Death Penalty, Am I wrong?

[Ray_Scheel]

One of the things that bothers me about this discussion is the conception we have formed regarding punishment in general. What is the one condition allowed by 2267 for the execution of a prisoner? It is the likelihood that he will kill again and if the risk is high enough he may be executed to prevent a future event. What this means is that we may execute someone to prevent a harm that we cannot execute him for actually committing.

It seems to me that this perspective on punishment places no value on redressing the wrong that has been done and in fact appears to reject the notion that this can actually be done. I can understand this view from a secular society but not from a Christian one.

The way I have always seen this is that 2267 has only clarified the sentiment that everyone here agrees with: that considered solely from the perspective of protecting society, if the death penalty is not necessary to prevent that individual from being a continuing threat then there no justification for using it.

Those reading it to say that capital punishment may only be considered from that perspective are flat out ignoring 2266, which clearly states that punishment “in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party”, as neither 2266 nor 2267 exclude capital punishment from punishment in the perspective of “medicinal” value.

There is no credibility on the part of those individuals willing to make an argument that requires interpreting one passage of the CCC in a way that clearly dismisses the paragraph immediately preceding it, and support their “argument” by dismissing the teachings of prior Church Councils and notable theologians, and especially when the only source they are willing to consider prior to Vatican II being a sentence from a papal address where the following sentence in that same address clearly contradicts the “conclusion” supposedly based on the sentence they used.

I would like to see someone use the occasion of an execution to talk about the expiation of sin.

Yes, as would I, but it appears that anyone not already in general agreement with the principle is stuck on the position that any Church teachings about capital punishment not explicitly restated since Vatican II are void, even those restated as recently as 1952 with no subsequent modification expressed on those points since that time…

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I’m getting tired of these ongoing debates on the death penalty. Both sides can be morally correct, whether they are opposed or supportive of it. For either side to claim the other is wrong is denying that this is one of those issues we are just free to form our own conscience on.

If that was the line in the sand actually being discussed in most of these debates, I’d agree. However, what I’m getting tired of is the constant accusations of being a "bad Catholic"TM by those individuals who actively deny the right of Catholics to form their own conscience on this issue if the conclusion they reach happens to be that of continued support for capital punishment, especially when those making that accusation also dismiss any Church teaching on the subject not explicitly restated by a pope from the 1960s on.

 

[Ender]

Yes, as would I, but it appears that anyone not already in general agreement with the principle is stuck on the position that any Church teachings about capital punishment not explicitly restated since Vatican II are void, even those restated as recently as 1952 with no subsequent modification expressed on those points since that time…

Apparently Pius XII made a series of addresses on this topic, most of which I have been unable to find, which is really unfortunate as his comments are quite relevant to our discussions. Here are some quotes (from others who extracted them from the original documents):

To the San Luca Medical-Biological Union, (12 November 1944), VI, 191. “as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable,” … “God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty.”

Address to Italian Catholic jurists on May 12, 1954**

• **“Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium”
• *“Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, 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”

*This last quote voices precisely why I have trouble accepting what is laid out in 2267. Quite frankly it appears that we have one pope disagreeing with another one as I can see no way to reconcile what Pius XII wrote with what JPII wrote. Inasmuch as Pius XII seems in line with previous Church teaching I have no rationale for disagreeing with his comments.

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

… we may execute someone to prevent a harm that we cannot execute him for actually committing…It seems to me that this perspective on punishment places no value on redressing the wrong that has been done and in fact appears to reject the notion that this can actually be done.

No value? or could it be that some people think that violence is unnecessary and unjustified?

I think the idea is that we can murder in self defense and civil authorities can murder in defense against an unjust aggressor, but we have to limit that self defense to what only what is necessary:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful

2265 … The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.

get it? unable to cause harm!

2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

So the Catechism thus gives three purposes of punishment:

• preserving public order,
• the safety of persons,
• and medicinal correction of the offender (repentance).

“Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” If a person commits a serious offense against society bringing about a disorder, the primary aim is to reestablish this lost order. If the criminal accepts their punishment, “it assumes the value of expiation.” as well as to protect society from future crimes they might otherwise have committed.

The fact that they are incarcerated i.e. life in prison without the possibility of parole, having their liberties taken from them is redressing the disorder. Punishment does not have to be taken to the extreme of the violent means of killing them by using “more than necessary violence”. Life imprisonment is sufficient to restore order, protect society, and it also gives the prisoner a chance to repent.

Originally Posted by Ender
…section 2267 was pretty much lifted from JPII’s Evangelium vitae (#56). My response is that this restriction is the prudential opinion of JPII, which therefore does not require our assent.

I have to disagree with the notion that we are free to so casually disregard a teaching laid down in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; The Teachings of Christ put forth by the Magesterium of the Catholic Church by simply choosing to call a given citation or passage one disagrees with a prudential opinion not requiring assent.

The opposite of assent is dissent.

Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani Generis:

"Nor should one think that the things taught in encyclical letters do not demand assent, on the plea that in them the Popes do not use the supreme teaching authority. These things are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, in regard to which it is also correct to say: “He who hears you, hears me.”

Oh yeah, that’s right, it’s an Encyclical so I guess that means it’s just Pius XII’s prudential opinion.

and in Lumen Gentium #25:

“Divine assistance is still given to the successors of the Apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter when, without arriving at an infallible definition, and without pronouncing in a definitive manner, it [the council] proposes in the exercise of the ordinary magisterium a teaching which helps to better understand revelation on faith and morals. The faithful are obliged to ‘give a religious assent of their spirit’ which, while different from the assent of faith, yet extends it.”

Besides, doesn’t the Catechism of the Catholic Church require assent since it’s part of the teaching office of the Church?

Catholics are not a people of the book the way that Protestants are. The Magesterium is a living Magesterium for all time. The Church continues to apply Christ’s teaching to the world we live in. I can hardly understand the need for people to constantly revert back centuries ago to state something the Magesterium said back then about life in that age to entirely different conditions in this age, especially when we have a Magesterium that has spoken and written about these issues in our day.

 

[Ender]

I think the idea is that we can murder in self defense and civil authorities can murder in defense against an unjust aggressor …

The Church does not equate all killing with murder and neither should you.

So the Catechism thus gives three purposes of punishment:

• preserving public order,
• the safety of persons,
• and medicinal correction of the offender (repentance)

The Church teaches that there are four; the fourth is deterrence. Also, you have subtly changed the meaning of the primary purpose from “redressing” the disorder caused by the offense to “preserving” public order. These are not the same. Preserving an orderly society does not result in: *"**the ****expiation ***of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty" (Pius XII)

Life imprisonment is sufficient to restore order …
Order is not expiation. What suffices to expiate truly heinous crimes?
… protect society …
This is debatable. Certainly some of those imprisoned for life have succeeded in killing again.
… and it also gives the prisoner a chance to repent.
*This is also debatable. **It provides the opportunity but not the incentive. *

I have to disagree with the notion that we are free to so casually disregard a teaching … by simply choosing to call a given citation or passage one disagrees with a prudential opinion not requiring assent.

There is nothing casual about it. I believe, for a number of previously stated reasons, that the teaching is in fact prudential; I also believe that prudential teachings do not require our assent. I am also, however, mindful of Cardinal Dulles’ warning (on this topic) that “they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord.”

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani Generis:

Oh yeah, that’s right, it’s an Encyclical so I guess that means it’s just Pius XII’s prudential opinion.

A smirk is quite appropriate considering how you are trying to use the statements of Pius XII on authority to demand that Catholics accept a position regarding capital punishment that it is contradicted by Piux XII own comments regarding capital punishment…

 

[goofyjim]

If that was the line in the sand actually being discussed in most of these debates, I’d agree. However, what I’m getting tired of is the constant accusations of being a "bad Catholic"TM by those individuals who actively deny the right of Catholics to form their own conscience on this issue if the conclusion they reach happens to be that of continued support for capital punishment, especially when those making that accusation also dismiss any Church teaching on the subject not explicitly restated by a pope from the 1960s on.

But isn’t there a certain insinuation that those of us who are opposed to the death penalty are somehow going against Church teaching making us “bad Catholics”?

 

[RachelsAlumni]

A smirk is quite appropriate considering how you are trying to use the statements of Pius XII on authority to demand that Catholics accept a position regarding capital punishment that it is contradicted by Piux XII own comments regarding capital punishment…

When speaking to people who frequently cite these older writings I tend to look for something older thinking that they might be more prone to consider them rather than citing something newer. To my way of thinking if a person’s gonna disregard a citation in the Catechism, because it’s referenced from an Encyclical from a modern day Pope then it would be of little use to cite another Encyclical from that same Pope.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

The Church teaches that there are four; the fourth is deterrence.

Where does the Church teach this? I didn’t see it referenced in CCC 2263 - 2267.

Also, you have subtly changed the meaning of the primary purpose from “redressing” the disorder caused by the offense to “preserving” public order. These are not the same. Preserving an orderly society does not result in: *"**the ****expiation ***of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty" (Pius XII)

I was just citing the Catechism # 2266. So the source I was quoting (I can’t remember which Catechism I cut & pasted from) substituted preserving for defending. Here’s the official wording from the Vatican website:

Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

Either way the stated purposes of punishment according (underlined above) in #2266 are:

• redressing the disorder introduced by the offense
• defending (or preserving) public order
• protecting people’s safety
• medicinal purpose of correcting the guilty party

what does redress mean?

Redress
transitive verb

to set upright, restore, redress

1 a (1): to set right : remedy
(2): to make up for : compensate

b: to remove the cause of (a grievance or complaint)
c: to exact reparation* for : avenge

2 archaic a: to requite (a person) for a wrong or loss b: heal

Noun:
1 a: relief from distress
b: means or possibility of seeking a remedy
2: compensation for wrong or loss : reparation*

Reparation: < the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury b: something done or given as amends or satisfaction>

So my earlier statement “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” If a person commits a serious offense against society bringing about a disorder, the primary aim is to reestablish this lost order. If the criminal accepts their punishment, “it assumes the value of expiation.” Remains.

 

[Ender]

Where does the Church teach this? I didn’t see it referenced in CCC 2263 - 2267.

*“The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.” *(Cardinal Dulles) firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175

So my earlier statement “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” If a person commits a serious offense against society bringing about a disorder, the primary aim is to reestablish this lost order. If the criminal accepts their punishment, “it assumes the value of expiation.” Remains.

2266 is about redressing the disorder of a past crime; 2267 is about maintaining order by preventing future crime. These are completely different concerns and one takes precedence over the other. If expiation is primary then the death penalty is necessary; if prevention is primary then (debatably) capital punishment is not required and should be avoided.

This is what the debate is about and I didn’t want imprecision over the term “redressing the disorder” to cloud that distinction.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I found another article those of you really interested in this topic might find some value in reading. Cardinal Dulles’ original article on the death penalty in First Things prompted some extensive responses (including from university professors) that raised all manner of questions. This follow-up article is actually a collection of these responses - interesting in themselves - with a final lengthy analysis by Cardinal Dulles of the topics raised by the respondents.

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2226

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

When speaking to people who frequently cite these older writings I tend to look for something older thinking that they might be more prone to consider them rather than citing something newer. To my way of thinking if a person’s gonna disregard a citation in the Catechism, because it’s referenced from an Encyclical from a modern day Pope then it would be of little use to cite another Encyclical from that same Pope.

First, 1952 is not an “older writing” by any reasonable standard of “old” in a Church where the framework of the most recent theological revelation started 2000 years ago, and that based on an series of prior frameworks going back at least that far again.

Second, there is no basis in Catholic theology for treating an subject as starting from scratch each time any portion of it is addressed by a recent pope or council.

Third, there is nothing in the CCC stating that prior teachings not explicitly reiterated in it are no longer in force. In fact, I recall posting a part of the introduction of the CCC in a prior thread on this subject stating as much. However, your comment to ender about not seeing deterrence “referenced in CCC 2263 - 2267” makes it clear that is exactly the approach you are using, despite the fact that the CCC itself discourages treating it as an exhaustive resource.

Fourth, nothing said by JP II or stated in the CCC has revoked the traditional teaching of the church on the other reasons a state may legitimately exercise the death penalty. JP II’s comments are clearly directed only at “protection of society angle” and pointedly do not reference the other justifications.

Finally, it reaches a point of ridiculousness to be talking about trying to find “older” writings for others to consider when one’s own focus on “newer writings” has reached the point where the justifications for punishment other than defending society (as listed in 2266) are presumed not to apply to capital punishment simply because they are not reiterated in 2267, even though 2267 clearly is limiting itself only to the defense of society.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

I’m sorry I have not read all 189 post but I do want to write this, sorry if someone else has written it else where. I had an Aunt who was robbed, raped and stabbed to death with a butchers knife more times than the coroner could count while she was in her home. Ten years latter my mother and grand mother got into a passion filled discussion on the death penalty. My mother opposed the death penalty for her sister killer and my grandmother favored it. I like most of us had an opinion and wanted to engage them in there discussion - my Father told me in what is probably the wisest thing he ever told me “Stay out of it, no good can come from arguing with them”.

I hope you never will have to face day when you will be intimately involved in such a discussion. One cannot say whether my Mother or Grandmother was right. Although they are not Catholics it was a discussion filled with Biblical refences and Christian teaching befitting calvinism.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

First, 1952 is not an “older writing” by any reasonable standard of “old” in a Church where the framework of the most recent theological revelation started 2000 years ago, and that based on an series of prior frameworks going back at least that far again.

Give me a break! I was explaining why I chose this particular encyclical. I was not making any assumptions about the history of the Church.

Second, there is no basis in Catholic theology for treating an subject as starting from scratch each time any portion of it is addressed by a recent pope or council.

Third, there is nothing in the CCC stating that prior teachings not explicitly reiterated in it are no longer in force. In fact, I recall posting a part of the introduction of the CCC in a prior thread on this subject stating as much. However, your comment to ender about not seeing deterrence “referenced in CCC 2263 - 2267” makes it clear that is exactly the approach you are using, despite the fact that the CCC itself discourages treating it as an exhaustive resource.

No. I don’t treat it as starting from scratch. I don’t believe the Teachings of Christ as taught in the Catechism to have begun or ended when it was published. In fact, Ender’s response was to quote an “article” by Cardinal Avery Dulles. Odd, considering he considers Pope John Paul’s quote in Evangelium Vitae to be merely a prudential opinion, yet an article by a Cardinal seems to carry more weight?

To me the Magesterium is a living, teaching office of the Church. The Magesterium is not stagnant and we are not a people of the book, but a people of a living, growing understanding of our faith for all time otherwise we would be like Protestants interpreting for ourselves “The Book” and the law.

I do assume that the Magesterium is more knowledgeable about the teachings of Christ and more guided by the promise of the Holy Spirit in giving us those teachings than say a self-appointed online theologian.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Give me a break! I was explaining why I chose this particular encyclical. I was not making any assumptions about the history of the Church.

You lost credibility on this in several ways, not the least of which by making clear that you are presuming deterrence is no longer a legitimate reason for punishment simply because it wasn’t reiterated in the CCC. If you are wanting to be convincing in a claim that you are not working from a presumption that any Church teaching about the death penalty not reiterated since Vatican II is no longer applicable, you are not helped by describing as “old” papal statements on the matter that you disagree with that come from as recently as 1952-54.

No. I don’t treat it as starting from scratch. I don’t believe the Teachings of Christ as taught in the Catechism to have begun or ended when it was published. In fact, Ender’s response was to quote an “article” by Cardinal Avery Dulles. Odd, considering he considers Pope John Paul’s quote in Evangelium Vitae to be merely a prudential opinion, yet an article by a Cardinal seems to carry more weight?

Here it is clear you need to give us a break.

It is both obvious and entirely reasonable that an article by a highly trained theologian citing a long string of Church teaching and dealing with theological development carries more “weight” in the* theological field* than the weight carried in the field of criminal justice of an assessment by a theologian - even if a pope - not trained in the management of modern penal institutions making a technical appraisal of their capabilities based on nothing more than his own opinion and his experiences visiting his would-be assassin in an exceedingly unrepresentative psychiatric unit.

If you wish to argue that Pope John Paul II’s assessment of the technical capabilities of modern prisons was not prudential in nature, please addresses the challenges to that idea already presented (and also note that even SoCal seems to have admitted that assessment was prudential in nature).

To use a more clear cut example of why its dangerous to hand moral authority on prudential decision, Ender and I (and probably use as well) would also consider “prudential” the parts of Galileo’s condemnation by Pope Urban VIII that appear to defend geocentrism or condemn heliocentrism. Scientific opinions put forth by a pope are always prudential in nature, no matter how strongly worded they are.

 

[Ender]

Ender’s response was to quote an “article” by Cardinal Avery Dulles. Odd, considering he considers Pope John Paul’s quote in Evangelium Vitae to be merely a prudential opinion, yet an article by a Cardinal seems to carry more weight?

I quoted Dulles’ article for two reasons: it was a concise explanation of the Church’s position on punishment and I felt, given the source, it was almost surely unarguable. I don’t consider it in any way to conflict with what JPII said in Evangelium Vitae. Do you? Do you believe that the Church has not taught and does not now teach that deterrence is one of the aims of punishment? Remember, this question has nothing whatever to do with the death penalty, it is about punishment itself. Do you really believe that Dulles doesn’t know what he’s talking about here, that, according to the Church, deterrence is not a proper aim of punishment and that he is somehow disagreeing with the magisterium?

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Do you believe that the Church has not taught and does not now teach that deterrence is one of the aims of punishment?

according to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church #405.

Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

Do you really believe that Dulles doesn’t know what he’s talking about here, that, according to the Church, deterrence is not a proper aim of punishment and that he is somehow disagreeing with the magisterium?

No. I think you don’t know what you’re talking about. Dulles seems to have a different understanding than the death penalty advocates regarding it’s substantiation as a deterrant:

Deterrence. Executions, especially where they are painful, humiliating, and public, may create a sense of horror that would prevent others from being tempted to commit similar crimes. But the Fathers of the Church censured spectacles of violence such as those conducted at the Roman Colosseum. Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World explicitly disapproved of mutilation and torture as offensive to human dignity. In our day death is usually administered in private by relatively painless means, such as injections of drugs, and to that extent it may be less effective as a deterrent. Sociological evidence on the deterrent effect of the death penalty as currently practiced is ambiguous, conflicting, and far from probative.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

You lost credibility on this in several ways, not the least of which by making clear that you are presuming deterrence is no longer a legitimate reason for punishment simply because it wasn’t reiterated in the CCC.

Puuhhleeeze. Where have I “made clear” that deterrance is no longer an issue because it wasn’t reiterated in the CCC? I asked Ender a question of where he was coming up with the fourth classification since I hadn’t seen a fourth classification referenced in the CCC. It wasn’t a statement, it was a question. You are clearly reading more into the question than what was initially asked.

However, upon further reading on the matter I certainly would not be alone or in any way lacking credibility for holding such a view:

excerpt from The Purposes of Punishment by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L.

The key issue in the debate over the death penalty is whether the recent statements of the Magisterium contradict the Church’s previous teaching on the purposes of punishment.

The Catholic tradition has recognized three such purposes:

1. 
   *]defense of society against the criminal,

1. 
   

   *]rehabilitation of the criminal, and

   *]retribution or the reparation of the disorder caused by the transgression.

   In addition, some authorities list deterrence as a fourth purpose of punishment [Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment”].

   The most important question raised by the recent Magisterial pronouncements is whether retribution remains a legitimate purpose of punishment in the context of the death penalty[cf. Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Catholic Jurists Resta ora (5 Feb. 1955) (affirming retribution as a legitimate end of punishment)].

   The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. The section on punishment in general reaffirms the traditional formulation of the triple purpose of punishment, and it describes retribution as the first of these purposes.

   Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party [CCC off. vers., 2266].

   However, as Father Rutler notes, the very next section of the Catechism—that is, the one on the death penalty—ignores this very teaching on the ends of punishment [G. Rutler, “Scalia’s Right: Catechism’s Problematic,” National Catholic Register (24-31 Mar. 2002)]. The Catechism seems to recognize only a single purpose of capital punishment—the physical safety of persons. It seems not to recognize retribution as a legitimate purpose.
   
   This appears more clearly if one compares the preliminary and official versions of the Catechism. The preliminary version of the Catechism said, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means . . .” [CCC prelim. vers., 2267 (emphasis added)]. Thus, this passage described as justifications for capital punishment not only the safety of persons, but also the protection of public order. The ordinary meaning of public order is sufficiently broad to encompass the traditional purposes of punishment, namely retribution and deterrence.
   
   However, in the revision of the Catechism, the reference to public order was deleted, so that a sole justification for the death penalty remained in the official version, namely physical safety. “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means . . .” [CCC off. vers., 2267 (emphasis added)].

   
   { bolded emphasis mine }
   

   … you are not helped by describing as “old” papal statements on the matter that you disagree with that come from as recently as 1952-54.

   First, the papal statement* I quoted *on the authority of encyclicals and later referred to as “older” is not one I disagree with, I qouted it.
   
   Second, your whole issue here seems to boil down to the fact that I called an encyclial *I quoted from *the 50’s “older”. Pardon me for calling something that was written years before I was even born older.
   I assure you it’s nothing personal!
   
   These objections make no sense. On the one hand you criticize me because you claim I only read post VII teachings and ignore the 2000 year history of the Church (which I deny) yet on the other hand when I reference pre-VII encyclicals I’m criticized for calling them “old”. Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
   

   … If you wish to argue that Pope John Paul II’s assessment of the technical capabilities of modern prisons was not prudential in nature, please addresses the challenges to that idea already presented…

   From what I have read most theologians agree that the reference can be considered prudential judgment. My issue is that whether it’s prudential judgment or not, it’s part of the teachings of the Church, given not only by the Pastor of the Church but carefully chosen to be included in the Catechism; The Teachings of the Church. As such it should be shown due respect, submission and deference. As such, to my way of thinking, it should be shown more respect, more submission and deference than an article in First Things by a Theologian.
   
   I am, however, satisfied that Ender does give it [The Catechism] due respect and deference from his later statements clarifing this.

 

[Ender]

Let me try again: deterrence must be discussed outside of the context of capital punishment. The only question is whether the Church considers deterrence an appropriate aim of punishment in general - which is all I said in my initial comment.

Social Doctrine of the Church #405 - Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred …

Doesn’t this seem to infer the Church’s acceptance of deterrence?

Michael Dunnigan - In addition, some authorities list deterrence as a fourth purpose of punishment [Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment”].

Here Dunnigan cites the exact same source I cited. How is it that your source gets to quote Dulles but I don’t?

to my way of thinking, {2267} should be shown more respect, more submission and deference than an article in First Things by a Theologian.

But, but, but, … Dulles agrees with 2267; he nowhere argues against it. I quote Dulles not because he supports my arguments against 2267 but because he (a) is unambiguous in calling 2267 a prudential teaching and (b) is clear and thorough in explaining the Church’s position on punishment, which I found very helpful. I can’t imagine anything Dulles said in his article that you would disagree with.

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Let me try again: deterrence must be discussed outside of the context of capital punishment. The only question is whether the Church considers deterrence an appropriate aim of punishment in general - which is all I said in my initial comment.

You seem to have the same misunderstanding as Ray that because I asked you a question about where you were coming up with a fourth classification I hadn’t seen in the CCC that somehow implied I don’t think there is a fourth classfication. It was only a question, not a statement.

Also you must admit it’s not clear from the CCC and something even theologians debate.

Dulles agrees with 2267; he nowhere argues against it. I quote Dulles not because he supports my arguments against 2267 but because he (a) is unambiguous in calling 2267 a prudential teaching and (b) is clear and thorough in explaining the Church’s position on punishment, which I found very helpful. I can’t imagine anything Dulles said in his article that you would disagree with.

Ender

I did misunderstand you as well by thinking that you were claiming deterrance substantiated the death penalty, and claiming that Dulles supported this view. I apologize for the misunderstanding.