Capital Punishment

[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.

What you believe is true is based on what you believe those documents are saying. You have interpreted their meaning, as have I. Your truths are nothing more than your interpretations. The point I have been making is that your interpretations do not stand up to scrutiny. This is not a debate between truth on your side and opinion on mine; it is between your understanding and mine, and you have simply stated your position and asserted it doesn’t need to be defended.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

What you believe is true is based on what you believe those documents are saying. You have interpreted their meaning, as have I. Your truths are nothing more than your interpretations. The point I have been making is that your interpretations do not stand up to scrutiny. This is not a debate between truth on your side and opinion on mine; it is between your understanding and mine, and you have simply stated your position and asserted it doesn’t need to be defended.

Ender

What I believe is true is the interpretation the Magisterium gives, not mine. To elevate one’s own interpretation as superior to that of the pope and bishops in communion with him is, well, protestant.

This debate is not between you and me. It is between you and our Magisterium. The problem with your interpretation can be seen in the attachment: you have not, and it appears from the attachment that you cannot, produce one magisterial document to support you.

Mining papal documents whose clear thrust is either against your position (Francis - abolish CP) or not related (BXVI- sanctity of life) for phrases that stripped from their context become ambiguous and, therefore, subject to any interpretation is disingenuous.

 

[Ender]

What I believe is true is the interpretation the Magisterium gives, not mine.

How does the Magisterium interpret the phrase “redress the disorder”? It doesn’t; we are left to determine its meaning ourselves. You have your interpretation, for which you can provide no substantiation, and I have mine, for which I have provided voluminous support.

This debate is not between you and me. It is between you and our Magisterium. The problem with your interpretation can be seen in the attachment: you have not, and it appears from the attachment that you cannot, produce one magisterial document to support you.

Do you not recognize that you can cite no “Magisterial” document to support your interpretation either? The difference between your position and mine is that you cannot cite any document whatever to support you claims.

Mining papal documents whose clear thrust is either against your position (Francis - abolish CP) or not related (BXVI- sanctity of life) for phrases that stripped from their context become ambiguous and, therefore, subject to any interpretation is disingenuous.

Given the way you completely reversed the meaning of Francis’ statement even after including several extraneous paragraphs shows that even the most obvious context is no defense against inventive interpretations. I deal with one point at a time, to which the “thrust” of a document is usually irrelevant. You can’t get past what you perceive as the overall position, and simply ignore the details, inconvenient as they are.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

How does the Magisterium interpret the phrase “redress the disorder”? It doesn’t; we are left to determine its meaning ourselves. You have your interpretation, for which you can provide no substantiation, and I have mine, for which I have provided voluminous support.

One only needs to examine this phrase if one thinks the Pope’s teaching is in error, that is, either not in harmony with tradition or extra-judicial (outside his authority). I do not believe either to be the case.

Do you not recognize that you can cite no “Magisterial” document to support your interpretation either? The difference between your position and mine is that you cannot cite any document whatever to support you claims.
Ender

Evangelium Vitae, in the context of this thread, needs no interpretation. The important words are plain enough. Someone psoted, “It is not that complicated” (except for those who think their understanding of the Church’s traditional teaching on the death penalty is superior to the pontiff’s understanding).

John Paul II calls for the death penalty to be used only in a defensive framework, society defending itself, and therefore to avoid it where possible. Do you think some words in the following teaching are ambiguous and in need of expert interpretation?

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.

 

[o_mlly]

Given the way you completely reversed the meaning of Francis’ statement even after including several extraneous paragraphs shows that even the most obvious context is no defense against inventive interpretations. I deal with one point at a time, to which the “thrust” of a document is usually irrelevant. You can’t get past what you perceive as the overall position, and simply ignore the details, inconvenient as they are.

Ender

I agree, better to stay focused. But, if you persist then I must correct you (and the one in the peanut gallery) that my transformation did not reverse but restated Francis’ meaning. The “math” is quite clear to me

Perhaps one’s bias prevents seeing the identity in the transformations I made to Francis’ statement. Here are the same transformations applied to a statement of common sense.

If true then truth value = 1
Children cannot play with matches without the risk of fire.

Negation (truth value = -1):
Children can play with matches without the risk of fire.

Double negation restores the truth value = (-1 x -1 = 1)
Children can play with matches with the risk of fire.

 

[Ender]

One only needs to examine this phrase if one thinks the Pope’s teaching is in error, that is, either not in harmony with tradition or extra-judicial (outside his authority). I do not believe either to be the case.

I didn’t suggest his teaching was in error, only that it needed to be interpreted. What does the phrase “redress the disorder” mean? The problem is that if you give any explanation at all it becomes “your” explanation, and then the debate would be whether your meaning is more accurate than mine, not whether mine is at odds with JPII’s. However if you give no explanation then the phrase is meaningless.

Evangelium Vitae, in the context of this thread, needs no interpretation. The important words are plain enough.

Of course it does, and there are a lot of people who realize they cannot tell for sure what is being said.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. (R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L.)
*Dunnigan is a canon lawyer, and if he has trouble understanding what is being taught that is a fair indication that “interpretation” is precisely what is needed.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

I didn’t suggest his teaching was in error, only that it needed to be interpreted. What does the phrase “redress the disorder” mean? The problem is that if you give any explanation at all it becomes “your” explanation, and then the debate would be whether your meaning is more accurate than mine, not whether mine is at odds with JPII’s. However if you give no explanation then the phrase is meaningless.

The meaning of the teaching in EV is clear and independent on the meaning of “redress the disorder.” If you wish to invent a meaning for the phrase “redress the disorder” that would render the teaching invalid then your invented meaning is in error.

Of course it does, and there are a lot of people who realize they cannot tell for sure what is being said.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. (R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L.)
*Dunnigan is a canon lawyer, and if he has trouble understanding what is being taught that is a fair indication that “interpretation” is precisely what is needed. Ender

If I think I have a problem with my electrical system then I would not call a plumber. If the issue were on some nuance of canon law then a canon lawyer’s opinion would be welcomed. If the problem is one of faith and morals, as it is, one should call a bishop.

 

[Ender]

If I think I have a problem with my electrical system then I would not call a plumber. If the issue were on some nuance of canon law then a canon lawyer’s opinion would be welcomed. If the problem is one of faith and morals, as it is, one should call a bishop.

OK…* “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)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Retribution and redress…

Retribution: 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 works.

There are two important points here: retribution is deserved, either as a reward or a punishment, and it is a matter of justice. It is only when a person has done something to deserve punishment that it is just to punish him. So the question is: what does this have to do with redress? What is it that is being redressed?*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)

*The 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)

*But this is most aptly brought about by the punishment of sins: for thus excesses beyond the due amount are embraced under the order of justice, which restores equality. *(Aquinas)
So, can we safely say that the “order” that is being redressed is “the order of justice” (since this is what is said in sufficiently Magisterial documents)? How, then, is the order redressed?
*For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. *(Pius XII)
When the order of justice is disturbed by sin (crime) it is retributive punishment that restores it. That is, it is retribution that redresses the disorder, it is a matter of justice, and that is why it is the primary objective of punishment.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

OK…* “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)
Ender

Your attribution of this comment to Bishop Conley is incorrect.

In fact, the article from which you extracted this quote (here we go again) begins, “In a press release, the diocese said the social media post uses a quote taken out of context and distorts the position of the state’s bishops on the death penalty.”

The correct attribution to your citation is:
Bishop James Conley asks for his comments on death penalty to be removed from post By Michael O’Connor / World-Herald staff writer Nov 4, 2016
The article goes on to say, Conley declined to comment about the interview Thursday. But in a press release, the diocese’s spokesman, JD Flynn, elaborated on Conley’s comments: “Catholics have to follow their consciences on this issue. But we also have to form our consciences according to the Church’s teaching. Nebraska’s bishops, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis all conclude that we don’t need to execute people in order to be safe. Catholics who disagree with those judgments need to make sure they have a very strong reason to do so.
Since the article’s author, O’Connor, discloses that Bishop Conley would not comment, O’Connor’s source for any quotes is ****not ****the Bishop but rather quotes that the Bishop specifically disowns as “taken out of context and distorts the position of the state’s bishops on the death penalty.”

An authoritative attribution to Bishop Conley and his thoughts on the death penalty are may be read at lincolndiocese.org/bishops/bishop-james-conley/statements/3356-in-the-news-statement-of-the-nebraska-bishops-on-the-use-of-the-death-penalty-in-the-state-of-nebraska

The bishops’ statement concludes:
*The death penalty is not necessary in Nebraska. The purposes of a criminal justice system are rehabilitation, deterrence, public safety, and the restoration of justice. The death penalty does not provide rehabilitation to convicted criminals. There is no clear evidence that executions deter crime. Public safety can be assured through other means. And justice requires punishment, but it does not require that those who have committed capital crimes be put to death.

We call for the repeal of the death penalty in our state. We also call the state of Nebraska to increase efforts towards the rehabilitation of all criminals. We recognize that some criminals will never be fit for reintegration into society. Therefore, we support the use of just sentences that keep Nebraskans safe.

Our position is rooted in the teachings of our faith. We ask those who disagree with us to reflect prayerfully on the words of Jesus Christ himself: “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father.”

Archbishop George Lucas, Archbishop of Omaha
Bishop James Conley, Bishop of Lincoln
Bishop William Dendinger, Bishop of Grand Island*

 

[Rau]

Post #169 places the Bishops’ position on CP in context with (correct) attributions of quotes to Cardinal Ratzinger and the USCCB.

The Bishop’s statement at the end of the last post is a prudential judgement (with which I also agree) but nothing in it obligates assent by faithful Catholics. The statement does not claim to be more than that.

 

[graciew]

Retribution and redress…

There are two important points here: retribution is deserved, either as a reward or a punishment, and it is a matter of justice. It is only when a person has done something to deserve punishment that it is just to punish him. So the question is: what does this have to do with redress? What is it that is being redressed?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)

The 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)

But this is most aptly brought about by the punishment of sins: for thus excesses beyond the due amount are embraced under the order of justice, which restores equality. (Aquinas)
So, can we safely say that the “order” that is being redressed is “the order of justice” (since this is what is said in sufficiently Magisterial documents)? How, then, is the order redressed?
For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. (Pius XII)
When the order of justice is disturbed by sin (crime) it is retributive punishment that restores it. That is, it is retribution that redresses the disorder, it is a matter of justice, and that is why it is the primary objective of punishment.

Ender

Could you replace by “reward “the word " Punishment” in your post? And could you add " tempered by mercy” and here and now,not after death as you,’ ve always explained retribution was, and see it from a different perspective?
May you redress the post with reward and mercy?
Not that I am asking you to rewrite,just to see if there is a chance that we give back to God a concession such as life when Popes and Bishops are saying it is enough…?
The whole chapter I posted from the CCC started with retribution. And it is worth the read.
Could you do that?
Could there be any hope?

 

[graciew]

Could you replace by “reward “the word " Punishment” in your post? And could you add " tempered by mercy” and here and now,not after death as you,’ ve always explained retribution was, and see it from a different perspective?
May you redress the post with reward and mercy?
Not that I am asking you to rewrite,just to see if there is a chance that we give back to God a concession as life that belongs to God when Popes and Bishops are saying it is enough…?
The whole chapter I posted from the CCC started with retribution. And it is worth the read.
Could you do that?
Could there be any hope?

 

[Ender]

Your attribution of this comment to Bishop Conley is incorrect.

In fact, the article from which you extracted this quote (here we go again) begins, “In a press release, the diocese said the social media post uses a quote taken out of context and distorts the position of the state’s bishops on the death penalty.”

No, the article I cited does not begin that way, as you can see for yourself. Nor does there appear to be anything incorrect about the citation. What the bishop objected to was that his statements were being used by a pro-death penalty group, not that he didn’t make them.

The correct attribution to your citation is:Bishop James Conley asks for his comments on death penalty to be removed from post By Michael O’Connor / World-Herald staff writer Nov 4, 2016

He asked for it to be removed. He didn’t deny saying it.

The article goes on to say,Conley declined to comment about the interview Thursday. But in a press release, the diocese’s spokesman, JD Flynn, elaborated on Conley’s comments: “Catholics have to follow their consciences on this issue. But we also have to form our consciences according to the Church’s teaching. Nebraska’s bishops, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis all conclude that we don’t need to execute people in order to be safe. Catholics who disagree with those judgments need to make sure they have a very strong reason to do so.

Yes, this is very similar to the comments I cited; nothing here is at variance with what I quoted.

Since the article’s author, O’Connor, discloses that Bishop Conley would not comment, O’Connor’s source for any quotes is ****not ****the Bishop but rather quotes that the Bishop specifically disowns as “taken out of context and distorts the position of the state’s bishops on the death penalty.”

That’s not exactly accurate. Bishop Conley objected that his comments were taken out of context to mean that Catholics are free to ignore the bishops and do as they like regarding capital punishment. The thing is - as your own citation notes - that’s pretty much true. The bishop was unhappy with the way his comments were used. Complaining that they were taken out of context simply meant he was unhappy they could be used to support capital punishment.

The bishops’ statement concludes:
The death penalty is not necessary in Nebraska. The purposes of a criminal justice system are rehabilitation, deterrence, public safety, and the restoration of justice.

Note the four purposes: rehabilitation, deterrence, safety, and* “the restoration of justice*”, also referred to as “redressing the disorder”, or … retribution.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Could you replace by "reward “the word " Punishment” in your post?

Although we almost always think of retribution with regard to punishment, it actually applies equally to reward.*We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. *(Aquinas ST I-II 21,3)
It is important to note that retribution is a matter of justice, and that just as a person deserves to be rewarded for his good deeds he also deserves to be punished for his bad ones.Tell the innocent how fortunate they are, for they shall eat the fruit of their labors.
*Woe to the guilty! How unfortunate they are, for what their hands have done shall be done to them. *(Isaiah 3:10-11)

And could you add " tempered by mercy" and here and now, not after death as you,'ve always explained retribution was, and see it from a different perspective?
May you redress the post with reward and mercy?

We cannot put mercy in opposition to justice. They both have their place.*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it *(JPII)
Nor is mercy always possible. Repentance is always necessary.
*On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent *(JPII)
Forgiveness is conditional.
*In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness. *(JPII)

Not that I am asking you to rewrite,just to see if there is a chance that we give back to God a concession such as life when Popes and Bishops are saying it is enough…?

Don’t misunderstand what I’m arguing. Most of my comments are directed against the arguments used to oppose capital punishment. Saying “Your argument is faulty” is not the same as saying “Just hang them all.” I have no objections to people opposing the use of capital punishment because they think it is socially destructive, but I have serious objections to claims that its use is somehow immoral.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Your attribution of this comment to Bishop Conley is incorrect.

I disagree, but there are plenty of other citations.*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 Gomez, 2016)
  Ender

 

[o_mlly]

No, the article I cited does not begin that way, as you can see for yourself. Nor does there appear to be anything incorrect about the citation. What the bishop objected to was that his statements were being used by a pro-death penalty group, not that he didn’t make them. He asked for it to be removed. He didn’t deny saying it.

Thank you for providing a source. However, the proper attribution for this citation is still not Bishop Conley but Steven Ertelt.

Yes, this is very similar to the comments I cited; nothing here is at variance with what I quoted.That’s not exactly accurate. Bishop Conley objected that his comments were taken out of context to mean that Catholics are free to ignore the bishops and do as they like regarding capital punishment.

The thing is - as your own citation notes - that’s pretty much true. The bishop was unhappy with the way his comments were used. Complaining that they were taken out of context simply meant he was unhappy they could be used to support capital punishment.

Did you amiss the part where the good Bishop wrote that his comments were “distorted” as well as out of context? I do not think discernment of the Bishop’s meaning is possible from, not only unconfirmed, but emphatically rejected third party’s (Ertelt) report of the first party’s (Bishop Conley) statement.

Note the four purposes: rehabilitation, deterrence, safety, and* “the restoration of justice*”, also referred to as “redressing the disorder”, or … retribution.

Ender

I disagree, but there are plenty of other citations.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 Gomez, 2016)
Ender

No one has argued that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. Citing all the magisterial documents that say so does not progress the debate. We all agree.

This is the argument: Does EV limit the use of capital punishment to the protection of society, or as you have claimed:

I accept the execution of prisoners for the purpose of retribution.

What you need to support your claim and have yet to provide is a magisterial document saying that capital punishment (not just punishment) is morally good or acceptable as a means to satisfy retribution.

 

[Ender]

This is the argument: Does EV limit the use of capital punishment to the protection of society, or as you have claimed:

I accept the execution of prisoners for the purpose of retribution.
If you’re going to cite me, show where I said this, because it wasn’t in the post you linked to, and I have no recollection of saying it.

What you need to support your claim and have yet to provide is a magisterial document saying that capital punishment (not just punishment) is morally good or acceptable as a means to satisfy retribution.

Is this sufficient?*And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but **an act of justice ***(Catechism of St. Bellarmine, approved by Clement XIII) Ender

 

[graciew]

Mine in bold.

=Ender;14723974] Although we almost always think of retribution with regard to punishment, it actually applies equally to reward.*We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. *(Aquinas ST I-II 21,3)
It is important to note that retribution is a matter of justice, and that just as a person deserves to be rewarded for his good deeds he also deserves to be punished for his bad ones.Tell the innocent how fortunate they are, for they shall eat the fruit of their labors.
*Woe to the guilty! How unfortunate they are, for what their hands have done shall be done to them. *(Isaiah 3:10-11)

**This is fine.
I only brought reward to light to balance so much talk on punishment only.
And believing that along the way, some acknowledgement of progress renews strength.
Don t you think so?
**

]We cannot put mercy in opposition to justice. They both have their place.

*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it *(JPII)
Nor is mercy always possible. Repentance is always necessary.
*On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent *(JPII)
Forgiveness is conditional.

*In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness. *(JPII)

**Here,I would like to take some time,if you do not mind.
Misericordia,( Mercy) brings together our misery and the loving gaze of God upon us.
I cannot see how there is one without the other.
There lies our misery and there is Our Father looking upon us with His merciful eyes.
It exceeds me ,Ender. It is real big for me.
I ll take some time to look for what I d like to quote too

God is love,Good is merciful.**

Don’t misunderstand what I’m arguing. Most of my comments are directed against the arguments used to oppose capital punishment. Saying “Your argument is faulty” is not the same as saying “Just hang them all.” I have no objections to people opposing the use of capital punishment because they think it is socially destructive, but I have serious objections to claims that its use is somehow immoral.

Ender

I know,we ve been in this road before talking about this and though you quote a lot,I have tried to follow you.
This I will write is mine,in the sense that it has been like this in my mind like this.
God gives life,God takes it back. At some point,there was this permission/ concession ." May recourse to death penalty…"
And now,that the Popes have said what they have said. It naturally goes back to where Life should always be: in God’ s hands.
I have clear what our differences where and also what we have in common.
And though you are one of my favourite tough cookies,I won t keep saying what you already know,and let you rest.
But Mercy yes,I ll keep reading a bit and if you wish,we may work upon Mercy together.
God bless you,Ender.​

 

[Herculees]

It is NOT a teaching that the death penalty can not be used.
Yes, several popes gave their OPINION that the death penalty
should be abolished, but that in and of itself does NOT make
it a teaching.