Sure.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.
No, this citation does not support your claim. Once again, the citation affirms what we all agree: the state has the limited right to execute.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
To quote a section of someone’s comment, start with {quote], and end with {/quote] (Except use all square brackets ] ).Mine in bold.
Well if nothing else it helps clarify the term, which is always a good thing.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?
I hope I haven’t given the impression that I oppose mercy, when actually what I oppose is its misunderstanding and misapplication.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.
I think this is a misunderstanding of what’s going on. Most significantly, I don’t believe God granted to man (to his magistrates) a right in the past that he has now rescinded. That is, the right to execute a criminal for his crime. Rather I think we are attributing to God an inclination that is entirely our own. We think a death sentence is wrong so we believe that God has changed his position on the matter. These are the types of arguments I oppose, not so much because I’m pushing for capital punishment as because I consider it a faulty argument, and the types of arguments we use are important because they can start us down roads that will take us a long way from where we ought to be.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.
And I appreciate that in all of our discussions you have never attacked me personally or been the least bit offensive in your comments. Thank you for that.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.
Wow, something I said two years ago; no wonder I had no recollection of saying it. OK, let’s understand the point being made here: you (Blue Horizon) accept capital punishment to achieve the secondary objective of protection; I accept it to achieve the primary objective of retribution. Is that a controversial position?You accept the execution of prisoners for the purpose of protection. I accept the execution of prisoners for the purpose of retribution.
I was citing that passage because of this:*when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but **an act of justiceNo, this citation does not support your claim. Once again, the citation affirms what we all agree: the state has the limited right to execute.
The link you provided to Bellarmine’s catechism does not work. In reading that catechism, all I could find in reference to capital punishment is:Wow, something I said two years ago; no wonder I had no recollection of saying it. OK, let’s understand the point being made here: you (Blue Horizon) accept capital punishment to achieve the secondary objective of protection; I accept it to achieve the primary objective of retribution. Is that a controversial position?
I was citing that passage because of this:when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but **an act of justice
**
Let’s be clear. Justice, like the three other human virtues (prudence, temperance and courage) is good. But not all acts of retribution are just, not all state executions are just.Retribution is an act of justice, and in this case an act of capital punishment is explicitly referred to as an act of justice. I wouldn’t think it necessary to find Magisterial confirmation that justice is morally good and acceptable, but surely this will suffice:
*The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue - and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues - should be practiced. *(Leo XIII, Exuente iam anno, 1888)Ender
Try this linkThe link you provided to Bellarmine’s catechism does not work.
The section on the 5th commandment starts on p 152.In reading that catechism, all I could find in reference to capital punishment is*…*
I don’t make a claim about “all state executions” except for this: the ones that are otherwise valid are an act of justice, that is what Bellarmine’s citation states.Nevertheless, I do not think you claim that all state executions are not murder, Without context, this citation states that only some state executions may not be murder.
You read way more into EV that was put there. No statement in EV suggests that an execution for a serious crime can be considered murder. If that was the case we would not have bishops stating that we could disagree on this matter.When is a state execution not murder? EV, a magisterial document,teaches:
Yes. I just provided it in the citation from Bellarmine’s catechism. An execution is an act of justice. Retribution is an act of justice. Justice is morally obligatory.Against EV, you claim: the execution of prisoners for the purpose of retribution is [morally] acceptable. Do you have a magisterial document to support your claim?
You significantly alter the nature of the discussion by suggesting that my comments must apply to “all” executions. Clearly a state can abuse its authority and employ capital punishment when it is not justified by the severity of the crime. I’m just not clear on what you’re objecting to.Let’s be clear. Justice, like the three other human virtues (prudence, temperance and courage) is good. But not all acts of retribution are just, not all state executions are just. It does not further your argument to cite documents that tell us justice is good.
What is valid is always just. Tautology?I don’t make a claim about “all state executions” except for this: the ones that are otherwise valid are an act of justice, that is what Bellarmine’s citation states.
I simply posted the encyclical exact text. It’s not that complicated. Reading into the text suggest to me that the prudential aspect is only whether a particular society’s penal system is secure. The state that has a secure penal system may not execute.You read way more into EV that was put there. No statement in EV suggests that an execution for a serious crime can be considered murder. If that was the case we would not have bishops stating that we could disagree on this matter.
The question of justice arises in two ways: is the punishment appropriate for the crime, and are there social reasons why the otherwise appropriate punishment ought not be applied in a particular case? The death penalty is always just in the first sense for the crime of deliberate murder, but not always in the second.What is valid is always just. Tautology?
Yes, I understand that you believe it says the secure state “may not execute”. As I said, I believe you read more into it than is appropriate. I take it as a recommendation, but not an obligation, and the reason I interpret it that way goes back to the nature of punishment. The death penalty is the just punishment for the crime of (at least) murder, and for that reason is the one that ought to be applied (absent other social considerations).I simply posted the encyclical exact text. It’s not that complicated. Reading into the text suggest to me that the prudential aspect is only whether a particular society’s penal system is secure. The state that has a secure penal system may not execute.
The question of justice in capital punishment requires addressing two aspects: restorative justice and retributive justice. Restorative justice seeks to address and amend the disorders. Retributive justice seeks to punish the perpetrator (and also reward, but not in the case of capital punishment for no one is “rewarded” by the death of another).The question of justice arises in two ways: is the punishment appropriate for the crime, and are there social reasons why the otherwise appropriate punishment ought not be applied in a particular case? The death penalty is always just in the first sense for the crime of deliberate murder, but not always in the second.
Yes, I understand that you believe it says the secure state “may not execute”. As I said, I believe you read more into it than is appropriate. I take it as a recommendation, but not an obligation, and the reason I interpret it that way goes back to the nature of punishment. The death penalty is the just punishment for the crime of (at least) murder, and for that reason is the one that ought to be applied (absent other social considerations).
Ender
According to the catechism the primary aim of punishment is “redressing the disorder” which I have gone to great lengths to demonstrate means: retribution. EV does not change that because it cannot; it is an indispensable aspect of justice.*‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained retributive as well as medicinal penalties’ and that ‘this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time, and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them. The reason is that the words of the sources and of the living teaching power do not refer to the specific content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action (cf. particularly Romans 13:4), but rather to the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality. This, in turn, is as little determined by the conditions of time and culture as the nature of man and the human society decreed by nature itself’ *(Pius XII)The question of justice in capital punishment requires addressing two aspects: restorative justice and retributive justice. Restorative justice seeks to address and amend the disorders. Retributive justice seeks to punish the perpetrator (and also reward, but not in the case of capital punishment for no one is “rewarded” by the death of another).
I understand that you wish to emphasize retributive justice and dismiss restorative justice. You apparently do not believe that EV develops Catholic doctrine relating to the use of capital punishment. Your perspective on the application of the death penalty appears unchanged by EV seeing in the document only one man asserting his (dismissible) prudential judgement. All the bishops (and I) claim that Evangelium Vitae develops Catholic social teaching elevating restorative justice as the primary aim of punishment.
Thank you!!!Ender;14726182]To quote a section of someone’s comment, start with {quote], and end with {/quote] (Except use all square brackets ] ).
AgreeWell if nothing else it helps clarify the term, which is always a good thing.
First,no worries. I am learning,and reading and thinking to learn. It what is in your heart that s important, no wrong impression. No worries,again.I hope I haven’t given the impression that I oppose mercy, when actually what I oppose is its misunderstanding and misapplication.
I think this is a misunderstanding of what’s going on. Most significantly, I don’t believe God granted to man (to his magistrates) a right in the past that he has now rescinded. That is, the right to execute a criminal for his crime. Rather I think we are attributing to God an inclination that is entirely our own. We think a death sentence is wrong so we believe that God has changed his position on the matter. These are the types of arguments I oppose, not so much because I’m pushing for capital punishment as because I consider it a faulty argument, and the types of arguments we use are important because they can start us down roads that will take us a long way from where we ought to be.
And I appreciate that in all of our discussions you have never attacked me personally or been the least bit offensive in your comments. Thank you for that.
I do not know what the person of Ender is going through behind the screen. Nor joys nor difficulties.Ender
Thank you for the detailed argument claiming that “redressing the disorder” means the same as “retribution.” Unfortunately, the length of an argument does not automatically augur for the truth of its claim. The Catholic bishops disagree with you.According to the catechism the primary aim of punishment is “redressing the disorder” which I have gone to great lengths to demonstrate means: retribution. …Ender
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.
I believe it’s not sufficient. It states little more than that accepted killings by the state are rightly considered virtuous (as opposed to being considered tolerated or neutral or venial or deserved yet wrong for the State to carry out). It may simply be saying the state (as opposed to the individual) has the power to justly kill…which does not mean this alone can make all its acts of such a power just.
We do not need to resort to ambiguous quotes from an obsolete Catechism to show that just acts of CP are only truly just if the two ends of punishment are present…both retrib and restor “justice” … for by themselves neither principle can justify a state killing as morally just. Just as tradition, including Aquinas, has always stated.
It matters not if retrib justice is “primary” and restor justice is secondary. For a state killing to be morally just both principles must be rightly ordered.
The judgement whether they are both present and rightly ordered in more concretely described cases is prudential. That does not mean arbitrary. It is a judgement about the objective fonts moral matter. We do not say that killings are unjust. We do not say that state killings are unjust. Yet we do judge that killing those who are not attacking us (murder) is unjust. Is that a prudential judgement? Recent Popes are doing much the same re bloodless means it seems to me. By further defining certain types of acts (CP when bloodless means are available) they are judging they are always and everywhere objectively wrong. Call it a prudential judgement if you like…it is still as valid a one as that re murder being always and everywhere wrong.
Now the judgement that both retrib and restor princioles must be present in just CP is doctrinal and traditional.
It is the state alone that has the authority to execute. That is not in question.*And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. *(Catechism of St. Bellarmine)I believe it’s not sufficient. It states little more than that accepted killings by the state are rightly considered virtuous (as opposed to being considered tolerated or neutral or venial or deserved yet wrong for the State to carry out). It may simply be saying the state (as opposed to the individual) has the power to justly kill…which does not mean this alone can make all its acts of such a power just.
It is not ambiguous in the least. The words are quite clear. Nor can truth ever become obsolete. As to whether retributive justice (the primary objective) and restorative justice (the three secondary objectives of protection, rehabilitation, deterrence) both must be present for the punishment to be just, that’s more debatable.We do not need to resort to ambiguous quotes from an obsolete Catechism to show that just acts of CP are only truly just if the two ends of punishment are present…both retrib and restor “justice” …
You assert more than you can sustain, especially regarding what St. Thomas believed.*In Scripture and the classical tradition the death penalty was approved primarily on the ground that retribution was needed for the moral health of society. St. Thomas Aquinas gives primary emphasis to the retributive goal of capital punishment in the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, chapters 142-146. In the Summa Theologiae he continues to teach that the death penalty is intended to manifest the order of divine justice, which demands that evils be punished according to their gravity (ST I-II, q. 87, art. 3, ad 1). *(Cardinal Dulles)…for by themselves neither principle can justify a state killing as morally just. Just as tradition, including Aquinas, has always stated.
I addressed this with the quote from JPII. “Rightly ordered”, however, I think simply means there are times when justice should be tempered by circumstances. Again, that has never been contested.It matters not if retrib justice is “primary” and restor justice is secondary. For a state killing to be morally just both principles must be rightly ordered.
If the judgment is in regard to the expected outcome of an action then there is no moral question involved. If I think doing X will have a good result while you think it will have a bad one, one position is mistaken but neither position is immoral.The judgement whether they are both present and rightly ordered in more concretely described cases is prudential. That does not mean arbitrary. It is a judgement about the objective fonts moral matter.
“Murder is unjust” is not a judgment, it is a moral law. “John murdered Bill” is a judgment.We do not say that killings are unjust. We do not say that state killings are unjust. Yet we do judge that killing those who are not attacking us (murder) is unjust. Is that a prudential judgement?
First, I don’t agree that this is what they have done, and second I don’t believe they have the authority to do such a thing. I keep pointing out that even popes don’t have the authority to invent moral laws. They may proclaim what is moral, but they cannot decide what it ought to be.Recent Popes are doing much the same re bloodless means it seems to me. By further defining certain types of acts (CP when bloodless means are available) they are judging they are always and everywhere objectively wrong. Call it a prudential judgement if you like…it is still as valid a one as that re murder being always and everywhere wrong.
It seems your set view interferes with your ability to neutrally and intelligently source and correctly interpret the texts you believe support you. Do you not yourself find it strange that your main proof text is from an outdated Catechism and that the text can be validly interpreted in ways contrary to yours?Cont…
I addressed this with the quote from JPII. “Rightly ordered”, however, I think simply means there are times when justice should be tempered by circumstances. Again, that has never been contested.
If the judgment is in regard to the expected outcome of an action then there is no moral question involved. If I think doing X will have a good result while you think it will have a bad one, one position is mistaken but neither position is immoral.
“Murder is unjust” is not a judgment, it is a moral law. “John murdered Bill” is a judgment.
First, I don’t agree that this is what they have done, and second I don’t believe they have the authority to do such a thing. I keep pointing out that even popes don’t have the authority to invent moral laws. They may proclaim what is moral, but they cannot decide what it ought to be.
Ender
Let’s consider this a moment: how does a catechism become outdated? Does truth change with time? Should we assume that the truths of the current catechism will at some time become outdated and obsolete, and that what is true today will become false tomorrow?Do you not yourself find it strange that your main proof text is from an outdated Catechism…
No, there really is no other reasonable interpretation of that passage. It’s just not all that complicated, and the reason I used that passage is that it said almost exactly what o_mlly challenged me to find.… and that the text can be validly interpreted in ways contrary to yours?
Well, it certainly can’t be rebutted by a non-argument.This is the irremedial approach of a flat earther who in principle cannot ever be gainsayed.
This is such a strange construction; it seems designed to be ambiguous, and one of the most undefined points is that it makes no distinction between the actions of an individual and those of a magistrate.However your view that saying that killing those who are not attacking me is immoral …
We disagree as to whether the popes have made such an assertion, and given that several bishops and cardinals have stated that we don’t have to share this position (or that the position is a judgment, which is another way of saying the same thing), your assertion has little to support it.…is not the same kind of judgement as when Popes assert that CP is immoral when bloodless means are available is mere assertion…
I at least could make an argument with a dozen relevant citations to support it. Your position is simply “This is what I believe”.Thank you for the detailed argument claiming that “redressing the disorder” means the same as “retribution.” Unfortunately, the length of an argument does not automatically augur for the truth of its claim.
No, I don’t think they do, nor does your citation support that conclusion.The Catholic bishops disagree with you.
I don’t know what you refer to as “the restoration of the victim”, nor is it clear how retributive justice can be considered an aspect of restorative justice, but in any event since you have introduced these terms perhaps you should define them.Retributive justice, the restoration of the victim, is but one aspect, albeit an important aspect, of restorative justice.
Where do you find this definition? It isn’t in the catechism or the Summa.Retribution, the restoration of the victim, is just one of the three aims of restorative justice. Restorative justice “redress[es] the disorder” for all – victim, criminal and society aka the common good.
An observation about society is not a statement of principle.**Our society seems to prefer punishment to rehabilitation and retribution to restoration thereby indicating a failure to recognize prisoners as human beings. **
This is nothing more than what JPII said: “*Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution…”, *but the fact that there are other objectives of punishment beyond retribution does not change the fact that retribution is primary.**A Catholic approach leads us to encourage models of restorative justice that seek to address crime in terms of the harm done to victims and communities, not simply as a violation of law. **
Again, there is nothing new here, these points - the objectives of punishment, and the common good - have been extensively addressed.The social dimension of our teaching leads us to the common good and its relationship to punishment. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, punishment by civil authorities for criminal activity should serve three principal purposes: (1) the preservation and protection of the common good of society, (2) the restoration of public order, and (3) the restoration or conversion of the offender.
There’s certainly nothing in this part to suggest a new perspective on retribution.The concept of “redress,” or repair of the harm done to the victims and to society by the criminal activity, is also important to restoring the ******common good. ******
Restitution is necessary; this is not a new concept re punishment.“Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly.” (Aquinas citing Augustine)This often neglected dimension of punishment allows victims to move from a place of pain and anger to one of healing and resolution. In our tradition, restoring the balance of rights through restitution is an important element of justice.
“We suggest…” is not actually the way doctrines are presented, but again, I don’t see anything more here than what JPII said: let’s not focus so much on retribution that we lose sight of the other objectives of punishment (secondary though they are).We suggest that they use these reflections to assess how the system can become less retributive and more restorative.
So when you can rebut my comments with something other than your unexplained personal assertions or something recent from the Magisterium rather than your personal interpretation of an outdated Catechism do come back to us.Let’s consider this a moment: how does a catechism become outdated? Does truth change with time? Should we assume that the truths of the current catechism will at some time become outdated and obsolete, and that what is true today will become false tomorrow?
No, there really is no other reasonable interpretation of that passage. It’s just not all that complicated, and the reason I used that passage is that it said almost exactly what o_mlly challenged me to find.
Well, it certainly can’t be rebutted by a non-argument.
This is such a strange construction; it seems designed to be ambiguous, and one of the most undefined points is that it makes no distinction between the actions of an individual and those of a magistrate.
We disagree as to whether the popes have made such an assertion, and given that several bishops and cardinals have stated that we don’t have to share this position (or that the position is a judgment, which is another way of saying the same thing), your assertion has little to support it.
Ender
Tell us: when do Magisterial pronouncements “age out”? Aquinas wrote over 800 years ago; are his observations now outdated? What causes that which was true in the past to become false in the future? The reason you keep dismissing my citations as “outdated” is because they directly contradict your assertions and you have no rebuttal for them.So when you can rebut my comments with something other than your unexplained personal assertions or something recent from the Magisterium rather than your personal interpretation of an outdated Catechism do come back to us.
This is your invention; it pertains to nothing I’ve said.
- Confusing the **power **of the sword with actual acts. The legitimacy of the first does not of itself legitimate acts of that power.
I just rejected this approach a mere five posts ago. You interjecting the word “always” makes the assertion completely false. Again you attribute to me things I have explicitly rejected.
- Assuming that just because a criminal “deserves” death means that the State is always justified in imposing it.
I guess you keep inventing these nonsensical positions and attributing them to me is because you have no way of responding to the points I’ve actually made. Let me help you with this: if you’re not responding to my actual comments you’re tilting at windmills of your own design.
- Assuming that because retribution is the primary purpose of punishment that this means that ignoring of the secondary purposes (esp the common good) is never immoral, though it may be unwise…
Ah, well at least this one is close to what I actually said. If you’d like to pursue this point you might find it more rewarding.
- That the Magisterium does not have the authority to further specify what types of State executions are always and everywhere wrong (e.g. those chosen when reasonable bloodless means of protecting the common good are available).
This one just boggles the mind, but this is apparently what happens when you just ignore what I write. Clearly you find it easier to attack what I haven’t said than what I have.
- A poor understanding of moral statements. For example you somehow believe that the type of judgement that concludes “it is always wrong to kill those who are not attacking us” is a different class of judgement from “it is always wrong for the State to execute criminals when reasonable bloodless means are available.”