Death Penalty and Justice

[o_mlly]

Much of the debate on the justice of the death penalty has been based on private interpretations of Scripture over the explicit words of the Catechism. In his monthly editorial, Father Baker comments on the phenomena. As he notes, there have been very few Magisterial interpretations of passages from Scripture in Catholic tradition.
I want to raise my voice in defense of dogma. Since the Vatican Council dogma has been neglected, downplayed and even reviled by some theologians. This has been the result of the emphasis on Holy Scripture, because the Council urged preaching at all Masses…

What has happened is that, for many theologians and priests, the Bible has replaced the Catechism as the center of concern for both theology and preaching.

Scripture study … does not offer the certitude that dogma does. Yes, the text of the Bible is without error, but every text has to be interpreted and that is where the problem is. As you know, there are thousands of different interpretations of the meaning of passages in the Bible. The “sola scriptura” of the Protestants has resulted in thousands of different Protestant groups. Books on the Bible offer the opinions of the author, but they do not give you certitude. And the famous scholars often disagree with each other about the meaning. Only the Magisterium of the Church can give you certitude and the Church has defined the meaning of only a few passages of the Bible, such as Rom. 5:12-21 and James 5:13-15. Perhaps the problem here is that too many Protestant opinions have crept into the Catholic Church and too many Catholic scholars are seeking approval from Protestants. …Editorial - May 2010
In defense of dogma
Father Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Editor Emeritus
hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=244&Itemid=63

 

[Ender]

Then you should have left off Cardinal Dulles, as well.

As for St. Ambrose, "Quoting St. Ambrose, the Pope (JP II) writes: “God, who preferred the correction, rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be pun-ished by the execution of another act of homicide.”
“Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life): Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life.” Pope John Paul II. March 25, 1995, Chapter 1, Section 9.

It’s not clear that Cain’s punishment can be generalized to apply in all cases of murder, given that Cain received no punishment at all. In any event, it was Cardinal Dulles who wrote:

*In modern times Doctors of the Church such as Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori held that certain criminals should be punished by death. *

I included Dulles in my list because he more than anyone is unambiguous is stating that JPII was stating a prudential opinion in his comments on capital punishment.

Since your first reference did not meet the requirement, I have not checked the others.

I don’t have quotes frm Bellarmine, Liguori, or Ambrose; I was relying on the comments of others. I do have quotes from the rest of those in my list if you’d like them. I didn’t include them initially as they are rather extensive but if you’re interested in some I’ll provide them.

Still, the list does not include one present day bishop. The Church is the living Mystical Body of Christ. Times change; teachings are clarified and amplified. Why do you suppose no present bishops advocate your position?

No bishop wanted to contradict the opinion of the pope. As for times changing - that may be true of the times but it isn’t true of morality, which is unchanging.

Ender

 

[Ender]

o_mlly:

Yes, he does emphasize legitimate defense doctrine as applicable to the state. The foundation for a new understanding of the frequency of the death penalty has been established. Do you think JP II did not know what he was doing?

Morality has nothing to do with frequency and legitimate defense has nothing to do with justice. The primary justification for all punishment - including capital punishment - is retribution: the satisfaction demanded by justice. That has not changed and is in fact reiterated in the Catechism immediately prior to the comments on capital punishment. There is no new understanding of either punishment or justice.

Benedict does not mention the word “frequency” so I think you are interpreting out of thin air.

Given that JPII didn’t use the word frequency and that frequency is irrelevant to morality, I wouldn’t expect Benedict to use the word. Even the USCCB recognizes that 2267 isn’t binding.

*The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. *(A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, 2005)

If this were doctrine to which Catholics were obligated to assent, can you conceive of them saying "we encourage engagement and dialogue"? Benedict’s comment and that of the USCCB may not be as explicit as Dulles’ but the meaning is the same: 2267 is a prudential opinion.

Isn’t that is a question, not a teaching?

Here is a longer section from what Innocent I said (Epist. 6, c. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum)

In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. 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 (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.

I think the bolded part makes clear that this is in fact a teaching, not merely a question.

If, as you say, the issue is moral, then JPII’s opinion given in an encyclical elevates the teaching, perhaps short of dogma, but not dismissible out of hand by laymen.

No, it is not dismissible out of hand, and while we are obligated to give even the opinions of popes and bishops serious consideration, we are not obligated to assent to them; that obligation applies to doctrine alone.

Ender

 

[portarica]

Saint Ambrose (Bishop of Milan), Saint Innocent I, Saint Augustine of Hippo (Doctor of the Church), Innocent III, Pius IV, Pius V, Saint Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church), Cardinal Charles Borromeo, Saint Alphonsus Liguori (Doctor of the Church), Gregory IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII, Cardinal Dulles.

I had to leave off Saint Thomas Aquinas and some others because you only asked for bishops but I think it’s still an impressive list.

Ender

That Gregory IX was a brilliant thinker, wasn’t he the one that thought Jews to be inferior and should be subservient to catholics ?(and made it a doctrine perpetua servitus iudaeorum).

Peace

 

[o_mlly]

… Even the USCCB recognizes that 2267 isn’t binding.

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. (A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, 2005)

If this were doctrine to which Catholics were obligated to assent, can you conceive of them saying "we encourage engagement and dialogue"? …
Ender

That is incorrect. The bishops absolutely are not “recogniz[ing] that 2267 isn’t binding.” Take the bishops at their word. What the bishops did say is, “We hope and pray that this campaign will help bring an end to the use of the death penalty.” The bishops are saying good Catholics may believe in applying the death penalty or completely abolishing it. That is not your interpretation, is it?

I believe you gravely misinterpret the above USCCB’s statement and Benedicts XVI’s comment, “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Both, the USCCB and Benedict XVI, statements are not intended to give license to dismissing as prudential *Evangelium Vitae’s *teaching (“Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent”) rather they are giving license to Catholics to believe in the morality of the abolition of the death penalty entirely. These are two very different notions: the former would question the bishops communion with their pontiff, the latter accentuates that communion.

 

[o_mlly]

That Gregory IX was a brilliant thinker, wasn’t he the one that thought Jews to be inferior and should be subservient to catholics ?(and made it a doctrine perpetua servitus iudaeorum).

Peace

Innocent III also had some issues with our Jewish brothers. See “Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 68.”

 

[Ender]

That Gregory IX was a brilliant thinker, wasn’t he the one that thought Jews to be inferior and should be subservient to catholics ?(and made it a doctrine perpetua servitus iudaeorum).

So you accept the position that not everything a pope says is doctrine? That has been my position with regard to 2267 and if it is true of Gregory IX then why would it be less true of JPII?

Ender

 

[Ender]

The bishops are saying good Catholics may believe in applying the death penalty or completely abolishing it. That is not your interpretation, is it?

That is exactly my position … but if I may believe in applying the death penalty then it can only be because I am justified in disagreeing with 2267 - and I can only be justified in disagreeing with it if it is not doctrine but opinion.

Both, the USCCB and Benedict XVI, statements are not intended to give license to dismissing as prudential *Evangelium Vitae’s *teaching (“Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent”) rather they are giving license to Catholics to believe in the morality of the abolition of the death penalty entirely. These are two very different notions: the former would question the bishops communion with their pontiff, the latter accentuates that communion.

That explanation doesn’t stand up to even a cursory analysis. If the moral position is the abolition of the death penalty then it is the Church who has to determine that; the opinions of lay Catholics are entirely irrelevant. Catholics, lay or otherwise, don’t get to decide questions of morality; there is no license that can be given. As Archbishop Chaput said:

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.

And Dulles:

If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4).

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

That is exactly my position … but if I may believe in applying the death penalty then it can only be because I am justified in disagreeing with 2267 - and I can only be justified in disagreeing with it if it is not doctrine but opinion.

No, you don’t have disagree wiht # 2267 which specifically allows for the death penalty: “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty …”
That explanation doesn’t stand up to even a cursory analysis. If the moral position is the abolition of the death penalty then it is the Church who has to determine that; the opinions of lay Catholics are entirely irrelevant. Catholics, lay or otherwise, don’t get to decide questions of morality; there is no license that can be given. …No, that’s is not taught. “The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.” #12 Lumen Gentium The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.
Niether JP II, the USCCB or I have claimed that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. Your point?
And Dulles:

If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4).
Since no such denial (“the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice”)has been made, what is your point?

 

[Ender]

o_mlly:

No, you don’t have disagree wiht # 2267 which specifically allows for the death penalty: “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty …”

I don’t disagree with that part of 2267; it is in fact the only part I do agree with. It’s all the rest of it that is wrong. In fact, the second half of the sentence that you chopped off says: "when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor." That clause is as factually incorrect as saying 2+2 = 5.

No, that’s is not taught. "The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.

Let’s start with the obvious fact that there is no universal agreement about capital punishment and go from there.

Niether JP II, the USCCB or I have claimed that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. Your point?

The point is that the Church will never, contrary to your assertion, give "license to Catholics to believe in the morality of the abolition of the death penalty entirely."

Since no such denial ("the death penalty could

be an exercise of retributive justice")has been made, what is your point?Earlier you wrote: [JPII] does emphasize legitimate defense doctrine as applicable to the state. The foundation for a new understanding of the frequency of the death penalty has been established. First, there was never any consideration given to the frequency of the death penalty; the issue is the moral basis for its use. Your comment was that 2267 represents a new understanding of its use based on legitimate defense doctrine. Dulles makes the point that its use has always been based on retributive justice and to change that would be "overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture."

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

Re: Death Penalty and Justice

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by o_mlly
No, you don’t have disagree wiht # 2267 which specifically allows for the death penalty: “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty …”

I don’t disagree with that part of 2267; it is in fact the only part I do agree with. It’s all the rest of it that is wrong. In fact, the second half of the sentence that you chopped off says: “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” That clause is as factually incorrect as saying 2+2 = 5.

*First, Church teaching never gave the state an absolute right to apply the death penalty. The right derives from God and must be administered justly. This clause is not a fact but rather a judgement. Second, the fact is that the Pope has a unique charism of inspiration from the Holy Spirit on matters of morals and this clause is a moral judgement on the conditions which warrant a just execution.

2 + 2 equalled 4 in all your other papal citations. Do you claim this Pope lacked the same inspiration from the same Spirit? Please do not fall back on your “prudential” argument for that certainly does not apply to this clause; clearly it is a moral judgement.*

Quote:
No, that’s is not taught. "The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.

Let’s start with the obvious fact that there is no universal agreement about capital punishment and go from there.

***O.K. I’ll allow your cursory *** reading of my post clouded your recollection of LG.

Quote:
Niether JP II, the USCCB or I have claimed that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. Your point?

The point is that the Church will never, contrary to your assertion, give “license to Catholics to believe in the morality of the abolition of the death penalty entirely.”

Really? I have great respect for Cardinal Priest Dulles. However, the great theologian did not recieve the laying on of hands elevating him to the episcopate and the special graces that flow from the fullness of Holy Orders, specifically the teaching authority of the office. So, your bold prediction flies in the face of those who have these special graces – our bishops. See Statement on Abolition of the Death Penalty Roman Catholic Bishops of Connecticut, January 12, 2005. I have to go with the prediction of those who have a special relationship with the Holy Spirit on this one.

Quote:
Since no such denial (“the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice”)has been made, what is your point?

Earlier you wrote: [JPII] does emphasize legitimate defense doctrine as applicable to the state. The foundation for a new understanding of the frequency of the death penalty has been established. First, there was never any consideration given to the frequency of the death penalty; the issue is the moral basis for its use. Your comment was that 2267 represents a new understanding of its use based on legitimate defense doctrine. Dulles makes the point that its use has always been based on retributive justice and to change that would be “overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture.” Ender

Catholic thinking often applies the concept of “and/both” instead of the Protestant “either/or” in synthesizing seemingly opposing theological issues. I see no reason that the two theologies allowing homicide, legitimate defense and a just state’s right to justly apply the death penalty, cannot work in concert.

 

[Lycorth]

I feel compelled to link Lyncorth to vincenter.org/95/surlis.html.

Sorry, but the consistent catechetical teachings of the Church since the times of Saint Augustine carry a clear message - the death penalty can be justly applied by the state and recourse to it should remain open.

Curse the modern era and its incessant liberalization of everything, including Catholicism.

 

[o_mlly]

Sorry, but the consistent catechetical teachings of the Church since the times of Saint Augustine carry a clear message - the death penalty can be justly applied by the state

No need to apologize; no one has posted otherwise, as far as I know.

and recourse to it should remain open.

The state’s right remains open but its just use remains subject to the Magisterium’s teaching. God as the Author of life has forever the right to end my life as it pleases Him; that He (so far) chooses not to do so does not in any way diminish His right.

Curse the modern era and its incessant liberalization of everything, including Catholicism.

“The modern mind will accept nothing on authority, but will accept anything on no authority. Say that the Bible or the Pope says so and it will be dismissed without further examination. But preface your remark with ‘I think I heard somewhere,’ or, try but fail to remember the name of some professor who might have said ‘such-and-such,’ and it will be immediately accepted as an unshakable fact.”
G, K. Chesterton

 

[Ender]

2 + 2 equalled 4 in all your other papal citations. Do you claim this Pope lacked the same inspiration from the same Spirit? Please do not fall back on your “prudential” argument for that certainly does not apply to this clause; clearly it is a moral judgement.

It is not a moral judgment to say something about the traditional teaching of the Church; it is a statement of fact that is either correct or incorrect and in this case it is incorrect. The Church never had such a limitation on the use of executions; there is no justification whatever for that claim.
*

Really? I have great respect for Cardinal Priest Dulles. However, the great theologian did not recieve the laying on of hands elevating him to the episcopate and the special graces that flow from the fullness of Holy Orders, specifically the teaching authority of the office. So, your bold prediction flies in the face of those who have these special graces – our bishops. See Statement on Abolition of the Death Penalty Roman Catholic Bishops of Connecticut,

January 12, 2005. I have to go with the prediction of those who have a special relationship with the Holy Spirit on this one.*Again, it doesn’t require the laying on of hands to understand what the Church teaches. Dulles is either correct as to fact or not and being or not being a bishop is irrelevant. As far as the bishops of Connecticut, their letter adds nothing to the discussion. They expressed their “considered opposition” and would like the death penalty abolished - and that could happen if our civil laws restricted it but it can never happen as far as the Church is concerned. She will not - because she can not - define it as intrinsically immoral, which is what she would have to do to abolish it.
*

Catholic thinking often applies the concept of “and/both” instead of the Protestant “either/or” in synthesizing seemingly opposing theological issues. I see no reason that the two theologies allowing homicide, legitimate defense and a just state’s right to justly apply the death penalty, cannot work in concert.

*The Church teaches that the primary justification for all punishment is retributive justice. She also teaches that the defense of society, along with rehabilitation and deterrence, are valid but secondary objectives of punishment. I also wonder how you can in once sentence call for the abolition of the death penalty and in another recognize the state’s right to apply it.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

[Re: Death Penalty and Justice

---

[COLOR=“Blue”]Quote:
Originally Posted by o_mlly
2 + 2 equalled 4 in all your other papal citations. Do you claim this Pope lacked the same inspiration from the same Spirit? Please do not fall back on your “prudential” argument for that certainly does not apply to this clause; clearly it is a moral judgement.

It is not a moral judgment to say something about the traditional teaching of the Church; it is a statement of fact that is either correct or incorrect and in this case it is incorrect. The Church never had such a limitation on the use of executions; there is no justification whatever for that claim.

***You have already claimed that you believe what a pope may say in any encyclical is not binding. Therefore, you, as your own authority, pick and choose those lines from those encyclicals which seem to support your bias toward the death penalty.

With that methodology, one could (and did) claim the Church in the 16th century had no businsess teaching the evils of slavery. Paul III then was as to slavery then what our John Paul II is to the death penalty today – laying foundational teachings. And we will have to await (300 years?) a future pope like Pope Gregory XVI’s who issued the bull Supremo Apostolatus* in 1839 pronouncing a resounding condemnation of slavery. **

Quote:
Really? I have great respect for Cardinal Priest Dulles. However, the great theologian did not recieve the laying on of hands elevating him to the episcopate and the special graces that flow from the fullness of Holy Orders, specifically the teaching authority of the office. So, your bold prediction flies in the face of those who have these special graces – our bishops. See Statement on Abolition of the Death Penalty Roman Catholic Bishops of Connecticut, January 12, 2005. I have to go with the prediction of those who have a special relationship with the Holy Spirit on this one.

Again, it doesn’t require the laying on of hands to understand what the Church teaches. Dulles is either correct as to fact or not and being or not being a bishop is irrelevant. As far as the bishops of Connecticut, their letter adds nothing to the discussion. They expressed their “considered opposition” and would like the death penalty abolished - and that could happen if our civil laws restricted it but it can never happen as far as the Church is concerned. She will not - because she can not - define it as intrinsically immoral, which is what she would have to do to abolish it.

***I think this is our main disagreement. You seem to deny the teaching authority of all levels of the Magisterium even failing to recognize the sacramental graces God gives them to know His will, preferring your own wits, instead. ***

Quote:
Catholic thinking often applies the concept of “and/both” instead of the Protestant “either/or” in synthesizing seemingly opposing theological issues. I see no reason that the two theologies allowing homicide, legitimate defense and a just state’s right to justly apply the death penalty, cannot work in concert.

The Church teaches that the primary justification for all punishment is retributive justice. She also teaches that the defense of society, along with rehabilitation and deterrence, are valid but secondary objectives of punishment. I also wonder how you can in once sentence call for the abolition of the death penalty and in another recognize the state’s right to apply it. Ender

I did not “in [sic] once sentence call for the abolition of the death penalty and in another recognize the state’s right to apply it.” I referred you to the bishops of Connecticut letter on abolition of the death penalty as refutation to your bold prediction. I have consistently acknowledged the state’s derived and contingent right to apply capital punishment and the Church’s absolute right and duty to define the conditions of that contingency – justice.

 

[Ender]

You have already claimed that you believe what a pope may say in any encyclical is not binding. Therefore, you, as your own authority, pick and choose those lines from those encyclicals which seem to support your bias toward the death penalty.

This is incorrect. What I have done is to cite from 2000 years of Church teaching on the subject and point out specific flaws with 2267. It makes a claim that the traditional teaching of the Church allowed the death penalty* “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” *This claim is false. I have not seen anything to support this contention and I am quite sure that you cannot cite any document that supports it either.

With that methodology, one could (and did) claim the Church in the 16th century had no businsess teaching the evils of slavery.

The question of slavery is irrelevant to this discussion. My comments about capital punishment are either correct or incorrect and they don’t become suspect because of what may or may not be said about slavery. The teaching of the Church on capital punishment was consistent at least as early as 405 through 1969. It was changed in 1995 and the change is at odds with everything that went before and even with what is still taught today.

I think this is our main disagreement. You seem to deny the teaching authority of all levels of the Magisterium even failing to recognize the sacramental graces God gives them to know His will, preferring your own wits, instead.

Not at all; I do recognize their authority. I also recognize its limits and their prudential opinions are not protected by sacramental graces.

I have consistently acknowledged the state’s derived and contingent right to apply capital punishment and the Church’s absolute right and duty to define the conditions of that contingency – justice.

But CCC 2267 says nothing about justice; in fact it simply ignores it. The restriction based on the safety of society is not a statement about justice at all, rather it implies that justice is no longer the primary function of punishment.

[The Catechism] has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. (Karl Keating, 2004)

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

This is incorrect. What I have done is to cite from 2000 years of Church teaching on the subject and point out specific flaws with 2267. It makes a claim that the traditional teaching of the Church allowed the death penalty* “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” *This claim is false. I have not seen anything to support this contention and I am quite sure that you cannot cite any document that supports it either.

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–216) was the first Church Father addressed in particular the purposes of punishment; chief among these were correction of the punished and the general protection of society.
Brugger EC: Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003, p 78

“The end of the Commandment- is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they **give security to **life by repressing outrage and violence.”
Pope Pius V
“Council of Trent: Catechism for Parish Priests”
Execution Of Criminals

The question of slavery is irrelevant to this discussion. My comments about capital punishment are either correct or incorrect and they don’t become suspect because of what may or may not be said about slavery. The teaching of the Church on capital punishment was consistent at least as early as 405 through 1969. It was changed in 1995 and the change is at odds with everything that went before and even with what is still taught today.

I suppose you choose 405 because of St. Augustine’s teaching.

Saint Augustine (354–430) was baptized by Ambrose and followed his line of thinking on the death penalty. Civil authority did have the right to utilize the death penalty, but Christian faith would urge otherwise, hoping for the opportunity of the sinner to repent (Ref. 7, p 89). Yet Augustine’s support of civil coercion of religion would earn him an undeserved reputation as “father of the Inquisition” and allow his work to be used by medieval writers in support of the death penalty (Ref. 9, pp 35–45). There are, indeed, two themes in Augustine’s thought; one is to defend the right of authority to inflict the death penalty, the other is to counsel repeatedly against its actual use.
7. Brugger EC: Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003
9. Megivern JJ: The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. New York: Paulist Press, 1997

When a Christian judge sought his advice on the death penalty, Ambrose advised him that he would “hesitate to give an answer” were it not for the authority of Romans 13:4.10 But his response balances conflicting ideas: "Authority, you see, has its rights; but compassion has its policy. You will be excused if you do it; but you will be admired if you refrain when you might have done it.
Ambrose: Letter 50 to Studius, in From Irenaeus to Grotius, A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought 100–1625. Edited by O’Donovan O, O’Donovan JL. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, p 83

James J. Megivern summarizes Ambrose’s stance: “A truly forgiving spirit cannot help but look disapprovingly on the very idea of the death penalty, which is in effect an act of total despair in the potential of the individual to repent, to be rehabilitated, and/or to make meaningful reparations”
Megivern JJ: The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. New York: Paulist Press, 1997, p 31

Not at all; I do recognize their authority. I also recognize its limits and their prudential opinions are not protected by sacramental graces.
But CCC 2267 says nothing about justice; in fact it simply ignores it. The restriction based on the safety of society is not a statement about justice at all, rather it implies that justice is no longer the primary function of punishment.

The teaching is not ignored; read CCC 2266.

[The Catechism] *has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. *Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. (Karl Keating, 2004)

Ender

Karl is certainly entitled to his opinion.

 

[Ender]

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–216) was the first Church Father addressed in particular the purposes of punishment; chief among these were correction of the punished and the general protection of society. Brugger EC:

I would be interested in exactly what Clement said … but his opinion (he was a theologian, not a pope or even a bishop) is not to be confused with Church teaching. In any event the Church today cites retributive justice as the primary objective of punishment and has said this at least since Aquinas.

“The end of the Commandment- is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they **give security to **life by repressing outrage and violence.”

You should probably have stayed away from the Catechism of Trent since it is quite plain in its support for capital punishment. Regarding the above comment, I am sure that the end of the Commandment is the security of human life but we are talking about the end of punishment - different thing. What Trent says about the two is this: *“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.” *It says that executing the criminal is an act of paramount obedience to the Commandment; I think it hardly gets much plainer than that.

I suppose you choose 405 because of St. Augustine’s teaching.

No, I chose it because that was when Pope Innocent I made what appears to be the first official papal announcement on the subject. In support of it I might add. (See post #255)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ambrose: *Letter 50 to Studius,… *James J. Megivern summarizes Ambrose’s stance: “A truly forgiving spirit cannot help but look disapprovingly on the very idea of the death penalty, which is in effect an act of total despair in the potential of the individual to repent, to be rehabilitated, and/or to make meaningful reparations”

This summary is not justified by what Ambrose wrote, but I will grant that his letter links the incident of the woman to be stoned and capital punishment (the first time I have seen this). Ambrose is concerned with redemption (not protection) even as he acknowledges the magistrate’s right to impose the death penalty.

You see therefore both what power your commission gives you, and also whither mercy would lead you (Letter 25)

In any event, rehabilitation (Ambrose’s concern) is one of the four legitimate objectives of punishment but, as with the protection of society, it is a secondary concern. Both Aquinas and Augustine address the question of mercy and make the point that mercy is not automatic nor does it necessarily override justice.

Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason,* when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded,** whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant."* (Aquinas, ST II/II 30,3)

The teaching is not ignored; read CCC 2266.

2266 states:* “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”* That is, the primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice. Having just said that, however, 2267 bases its prohibition of capital punishment on just one of the secondary objectives - the protection of society - and ignores the other three objectives, including the primary one. The ironic thing here is that the question of deterrence (another secondary objective) could actually reverse the restriction of 2267. The question of the deterrence value of executions is unanswered; neither side has conclusively resolved it, but suppose it turns out that deterrence actually works. Given a protection of society standard this would not merely permit but would require the aggressive use of executions. Since 2267 doesn’t discuss justice (but only protection) in its restriction on executions, surely justice could be equally ignored should protection benefit from an enhanced use of executions.

The protection standard does not merely ignore justice, it renders it irrelevant as the punishment being meted out is based on what the criminal may do in the future, not on what he has done in the past. By this standard we cannot execute someone who has killed in the past; we may do it only if we are fairly sure he will kill in the future. Executions thus become preventative measures divorced from punishment, as Brugger points out: "A careful examination justifies the conclusion that a theoretical foundation is being laid for a substantive revision in the Church’s teaching on the morality of capital punishment. That* revision would teach that capital punishment** as punishment is no longer legitimate*"

Karl is certainly entitled to his opinion.

As is Mr. Brugger but I have been careful to quote only Church sources in discussing what the Church teaches. I cited Keating for his comment on the (prudential) nature of 2267, not for his opinion on what it means.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

I would be interested in exactly what Clement said … but his opinion (he was a theologian, not a pope or even a bishop) is not to be confused with Church teaching. In any event the Church today cites retributive justice as the primary objective of punishment and has said this at least since Aquinas.

You said: “I have not seen anything to support this contention [defend the lives of human beings] and I am quite sure that **you cannot cite any document **that supports it either.”

I give you an early Church Father, someone who conversed with an apostle, and you incredibly argue that Clement’s comment doesn’t pass your muster because “he was a theologian, not a pope or even a bishop.” You, however, prefer Aquinas who, may I remind you, was “a theologian, not a pope or even a bishop.” In citing Tradition, the early Church Fathers have special standing.

And, you probably should stayed away from Aquinas for he argued also that the death penalty finds its justification in protecting the community: “if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community … he may be killed in order to safeguard the common good.” Thomas Aquinas, S. Th., II-11, q. 64, a. 2. It should also be noted that Aquinas’ comment parallels the legitimate defense theology in justifying the application of the death penalty used by JP II in EV.

You should probably have stayed away from the Catechism of Trent since it is quite plain in its support for capital punishment. Regarding the above comment, I am sure that the end of the Commandment is the security of human life but we are talking about the end of punishment - different thing. What Trent says about the two is this: "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." It says that executing the criminal is an act of paramount obedience to the Commandment; I think it hardly gets much plainer than that.

You should probably read the Catechism of Trent more closely. As a final cause, the end purpose of the commandment must apply to all its applications. I gave you the very words from the Catechism of Trent teaching that the end of the death penalty is most certainly in concert with the end of the commandment, “Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence." Did you miss that?

In summary, the above shows your complaint that JP II had no Tradition to support EV in teaching legitimate defense as a just constraint in applying the death penalty is in error.

No, I chose it because that was when Pope Innocent I made what appears to be the first official papal announcement on the subject. In support of it I might add. (See post #255) Ender

Innocent I’s vehicle for this passive and rather tolerant acceptance of the application of the death penalty – a rhetorical question followed by a submissive stance – is an encyclical epistle – a letter written by the Pope to part of the Church, e.g., bishops or laity in a particular country, leaders of religious orders, priests, etc. (Innocent I is replying to the Bishop of Toulouse). Because encyclical epistles are directed to a particular audience within the Church, they receive little attention from those outside the audience to which they are directed.

Innocent’s wording and mode indicate a less than solemn character and formulation.

"As examples of doctrines … one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents …”
Ad Tuendam Fidem

If we are going to track papal epistles, then Nicholas I must also be quoted. In the year 866, Pope Nicholas I took a different stance to Innocent I in his letter to the newly Christianized Bulgarians. Nicholas urges the them to promote life both of body and soul, and to “rescue from death not only the innocent, but also the guilty.”
Nicholas 1, Epist. 97, 25: Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, PL 119, 99 1.