J
jwinch2
Guest
Perhaps I have missed something, but I haven’t seen anyone suggesting that we as individuals, or society at large, should judge the state of someone’s soul.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Brendan
Guest
How would your definition differ from the Angelic Doctor’s?Yes, that’s ONE version of justice.
E
Ender
Guest
We have a different set of sources. I was unable to find an electronic version of the first edition so I copied what was in the hardcover book copyright 1994 and it is plainly different than the second edition, copyright 1997. What you cited as the contents of the first edition is not correct. Both sections 2266 and 2267 are different between the two editions. On this point, the brown book (first edition) is quite different than the green book (second edition).
Ender
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
If you’ll go back and read post #45 (especially the statement from the USCCB) you’ll see the arguments I put forth to show that, yes, redressing the disorder does in fact mean retribution. I pointed this out before: the disagreement over the primary objective of punishment is what has led to much of the disagreement over the use of capital punishment. If we can’t agree on what punishment is meant to accomplish we will never agree on what means are necessary and appropriate.“Redressing disorder” is not “retribution”.
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
I will provide the link and again say, I think not.If you’ll go back and read post #45 (especially the statement from the USCCB) you’ll see the arguments I put forth to show that, yes, redressing the disorder does in fact mean retribution. I pointed this out before: the disagreement over the primary objective of punishment is what has led to much of the disagreement over the use of capital punishment. If we can’t agree on what punishment is meant to accomplish we will never agree on what means are necessary and appropriate.
Ender
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10534228&postcount=45
No, we won’t agree, which is probably why your opinions are not those we hear from such people as Blessed John Paul II, and pretty much all the Catholic leaders. I am sorry you find the Catechism so muddled.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Redressing disorder is not retribution. You cannot square that circle. The connotations surrounding the words are different. Redressing a situation is to implement a remedy. Retribution carries with it the connotation of vengeance. And, as the saying goes, vengeance is for the Lord.
Civil authorities have the responsibility to communicate to people who commit crimes that there are consequences to their actions. When you punish a child, do you do it merely to exact revenge? Or do you do it so that they will learn not to do whatever they did wrong ever again? The same goes for civil and criminal law. When we punish offenders, rehabilitation should be foremost in our minds. Vengeance should have no part in our thought process.
Again, why are you so insistent on the point that we should execute people? No one is saying that the Church does not permit it. The Church simply advocates for restraint and demands that civil authorities use the death penalty to protect society at large, not to exact vengeance on anyone.
Civil authorities have the responsibility to communicate to people who commit crimes that there are consequences to their actions. When you punish a child, do you do it merely to exact revenge? Or do you do it so that they will learn not to do whatever they did wrong ever again? The same goes for civil and criminal law. When we punish offenders, rehabilitation should be foremost in our minds. Vengeance should have no part in our thought process.
Again, why are you so insistent on the point that we should execute people? No one is saying that the Church does not permit it. The Church simply advocates for restraint and demands that civil authorities use the death penalty to protect society at large, not to exact vengeance on anyone.
F
Francoist
Guest
Why did the Papal States execute so many people in the 19th Century? Jails had been invented by that time.
And why did they use drawing and quartering? That’s pretty painful.
I’d hate to think that this argument is eventually going to lead to: “Catholics before the 1960s were evil and Catholicism was a false religion back then.” That’s the Hermeneutic of Discontinuity talking, something condemned by Pope Benedict XVI. I agree with his condemnation of that viewpoint.
Would the anti-death penalty side answer my questions? Again, why did the Papal States execute so many people in the 19th Century, a time when ample jails existed to incarcerate people? And why did they use drawing and quartering when they ample access to firearms and could have just shot people?
Full disclosure: I’d never sentence anyone to drawing and quartering… the only crime I’d even consider for that is blasphemy. I think it’s terrible. I assume it was employed because of the supposed deterrent factor (deterrent or no, I simply don’t have the stomach for it). But I want to hear your view on it.
And why did they use drawing and quartering? That’s pretty painful.
I’d hate to think that this argument is eventually going to lead to: “Catholics before the 1960s were evil and Catholicism was a false religion back then.” That’s the Hermeneutic of Discontinuity talking, something condemned by Pope Benedict XVI. I agree with his condemnation of that viewpoint.
Would the anti-death penalty side answer my questions? Again, why did the Papal States execute so many people in the 19th Century, a time when ample jails existed to incarcerate people? And why did they use drawing and quartering when they ample access to firearms and could have just shot people?
Full disclosure: I’d never sentence anyone to drawing and quartering… the only crime I’d even consider for that is blasphemy. I think it’s terrible. I assume it was employed because of the supposed deterrent factor (deterrent or no, I simply don’t have the stomach for it). But I want to hear your view on it.
E
Ender
Guest
I provided several citations from church teaching. Instead of simply disagreeing with me how about responding to my comments, especially, as I suggested to pnewton, the comment from the USCCB?Redressing disorder is not retribution. You cannot square that circle.
Yes, vengeance is the Lord’s, which ought to suggest that it is not something evil.*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. *(Aquinas)The connotations surrounding the words are different. Redressing a situation is to implement a remedy. Retribution carries with it the connotation of vengeance. And, as the saying goes, vengeance is for the Lord.
It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (St. Innocent I)
This is simply wrong. Rehabilitation is a proper objective of punishment but it is not the primary objective. The primary objective is retributive justice.When we punish offenders, rehabilitation should be foremost in our minds. Vengeance should have no part in our thought process.
Mostly what I do is refute arguments that are contrary to church teaching, like your comment above about rehabilitation. I do this to point out that the stated objections to capital punishment do not accord with what the church teaches and if someone is going to take a position it should at least be for valid reasons.Again, why are you so insistent on the point that we should execute people?
Unless the protection of society is the primary objective of punishment it cannot be the deciding factor in determining the proper punishment for a crime, and in fact no reasonable argument can be made that it is primary given this statement in 2266:* The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.The Church simply advocates for restraint and demands that civil authorities use the death penalty to protect society at large, not to exact vengeance on anyone.
*Redressing disorder refers to addressing something that was done in the past while protecting society addresses something that is to be prevented in the future. Whatever you think redressing the disorder means, one thing it cannot mean is providing protection against future crimes.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I’ll say this yet again: I have not presented anything as my opinion. Every assertion I make is supported by direct citations from popes, doctors, fathers, and others who have investigated this issue. Disagreeing with “me” is nothing less than disagreeing with the Traditional teaching of the church.No, we won’t agree, which is probably why your opinions are not those we hear from such people as Blessed John Paul II, and pretty much all the Catholic leaders.
I am disappointed that you find it appropriate to distort my comment like this. I said the teaching on capital punishment is muddled; I’m sure you understand the distinction.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. … Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching.I am sorry you find the Catechism so muddled.
(R. Michael Dunnigan J.D. J.C.L canon lawyer])
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
Let me just say I totally disagree with this. You call statements by great men of the church opinions and your statements facts. You believe as fact that there is and ambiguity in the Catechism. You believe you can change the nature of punishment from redressing to disorder to retribution.I’ll say this yet again: I have not presented anything as my opinion.
Then you have the rather interesting perspective to say that disagreeing with you is disagreeing with the tradition of the Church.
Give me Blessed John Paul, and PE Benedict any day. Want to wager what the new pontiff will say on this if he speaks on it?
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” Blessed John Paul
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” Pope Benedict
T
triumphguy
Guest
Justice is not merely appropriate punishment. Justice is concerned with putting things right with building up and not merely tearing down.Retribution is concerned with justice, rehabilitation is not; they are completely different concepts. the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)
Acts of sin deserve punishment; that is the demand of justice and justice is not satisfied otherwise. Assume that a person commits a murder and then fully repents of his crime: should he be punished or not? If the objective is solely the conversion of the criminal the task is completed and punishment would be superfluous but if the primary objective is justice then the punishment is still necessary. Forgiveness of the sin does not erase the necessity of punishment.
Ender
An eye for an eye and pretty soon the whole world is blind.
Your version of justice takes away rather than builds.
Aquinas was a clever chap - but you can’t just quote him willy-nilly and think you’ve won the argument.
He also said things like this: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power”
E
Ender
Guest
I cited other churchmen acknowledging that 2267 contains prudential judgment, which is not all that remarkable inasmuch as the third paragraph, which is an estimation of modern penal capabilities, is undeniably an opinion.You call statements by great men of the church opinions …
My statements are that “Pope so-and-so said this” and “Aquinas said that” and those are in fact facts.…and your statements facts
Fine, let’s take this point and see where it leads us. I’m willing to let the entire argument stand or fall on the meaning of “redressing the disorder.” Are you?You believe you can change the nature of punishment from redressing to disorder to retribution.
You dispute me even when I quote the church saying what the tradition of the church is. Challenge me on any statement I make if I don’t provide a valid citation supporting my comment. On the other hand if I do provide a citation then you need to respond to it and not simply dismiss it because I’m the one who provided it.Then you have the rather interesting perspective to say that disagreeing with you is disagreeing with the tradition of the Church.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
It is true that justice is about more than punishment but what you don’t recognize is that punishment itself is necessary to “put things right.” The entire concept of expiation has been lost.A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection,… but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which* penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty ***(Pius XII)Justice is not merely appropriate punishment. Justice is concerned with putting things right with building up and not merely tearing down.
An eye for an eye and pretty soon the whole world is blind.
- when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance.** For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis**; *(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis ch 13)
I am using the church’s definition of justice.1836 Justice consists in the firm and constant will to give God and neighbor their due.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)Your version of justice takes away rather than builds.
The church has a higher impression of him.*Who dare imagine the sinful words these blind fools would have for the most Brilliant Theologian [Saint Thomas Aquinas] ever: whose systematic method of reasoning [Scholasticism] and sacred writings have been lauded by Holy Mother Church and every Pope for the last 800 years. *(Pius IX)Aquinas was a clever chap …
It is surely true that not everything anyone says is always true. Nonetheless, since Aquinas is the greatest theologian in the entire history of the church he should be given the benefit of the doubt and his comments accepted unless they can be refuted. Ignoring him is not refuting him.… but you can’t just quote him willy-nilly and think you’ve won the argument. He also said things like this:…
Ender
T
triumphguy
Guest
And apparently Blessed John Paul II is the greatest philosopher Pope we’ve ever had, yet you don’t seem to give him as much credence as these others.It is true that justice is about more than punishment but what you don’t recognize is that punishment itself is necessary to “put things right.” The entire concept of expiation has been lost.A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection,… but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which** penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty **(Pius XII)
Ender
- when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law*, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance.** For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis**; (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis ch 13)
I am using the church’s definition of justice.1836 Justice consists in the firm and constant will to give God and neighbor their due.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)
The church has a higher impression of him.*Who dare imagine the sinful words these blind fools would have for the most Brilliant Theologian [Saint Thomas Aquinas] ever: whose systematic method of reasoning [Scholasticism] and sacred writings have been lauded by Holy Mother Church and every Pope for the last 800 years. *(Pius IX)
It is surely true that not everything anyone says is always true. Nonetheless, since Aquinas is the greatest theologian in the entire history of the church he should be given the benefit of the doubt and his comments accepted unless they can be refuted. Ignoring him is not refuting him.
My"beef" with your agumentation is that you imply that there is only one possible outcome to this debate: that the death penalty is an appropriate penalty in any circumstance the state deems fit.
I’m saying that starting WITH the CCC (and Dulles - though you seem to get a different twist from him than I do), and following the recent teachings of the Popes and various Bishops Conferences (all of which have far more import than St. Robert Bellarmine for instance), and reading FOR a continuity of hermeneutics (as we have been urged by Pope Benedict), rather than looking for discontinuity (which you seem to be), and understanding terms like “prudential” to mean it would be prudent to follow the Pope rather than optional, that I reach the very orthodox conclusion that Capital Punishment is not moral in a modern western country.
Furthermore, I can argue study after study that proves that it is unjust (because of racial/ethnic and sociological biases), inefficient, costly, is not an effective deterrence, does not build up (but rather tears down) society’s ethos about the dignity of the person, is not justice for the victim, does not restore the “peace,” and doesn’t protect society, often executes the innocent, and is often merely a tool for grabbing votes. for these reasons Popes Benedict and John Paul II pleased for clemency in specific cases in the USA.
E
Ender
Guest
Is 2267 doctrine or prudential judgment? If it is doctrine then it is new and it is a change to the Traditional teaching and this becomes an either/or discussion: either 2267 or everything that went before it. If it is prudential, however, then there is no conflict between his recommendation that capital punishment should not be used in current societies and the church teaching that it is a just punishment and states are justified in using it.And apparently Blessed John Paul II is the greatest philosopher Pope we’ve ever had, yet you don’t seem to give him as much credence as these others.
Not at all; I have never implied that it could not be misused. What makes a punishment just is whether it is commensurate with the severity of the crime and the church has always recognized that the death penalty is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder.you imply that there is only one possible outcome to this debate: that the death penalty is an appropriate penalty in any circumstance the state deems fit.
Bishop’s conferences have no teaching authority. They are occasionally useful sources of information but that’s about all. Bellarmine by contrast is one of the 35 Doctors of the Church whose catechism was approved by Clement XIII.I’m saying that starting WITH the CCC (and Dulles - though you seem to get a different twist from him than I do), and following the recent teachings of the Popes and various Bishops Conferences (all of which have far more import than St. Robert Bellarmine for instance)…
That is not what the church means by prudential.*“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. *(Dulles)… and reading FOR a continuity of hermeneutics (as we have been urged by Pope Benedict), rather than looking for discontinuity (which you seem to be), and understanding terms like “prudential” to mean it would be prudent to follow the Pope rather than optional, that I reach the very orthodox conclusion that Capital Punishment is not moral in a modern western country.
There are valid practical arguments against its use one could make, but they are practical, not moral. I have been addressing only its moral aspect.Furthermore, I can argue study after study that proves that it is unjust (because of racial/ethnic and sociological biases), inefficient, costly, is not an effective deterrence…
In this case I think the reverse is true because we’ve lost sight of what the “dignity of the person” means.… does not build up (but rather tears down) society’s ethos about the dignity of the person…
Let’s at least acknowledge that not much can be done for the victim of murder. In fact, however, justice does not mean restoring the status quo nor can we ignore what justice for the perpetrator means.… is not justice for the victim…
I seriously doubt that any of these reasons went through their minds; I suspect their concerns were of an entirely different nature. I will make one observation though and that deals with one of the pleas for clemency. BXVI did ask that Troy Davis be spared execution. What many people don’t realize is that on the same day that Davis was executed in Georgia, Lawrence Brewer was executed in Texas and there was no plea that his sentence be commuted. If capital punishment is wrong in Georgia it is surely equally as suspect in Texas and for consistency’s sake it is reasonable to ask why there was no plea for Brewer.…for these reasons Popes Benedict and John Paul II pleaded for clemency in specific cases in the USA.
The problem with the Brewer case is that if there was ever an example of a person who deserved execution it would be him. He was one of three men who chained a black man to the bumper of his truck and then dragged him to death. He not only admitted his guilt he bragged of it and said he would do it again if he ever got the chance. Anyone unwilling to support the idea of clemency for Brewer has no justification suggesting that capital punishment should not be used.
Ender
T
triumphguy
Guest
You know the real reason I keep arguing o these threads - and it’s not that I don’t have a life… it’s because cases like Davis and Brewer raise tough moral questions, and those questions should not be just brushed aside with a shrug while saying, “It’s OK, the Church says the death sentence is fine, and where the Church does not say that you can disregard it because they’ve stepped out of line.”Is 2267 doctrine or prudential judgment? If it is doctrine then it is new and it is a change to the Traditional teaching and this becomes an either/or discussion: either 2267 or everything that went before it. If it is prudential, however, then there is no conflict between his recommendation that capital punishment should not be used in current societies and the church teaching that it is a just punishment and states are justified in using it.
**The Pope said it. Period (Full stop),
I’m not going to decide whether it’s prudential or doctrinal, nor am I going to spend a ton of energy pursuing this question.
**
Not at all; I have never implied that it could not be misused. What makes a punishment just is whether it is commensurate with the severity of the crime and the church has always recognized that the death penalty **is a just punishment **for (at least) the crime of murder.
**What do you mean by just?
**
- Is a just punishment
- Is the only just punishment
- Is sometimes just punishment
- Is sometimes not just punishment
- Is one of a variety of just punishments
- Is just in some circumstances but not in others
- Is just if the state says so
- Is just if the state says so, and if the state imposes it fairly and justly
etc., etc., etc.,
…
As Dulles says:
The state may morally impose the death sentence
if there are no better courses of action - and there usually are.
- The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.
- The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.
…
10) Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition. firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21
T
triumphguy
Guest
An interesting side note on the Brewer case:
James Byrd’s family has asked that Brewer’s life be spared.
“You can’t fight murder with murder,” Ross Byrd, 32, the victim’s son told Reuters on Tuesday. “Life in prison would have been fine. I know he can’t hurt my daddy anymore. I wish the state would take in mind that this isn’t what we want.”
“Life goes on,” he said. “I’ve got responsibilities that I have every day. It’s not on the front page of my mind. I’m looking for happy times.”
The Byrd family held a vigil in Jasper on Tuesday, the eve of Brewer’s execution.
“He has no remorse and I feel sorry for him, but forgiveness brings about healing. We had begun to heal a long time ago,” Betty Boatner, Byrd’s sister, told television station KPRC in Houston. “We’re praying for his family as well as our family, and for the citizens of Jasper. We already made peace with it a long time ago.”
P
pnewton
Guest
No. I read what you said on this and am convinced you are wrong. I have no desire to go in circles with one with an agenda of promoting the death penatly. I only go around once then quit once I am convinced and see what I deem to be a logical disconnect. You will never change. I am more interested in understanding the mind of the Church. With those who are saints and those who are shepherds, I will go in circles while I live and have my wits, always taken my disagreements with a grain of salt.Fine, let’s take this point and see where it leads us. I’m willing to let the entire argument stand or fall on the meaning of “redressing the disorder.” Are you?r
If I were going to let things stand or fall on any point, it would be what the Holy Father comes out and says on the subject if and when he addresses it. I would encourage all Catholics to do the same.
E
Ender
Guest
Most people reject the idea that the primary objective of punishment is retribution and I can understand their reluctance to believe it. It sounds so vindictive, harsh, and just down right mean. But is that perception accurate?
Here is its definition: *the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment. *(Merriam-Webster)
Here is Aquinas’ definition of justice: *‘Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,”’
*He ties the two ideas together this way: “*Equality of justice has its place in retribution, since equal rewards or punishments are due to equal merit or demerit.”
That is, retribution is nothing more than treating an individual in response to his own actions, rewarding him for his good deeds and punishing him for his bad ones. Surely no one can object to this. A just retribution is one that is proportionate to the deed and it needs to be recognized that a society without retribution would be an unjust one.
*We also know that retribution (regardless of one’s personal level of comfort with the idea) is a valid objective of punishment; Cardinal Dulles is quite unambiguous on this point in identifying it as part of church teaching. None of this goes to the question of whether retribution is the primary objective of punishment but there really should be no objection to the idea that it is surely a legitimate objective.
Ender
Here is its definition: *the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment. *(Merriam-Webster)
Here is Aquinas’ definition of justice: *‘Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,”’
*He ties the two ideas together this way: “*Equality of justice has its place in retribution, since equal rewards or punishments are due to equal merit or demerit.”
That is, retribution is nothing more than treating an individual in response to his own actions, rewarding him for his good deeds and punishing him for his bad ones. Surely no one can object to this. A just retribution is one that is proportionate to the deed and it needs to be recognized that a society without retribution would be an unjust one.
*We also know that retribution (regardless of one’s personal level of comfort with the idea) is a valid objective of punishment; Cardinal Dulles is quite unambiguous on this point in identifying it as part of church teaching. None of this goes to the question of whether retribution is the primary objective of punishment but there really should be no objection to the idea that it is surely a legitimate objective.
Ender
T
triumphguy
Guest
I agree - but does that mean that ONLY capital punishment is just retribution for murder?Most people reject the idea that the primary objective of punishment is retribution and I can understand their reluctance to believe it. It sounds so vindictive, harsh, and just down right mean. But is that perception accurate?
Here is its definition: *the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment. *(Merriam-Webster)
Here is Aquinas’ definition of justice: *’*Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,”’
He ties the two ideas together this way: “*Equality of justice has its place in retribution, since equal rewards or punishments are due to equal merit or demerit.”
That is, retribution is nothing more than treating an individual in response to his own actions, rewarding him for his good deeds and punishing him for his bad ones. Surely no one can object to this. A just retribution is one that is proportionate to the deed and it needs to be recognized that a society without retribution would be an unjust one.
*We also know that retribution (regardless of one’s personal level of comfort with the idea) is a valid objective of punishment; Cardinal Dulles is quite unambiguous on this point in identifying it as part of church teaching. None of this goes to the question of whether retribution is the primary objective of punishment but there really should be no objection to the idea that it is surely a legitimate objective.
Ender
- Status
- Not open for further replies.