Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Ender]

The states obligation no longer extends to capital punishment. Not if you are Catholic.

These assertions are easy to make. It is the arguments to support them that are sorely lacking.

Our fallen nature continues to require retribution because the tenants of our faith have this far not been followed.

No. Retribution is required by justice. God himself exacts it (“Vengeance is mine, I will repay.”)

God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them. (Aquinas ST I-II 87, 3 ad 3)

 

[Maximus1]

God delights in loving one another as Christ loved us.
Divine Justice will have to get along without Capital punishment.

 

[Maximus1]

Of course it is.

 

[Maximus1]

Nothing is lacking. Try to make peace with the teachings of the Church. You are in danger of talking yourself into supporting what the church opposes.

 

[Mrboast]

Nothing is lacking. Try to make peace with the teachings of the Church. You are in danger of talking yourself into supporting what the church opposes.

There are plenty of areas where we can differ with the Church’s opinion and do so in good conscience.

 

[o_mlly]

Punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection.

The teaching focuses on justice, not punishment.

We cannot know in full God’s justice. We do know that His justice does not have internal tensions, only our limited understanding of justice produces such tensions in the application of the virtue.

He did give us the wheelbase to grasp His charity. One who focuses on the punishment aspect of justice stands on shaky ground.

I re-post the following which you did not address in your reply.

Retributive, restorative, and distributive justice are all facets of the same virtue and are necessarily internally consistent. One facet does not compete with another in the proper expression of the virtue itself, justice. To elevate one facet as controlling over and above the others is merely to express one’s own whim (unless Magisterial in its source).

 

[Maximus1]

Good conscience?
I honestly think Human Dignity must be overlooked as this catechism teaches to adopt a different point of view on the death penalty. You have to ignore, or give little value to the restorative Justice of the Gospel.
The new emphasis on restorative justice of the church is sweeping. It is intended to restore the Catholic community and individual to it’s unique message. It will be difficult in America. Our culture prizes rugged individualism. But rugged individualism is antithetical to true Christianity in many ways. These ways can be seen in the Gospels, but put into practice into the early church in ACTS. This is the tension that EXISTS on your list.
Welcoming the stranger is most fundemental Christianity.
God reminded the Jews they were once strangers.
Jesus survived as a refugee who was welcomed to grow in Egypt.
Matthew 25:35-46 is the only place the Gospel sees Jesus judging ( the goats to hell.) Food, drink " welcoming the stranger" visiting in prison, sick/ help mend. This short list is the complete list of " the judgement criteria in Matthew. It is the test (it appears) for everyone.
"When I was a stranger you did not welcome me."When Lord? When you did not welcome the least of my brother you did not welcome me.
I see lots of distinguish type arguments with this list and immigration is where. People trying to reconcile WALL thinking with our faith. But then you still need to address the catechism. Turning back those fleeing is not permitted Catholics when they are truly in need. This integrates with the catechism on social policy. There, a qualified property right exists, and a right owned by the man who is not the property owner… A RIGHT to basically earn a living and own the tools to do so. VERY DIFFERENT THAN OUR SECULAR TRADITION. This section of the Catechism also derives from human dignity.

 

[Maximus1]

Just an observation. In retributive justice, you do not restore the victim. Punishment is not restitution with the death penalty. Society is the supposed beneficiary. The impulse to seek vengeance, to commit violence as vengeance, is supposedly satisfied.
I find this arguably practical, in a fallen society, but make no mistake, it is a recognition of our deficiency to actually be Christian. Think about it. The symbol of our faith, our Lord on the cross, is the symbol of a forgiving victim. His words while suffering unspeakably, was forgive them directed to his crucifiers.
A societal need for a DEATH to maintain the peace is a striking failure to follow Christ.

 

[o_mlly]

Just an observation. In retributive justice, you do not restore the victim.

Justice looks forward, backward and to the present. Retributive justice looking backward seeks to restore the moral order in as much as man can. Rehabilitation looks to the present, to the conversion of the guilty one to repentance and reformation. Deterrence and protection look to the future seeking to reduce the recurrence of the immoral act from disrupting the moral order again.

Punishment by execution does not restore the moral order. The efficacy of punishment by execution as a deterrent to future murders is a matter of prudence. Rehabilitation and the protection of the innocent, it seems to me, are the charitable goals of punishment. The Magisterium lead us in that direction.

 

[Ender]

Try to make peace with the teachings of the Church. You are in danger of talking yourself into supporting what the church opposes.

I am a peace with the teachings of the church. What I oppose is your interpretation of what she in fact teaches.

One who focuses on the punishment aspect of justice stands on shaky ground.

What is justice? Treating a person as his actions deserve, whether that is commendation or punishment. This is the essence of justice.

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)

“…punishment is the effect of justice” (Ibid III 89 6 ad 1)

Retributive, restorative, and distributive justice are all facets of the same virtue and are necessarily internally consistent. One facet does not compete with another in the proper expression of the virtue itself, justice.

There are two kinds of justice. The one consists in mutual giving and receiving, as in buying and selling, and other kinds of intercourse and exchange. This the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 4) calls commutative justice, that directs exchange and intercourse of business. This does not belong to God, since, as the Apostle says: “Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made him?” (Rm. 11:35). The other consists in distribution, and is called distributive justice; whereby a ruler or a steward gives to each what his rank deserves. (Ibid I 21 1)

You’ll have to define your terms inasmuch as neither the catechism nor Aquinas uses “retributive” or “restorative” as descriptors of forms of justice. “Giving to each what he deserves” is the meaning I’ve been using.

 

[Maximus1]

Respectfully, there have been consistent statistics for 30+ years that there is no DETERENT effect to execution.
There is no rehabilitation for a dead guy. This is Pope Francis point in part.
Society likes it’s pound of flesh, no doubt. The high lasts for a day or two. ( Roughly.)
Politically, there is an illusion of something being done. If the slight of hand is effective, you can convince people of it. That does help polls.
I am happy SPJPII and POPE Francis use statistics and data. SCIENCE.

 

[o_mlly]

“ Giving to each what he deserves ” is the meaning I’ve been using.

That expression is not very instructive. It is as empty as the moral prescription of Kant known as the Categorical Imperative.

You will have to define who “he” is and “what” that person deserves. The popes are doing just that in naming the “who” as those convicted of capital crimes and teaching “what” those people deserve – rehabilitation. The other “who” is society – they deserve protection.

 

[Maximus1]

" Treating a person as his actions deserve."
This is justice as you see it.
I think it is eye opening how Christianity changed the Temple transactional formula of justice.
To begin with, salvation is not based upon what our actions deserve. If it was, there would be no salvation. That is quite a disconnect.
When someone strikes us, we are taught to turn the other cheek.
So far with the first two, the definition of Justice renders central tenants of Christ’s teachings irrelevant. Christianity was such a radical change from the Temple tradition. And what makes it muddled is Bible passages from the OT that are written I the Temple tradition and some NT passages that are intended to evangelize early Christian Jews in familiar language.
That definition is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ

 

[Maximus1]

How do you rehabilitate a dead guy? Then call it charitable?

 

[Ender]

“ Giving to each what he deserves ” is the meaning I’ve been using.

Really? How about this one then?

Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, "Rendering to each one his right, (Aquinas ST II-II 58, 1)

Do you think I just make this stuff up? This is not that complicated, nor that Kantian.

It is written (Isaiah 3:10:11): "Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him. (Ibid I-II 21, 3)

" Treating a person as his actions deserve."
This is justice as you see it.

Well it’s kind of how Aquinas and Isaiah saw it, so yeah, it’s pretty much the way I see it too.

That definition is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Treating people as they deserve is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ? I’m at a bit of a loss over that one.

 

[Maximus1]

Treating people as they deserve.
Vs
Treating people as their actions deserve
These are not the same thing as one is a uniquely Christian idea and one is transactional.
One is personal, the other is an objective evaluation that omits the individual. Then empathy. Then mercy.

 

[o_mlly]

Well it’s kind of how Aquinas and Isaiah saw it, so yeah, it’s pretty much the way I see it too.

The vacuousness of the citations from Isaiah and Aquinas in any meaningful content discloses our inability to know God’s justice. The citations say no more then, “Do the right thing, and if you do, you will be rewarded”. But what is the right thing to do? The popes are teaching us exactly what those right things to do are.

 

[Maximus1]

God punished is by loving us more

 

[nfinke]

Its really not something I understand. Every angle Francis tries to take on it doesnt make much sense.

He says that we somehow have an increased awareness of human dignity…which obviously isnt true. The Catholic church didnt have an insufficient understanding of human dignity for the last 2000 years while being guided by the holy spirit.

He also mentioned its unnecessary because there is minimal danger of criminals escaping prison and being a danger to society…Like I get religious submission and all that, but even if youre the Pope, if you tell me that prisons all over the world are just as safe and secure as those in the US or other first world countries, Im sorry I just dont buy that. Maybe if he was the Pope of america, but his teachings apply to Catholics all over the world.

And even if that was true, never in scripture does God say “He who sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, because we wouldnt want him to do it again.” but “because in Gods image made he man”

I mean you can count on one hand the number of commandments that God decided to justify His reasoning to us. Seems pretty clear to me the death penalty is a matter of justice and preserving the dignity of life, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the secure-ness of the local prison, and two millennia of church tradition seems to support that pretty strongly.

Not to mention it doenst even make a whole heap of sense for something to be morally ok, but simultaneously “inadmissible”. Is there another example of something the church admits isnt immoral, but you still shouldnt do it? Maybe there is but I can think of any.

 

[Ender]

We have to be quite careful in quoting scripture. Mostly when this is done it comes with a personal interpretation (“God says to help the poor…therefore we should raise the minimum wage.”) This isn’t to say it shouldn’t be done, only that it is a good idea to cite only those passages whose meaning is pretty transparent. This is why I try to cite church writers citing scripture. If I can show Aquinas, Augustine, or a pope citing scripture, their explanations carry a lot more weight than my citing the same passage and offering my own interpretation.

That said, even those citations turn out to be largely unconvincing. Bear in mind, however, that these arguments are read by others who aren’t directly involved in the debate, and just because they don’t convince everyone doesn’t mean they don’t convince anyone.