criteria that apply to legitimate killing in self defense are the same criteria that apply to capital punishment. I am addressing that single, very specific question. If there is a specific comment in EV that pertains to the question then cite it, but nothing you cite in any other source can alter the meaning of the statement Francis made in his letter.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

No. Re-read the specific section under discussion. Nothing else is relevant to this point.

No need to re-read on my part. As to those who still do not see Francis’ meaning: “I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.”
Ender;14712715I:

think what he said in that letter has to stand on its own, and mean what it says. It’s just not that complicated.

True. “I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.”

Can you focus on one point at a time? The “church’s” opposition to capital punishment is completely beside the point under discussion, which is whether the criteria that apply to legitimate killing in self defense are the same criteria that apply to capital punishment. I am addressing that single, very specific question. If there is a specific comment in EV that pertains to the question then cite it, but nothing you cite in any other source can alter the meaning of the statement Francis made in his letter.

Yes I can and I am. If you did not yet read EV 55, 56 then “I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.”

 

[o_mlly]

I want to return the discussion to retribution again, and the question of its place in punishment. I have repeatedly insisted that retribution is the primary objective of punishment, a claim that has been rather strenuously resisted, but I think that until and unless we resolve the point it will be nearly impossible to make any headway on the larger issue of capital punishment. If we don’t understand punishment properly it shouldn’t be surprising that we don’t properly understand capital punishment. So, what are the arguments that the primary objective of punishment is indeed retribution?

What are the objectives of punishment?Redress: The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”…
Protection(/deterrence): In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety…
Rehabilitation: …while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. (EV #56)

Redress*: The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense…
Protection(/deterrence): Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons…
Rehabilitation: …has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender. *(CCC 2266)

The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution, deterrence(/protection), and reform. (USCCB 1980)

*Punishment is commonly held to have four purposes. They are: (1) **protection ***(of society), (2) retribution, (3) rehabilitation, and (4) deterrence. (Montana Catholic Conference on Capital Punishment, 1981)

Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, **defense **against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

It is also important also to note that John Paul retains the traditional four purposes of punishment articulated in traditional Catholic teaching:

• Retribution
• Defense of society
• Deterrence
• ***Rehabilitation ***(Christopher Kaczor, 2011)

If you are not yet ready to accept all this as definitive proof at least recognize that it is highly suggestive that “redress” and retribution refer to the same thing. After all, if redress is not retribution, what is it? It cannot be protection or rehabilitation as they are identified separately, but if it is indeed primary how could the others (who mention retribution) have missed it? Moreover, if redress is something other than retribution, does this mean retribution is not a legitimate end of punishment since neither EV nor the catechism mentioned it? (More…)

Ender

I think this backward approach is not the Catholic theological or philosophical method. Scholastic theology elucidates and clarifies existing dogma and doctrines. Catholic theologians begin with the deposit of faith and work backward using philosophical reasoning to systematize and rationalize the truth they have been given.

To understand the teaching on the limitations of capital punishment we do not need to understand the theory of punishment. We do know that the correct theory of punishment will lead us to the same truths as in the teaching.

We have the teaching in EV:
The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.
and
If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means
If your work to rationalize punishment leads you to these truths, press on. If your work leads you to challenge these truths, abandon it for it cannot be fruitful.

 

[Rau]

…As to those who still do not see Francis’ meaning: “I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.”

Like the archetypal politician you quote, you are arguing “black is white - when read in context”.

First, you argued a meaning for 2267 that denies English grammar, and now a meaning for the extract from Francis’s letter which is the exact opposite of the plain English he used.

 

[graciew]

Do you see any place for the concept of retribution here?

Ender

Yes.

CCC

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
ARTICLE 12
"I BELIEVE IN LIFE EVERLASTING

1049."Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come. That is why, although we must be careful to distinguish earthly progress clearly from the increase of the kingdom of Christ, such progress is of vital concern to the kingdom of God, insofar as it can contribute to the better ordering of human society."642

You may read where it is coming from…

And if you may want to validate this explanation of retribution or propose another source:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36082

Catholic Dictionary

Term

RETRIBUTION

Definition

A penalty or reward that a person deserves for moral conduct. Its basis is the divine justice that repays each person according to his or her workds. Retribution more generally refers to punishment for sin, but theologically it also means the merit that a person gains for free co-operation with divine grace. More often retribution is understood to belong to etermity, yet already in this life divine justice is acting, even when the punishment is tempered by God’s mercy. (Etym. Latin retributio, recompense, restitution; from retribuere, to give back, restore.)

 

[Ender]

To understand the teaching on the limitations of capital punishment we do not need to understand the theory of punishment. We do know that the correct theory of punishment will lead us to the same truths as in the teaching.

If there is confusion about the nature and purpose of punishment it will not be possible to reach accurate conclusions about particular forms of punishment. You say you know the truth of what is taught, but that is precisely what is under discussion.

We have the teaching in EV:
*The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.
*

Yes we do have this, but you have no idea what it means, or that it means any more than “stuff…that’s disordered.”

If your work to rationalize punishment leads you to these truths, press on. If your work leads you to challenge these truths, abandon it for it cannot be fruitful.

Is this how you work? Decide what is true first, and then create an argument to support that position? I am presenting a rationale to support the position I have taken. I don’t expect it to convince you, but there are a lot of others who read this thread. They can decided whether my argument is convincing.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

If there is confusion about the nature and purpose of punishment it will not be possible to reach accurate conclusions about particular forms of punishment.

Since EV draws conclusions about a particular form of punishment (following your logic), the philosopher pope JPII must not have been confused about the nature of punishment.

Yes we do have this, but you have no idea what it means, or that it means any more than “stuff…that’s disordered.”

Well, maybe you do not know what it means. I do. But more important than what I think is what do our bishops in communion with Rome think. I have cited them for you; they are apparently not confused at all. It’s been 22 years since EV and not one Dubia that I know of. Have you asked your bishop? Do you know of any bishop who is confused?

Is this how you work? Decide what is true first, and then create an argument to support that position? Ender

If you re-read my post, please note that I wrote this is how Catholic theology works: the truths taught by our Magisterium are accepted a priori to philosophical analysis. And yes, when I try to give Catholic answers to Magisterial documents, that is how I ought to work. When I’m diagnosing why my computer locked up, not so much.