R
Randolph
Guest
Was it what Ender did when he also quoted God?
Look. You and I are clearly on the opposite sides of the death penalty debate. Let’s end this here. You may have the last words.
Last edited:
- Status
Look. You and I are clearly on the opposite sides of the death penalty debate. Let’s end this here. You may have the last words.
Emeraldlady
New member
In #106 I quoted a Catholic response to questions regarding abolition of the death penalty in Australia from 1924.Randolph:
Was it what Ender did when he also quoted God?
"In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law."
Ender responded to reject that by using the verse from Numbers which was completely out of context. The Numbers verses were referring to the difference between murder and accidental killing. It was not a demonstration of a divine command to be used always and everywhere.
E
Ender
Guest
This point keeps resurfacing, but it is no less wrong because it is common. Capital punishment is not justified by whether or not it is needed to protect the community. That has never been the justification for its use.
The real question is whether the person deserves to die because of the nature of his crime. If that answer is no then it would be unjust to execute him even if it was thought necessary for protection. On the other hand, if the answer is yes, he deserves to die, then it is appropriate to decide whether executing him would be harmful to the community in some way, but if it is seen not to be then what is the argument against imposing the sentence his action deserves? That is in fact the very definition of justice.
Really? This is in fact what is given as justification for the death penalty, that it is “necessary for protection”…against imagined future attacks. That is the argument you just made.
Since my “interpretation” doesn’t differ from anything Cardinal Dulles said there really is nothing to choose between them. What do you think Dulles meant? That retribution by the State was illegitimate? That all retribution should be left to God? It is a doctrine of the church that the State gets its authority from God, and as Aquinas said “And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin.”
It isn’t clear how you interpret Dulles’ comment, but it really doesn’t help your position at all. The fact that “the retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued” by modern societies doesn’t change the way the church sees it.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
You asserted “….the Church has never considered the death penalty as a divine command”, an assertion directly contradicted by the sources I cited. I never suggested it was “to be used always and everywhere.” It is, rather, to be understood as St. Bellarmine explained it:
For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept.
Precept: a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought.
You keep adding “always and everywhere” to my comments even though I have explicitly rejected that formulation. Deliberately altering my statements to make them unreasonable is not a valid way to support your argument.
Emeraldlady
New member
Your error continuously is conflating punishment with a sentence. Crime deserves punishment. Everyone knows that is the basis of justice. Whereas sentences are the effect on and redress of the common good. Sentences can vary for the same crime from nation to nation. As long as they serve the common good and not cause more harm than good, they are just punishments.Emeraldlady:
This point keeps resurfacing, but it is no less wrong because it is common. Capital punishment is not justified by whether or not it is needed to protect the community. That has never been the justification for its use.
The real question is whether the person deserves to die because of the nature of his crime. If that answer is no then it would be unjust to execute him even if it was thought necessary for protection. On the other hand, if the answer is yes, he deserves to die, then it is appropriate to decide whether executing him would be harmful to the community in some way, but if it is seen not to be then what is the argument against imposing the sentence his action deserves? That is in fact the very definition of justice.
Stay with the original context. It’s unethical to sentence a drug boss or gangster not based on his crime in the community, but to speculation about what he could order from prison.
Cardinal Dulles was well clear enough for everyone to understand.
“Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.”
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
Who is we? I wasn’t aware that things are the same everywhere.
L
Londoner
Guest
Are you suggesting that the Holy Father has been razoring passages out of his Bible?
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
This is a distinction in search of a difference.
You basically have this one argument and appear not to know where to go next after I agree with it.
Well I agree with this also, but it leaves unanswered the meaning of the section of the catechism that allowed executions “…when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings”. That seems precisely to justify executions based on speculation about what might happen in the future. What do you understand that passage to mean?
E
englands123
Guest
The Bible is very clear on the death penalty ;
Genesis 9:6 (ESV)
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
You cannot get much clearer than that.
Remember the Pope like all of us is a sinner.
All sins are worthy of the death penalty in Gods perfect eyes.
But God loves us and shows great mercy. Never forget that any human Catholic or not we are all worthy of the death penalty.
Genesis 9:6 (ESV)
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
You cannot get much clearer than that.
Remember the Pope like all of us is a sinner.
All sins are worthy of the death penalty in Gods perfect eyes.
But God loves us and shows great mercy. Never forget that any human Catholic or not we are all worthy of the death penalty.
Last edited:
E
englands123
Guest
This is why Lord Jesus was the perfect unblemished Lamb to the slaughter.
He never ever sinned , unlike every other human that has lived.
So be carful who justifies their own sin no matter what it is and repent regularly.
He never ever sinned , unlike every other human that has lived.
So be carful who justifies their own sin no matter what it is and repent regularly.
E
Ender
Guest
And the church had been equally clear for two millennia in asserting that that passage means exactly what it says. It is one thing for us to claim to understand a particular passage, but when we can cite the church’s understanding we know we are on firm ground in making a claim.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Cherry-picking bible verses is not the way to establish Catholic teaching. But right now I want to address this statement by St. Bellarmine:
While this argument is sufficient to establish that the death penalty could not be always and everywhere prohibited by Catholic teaching, it is not in turn strong enough to establish that the death penalty is demanded for any one particular instance. This is obvious by noting that even the most ardent supporter of the death penalty would not demand it for the mentally incompetent, for all children, or for people who killed unintentionally in a fight (even if they started it). That is, everyone recognizes that circumstances are a factor in determining when the death penalty is appropriate.
But St. Bellarmine’s statement makes no mention of circumstances. Therefore he must have been referred only to the theoretical possibility of the death penalty.
Once we recognize that circumstances are a factor we can see the possibility of a teaching that proclaims the circumstances are now such that the death penalty is not called for, even if it does remain a theoretical possibility.
And before anyone starts chanting “prudential judgement”, it is not unheard of that the Church teaches on issues involving prudential judgement.
E
Ender
Guest
This rebuttal keeps surfacing despite the fact that I don’t recall anyone ever making the argument this response is meant to rebut.
Yes, everyone does recognize this, so why does this non-issue continue to surface?
He said it was to be considered a precept (his word). That is, it is to be a “general rule”, a “usual way” of doing things, which clearly implies exceptions and includes exactly those circumstances that must be considered in every case.
Circumstances have never not been a factor, and even if circumstances today disallowed the death penalty that still doesn’t change the validity of Bellarmine’s observation.
It is legitimate (though not necessarily accurate) to claim that circumstances are such that capital punishment ought not be used in today’s society. Even if that was the case, however, it would not change the eternal teaching of the church that capital punishment should be considered the default punishment for certain crimes, most especially murder.
I can accept an argument that circumstances preclude its use. What I cannot accept is an argument that, absent exigent (and temporary) circumstances, that it should not be considered the just and entirely proper punishment.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
See below…LeafByNiggle:
This rebuttal keeps surfacing despite the fact that I don’t recall anyone ever making the argument this response is meant to rebut.
See below (it’s coming, I promise.)…
And there we have it. The promised reason why it was important for me to establish that the demand for the death penalty is not an eternal teaching of the church - only the theoretical possibility. The idea that it should be the “default” punishment for certain crimes is most certainly a personal opinion and not part of the “eternal teaching” of the Church. It is merely “what was commonly done” in past times. Hopefully those times are past and gone - that is the hope of Pope Francis and many others whose heart tells them it should be very exceptional and not the “default.”
E
Ender
Guest
No one has ever asserted that. Not once have I ever made such a claim, and I have no recollection of anyone else making it. You’re not addressing an actual question, and the way you phrase the statement is ambiguous at best.
Saying that capital punishment was never a demand is true but irrelevant to what anyone has ever claimed. What I have said, and what I believe the church has taught, is that capital punishment should be the default penalty for certain crimes, not that it is demanded without exception, but that it is demanded unless there are exceptions, because it is just, and justice is an obligation.
You make this claim without a shred of support. I have supported my claim with significant church documents, not least of which is this from the Catechism of Trent:
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.
How can you reduce an act of “paramount obedience” to the level of “theoretical possibility”? You dismissed @Englands123 citation of Gn 9:5-6 as “cherry picking bible verses” so how about we use Trent’s explanation of those passages?
The necessity of explaining this Commandment is proved from the following. Immediately after the earth was overwhelmed in universal deluge, this was the first prohibition made by God to man. I will require the blood of your lives, He said, at the hand of every beast and at the hand of man. In the next place, among the precepts of the Old Law expounded by our Lord, this Commandment was mentioned first by Him;
That’s not complicated. It refers explicitly to…Gn 9:5-6. And it means exactly what it says, at least it did when the church set it out in the Roman Catechism. Asserting that the church never thought of capital punishment as a precept is belied by what she herself has said, unsupported claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The point I am challenging is your assertion that the Church eternally teaches that "capital punishment should be considered the default punishment for certain crimes" And now you cite the Council of Trent to support that claim. But it does not support that claim.
This quote from the Council of Trent is a defense of the use of capital punishment when it is used, so that it would not be a case of authorities committing murder when it done. That is all. This statement in no way indicates a default punishment. That is you reading into it what you wanted to see there.
The quote you cited says that when capital punishment is executed, the authorities are obeying the commandment which prohibits murder - not violating it.
Again, there is no eternal teaching of the Church that says capital punishment should be the default punishment for certain crimes.
E
Ender
Guest
And what of Gn 9:5-6? Are we to assume that “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed” is not a command? How about “I will require the blood of your lives”? Setting a requirement to do something is very different than giving permission to do it, and your interpretation turns the former into the latter. There is nothing in those scripture passages that suggests it is merely permission for the use of capital punishment that is being given.
And as for the eternal teachings of the church, here’s a rather explicit one:
2260 …For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
LeafByNiggle:
And what of Gn 9:5-6? Are we to assume that “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed” is not a command?
- Cherry-picking bible verses is not the way to establish Catholic teaching.
- Yes, we may assume that it is a prediction, not a command, because no one thinks such a statement without and qualifiers is a command, or we would be executing children and the mentally incompetent.
Your interpretation. I do not see it as a prescription for society to follow, so much as a warning of what will befall those who sin. Note: the passage is directed at the transgressor, not the law enforcement official.
This is CCC 2260 quoting scripture, but if you read the rest of that section of the Catechism you will see that CCC 2260 is using this scripture passage as a warning against transgressors, not as instruction toward civil society as to what they must do.
E
Ender
Guest
You consider it cherry-picking when I cite not merely the verses but how the two major catechisms of the church refer to them? How can citing both the current catechism and the Catechism of Trent be considered cherry-picking?
Yet again you use the dodge of pretending that “You must execute everyone, period” is the only possible alternative to “You have my permission” when I have repeatedly said that it is a general rule, and not an absolute command.
And no, it cannot be considered a prediction.
For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St Bellarmine)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is the same bible verse, and the Catechism does not use it the way you do.LeafByNiggle:
You consider it cherry-picking when I cite not merely the verses but how the two major catechisms of the church refer to them? How can citing both the current catechism and the Catechism of Trent be considered cherry-picking?
But that’s just what the bible verse said. Let’s look at it again:
“ Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed ”
This verse does not say “Whosoever sheds the blood of man, provided the circumstances are serious enough and the transgressor is mentally fit, by man shall his blood be shed”. It says nothing about general rules, or default punishments, or anything of the sort. So if you insist on interpreting this verse as instructions to civil authorities, then you would have to take the absolute command interpretation, which you obviously will not do. Therefore your interpretation that this in instruction to civil authority is unfounded.
It is neither a prophecy nor instruction to civil authorities. It is a warning to transgressors.
All the support you have offered for your position have been either too strong or too weak. Too strong meaning if taken the way you want would require executing children. Too weak meaning that support merely says that the death penalty must always exist as a possibility.
Nowhere have you cited any support for your “default punishment” interpretation in Church teaching.
- Status