Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[dudleysharp]

The phrase “his life is forfeit” need not imply a *requirement *of execution. That is a point that is being consistently ignored.

Catholics are not free to simply dismiss as error and contradiction, even if there is much opinion in the tradition of the Church against it.

“is forfeit” doesn’t imply anything. It is not an implication, but a truth. It’s not “may be” forfeit or “sometimes” forfeit, but “is” forfeit.

No one is is freely dismissing the opinion in 2267 as error and contradiciton. However, in 2267, the opinion “is” contradiciton and error.

These are points that are being consistently ignored. Just as:

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

The definitons and understanding of “shall” are well known.

2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

Both secular and religious governments are responsible for defending the lives of their citizens. “The common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”.

The definitions of “require” and “unable” are clear in meaning and in context.

It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor - by definition, the death penalty.

 

[dudleysharp]

You have tended to avoid the excesses of Dudley. But the issue in question inevitably calls for a prudential judgment, does it not? Do you fully support Dudley’s comments about the author of EV’s ignorance of the facts, as if John Paul II had no experience of the horror of murder, and no grounds for his views on just responses to it but ignorance!? (I suspect that there is no grounds for such condescending claims but arrogance and ignorance.)

I have tried, but may have failed, to be conservative in my comments. Please identify what you find to be my excesses.

The only Catechism section I have ever discussed as having contradiciton and error in it is 2267.

Potentially, there are two problems with prudential judgment. First, should prudential judgements be allowed into a Catechism? Secondly, when a prudential judgement is placed into a Catechism and it has contradiction and error in it, what must the Church do?

If you think there is “no” grounds for what I find as clear problems with EV and CCC, as detailed below, please correct. I think your “no” grounds comment is excessive and in error.

Please review and present your comments.

“Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty”
homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx

I find the same problems, repeated within the CCC as:

2267 "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation and expiation. This cannot and should not be the standard.

This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.

Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.

All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors. (4)

Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities. All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism. (4)

Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)

It has always been so.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. Do the authors of the Catechism have no grasp of reality? (4) Apparently not.

The only known method of rendering a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is execution. “Unable to inflict harm” (2265) has the same meaning as “impossible to do harm”.

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

contd

In addition, there exists the clear conflict between (1) this unprecedented and unjustified restriction on the death penalty and (2) “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” found earlier in this same Catechism.

Which is it? Is the Church going to require “rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” or is the Church going to require that we do everything but render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?

Has a prudential judgement ever been placed in a Catechism, before? If not, the current one would seem to make the reasons clear and would denounce any possible repeat of that error.

Inexcusably absent from consideration, within the Catechism, is any specific discussion of harm to “innocent” murder victims and potential murder victims and the effects on their earthly and eternal lives when we give known murderers the opportunity, too often realized, to harm and murder, again.

It is as if the Church never considered that executed murderers cannot harm, again, but that livings murderers can and do.

Why has the Church chosen to depend upon widely varying and error prone incarceration systems, when the reality is that so many innocents are caused further suffering by known unjust aggressors, because of the failings in those systems?

It appears the Catechism’s (& EV) authors never considered the reality of such sufferring. (3&4)

And why has the Church done this when it commands “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.” ? 2265

Here are the known realities of all unjust aggressors, murderers and other violent offenders. They can morally/criminally/spiritually:
(a) improve, which can mean everything in a spectrum from still quite bad to potential sainthood;
(b) stay the same, a bad result for them and others; or
(c) become worse, a more severe, negative outcome which puts the unjust aggressor and all others even more at risk.

The only way to, humanly, make a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is to execute them. Rationally, factually, there is no other way.

What the Church has done is to reverse its longstanding emphasis on protecting innocents. This Catechism, to the contrary, has decided to give much more deference to guilty murderers than it has for protecting the innocent.

There are at least four Church recognized foundations for criminal sanction; 1) defense of society against the criminal; 2) rehabilitation of the criminal; 3) retribution or the reparation of the disorder caused by the transgression and 4) deterrence.

There is a 5th, biblical instruction, theology, tradition and reason which must guide the 4 others. They aren’t mentioned, because they are a constant.

All of those foundations are better met with the death penalty than by lesser sanctions.

The complaint that this Catechism has removed just retribution (and therefore, balance, redress, correction, etc.) from punishment is based upon the reality that 2267 has allowed an improper and inaccurate evaluation of secular penal standards to dominate over just retribution.

While the first sections of this chapter (through 2266) detail the importance of retribution, as reviewed, above, the later section (2267) provides little time for justice, which must dominate the utilitarian aspect of protection. The Church miscalculates in 2267 and fails to realize the rational reality that innocents are more protected when murderers are executed, even though the Church enforces that reality within 2265.

“While punishment does serve the purpose of protecting society, it also and primarily serves the function of manifesting the transcendent, divine order of justice–an order which the state executes by divine delegation.” " . . . it may be argued that such a conception of punishment, rooted in the restoration of moral balance, always presupposes an awareness of the superordinate dignity of the common good as defined by transcendent moral truths." (5)

“Yet the presence of two purposes–retributive and medicinal justice–ought not obscure the priority of assigning punishment proportionate to the crime (just retribution) insofar as the limited jurisdiction of human justice allows. The end is not punishment, but rather the manifestation of a divine norm of retributive justice, which entails proportionate equality vis-à-vis the crime.” “The medicinal goal is not tantamount merely to stopping future evildoing, but rather entails manifesting the truth of the divine order of justice both to the criminal and to society at large. This means that mere stopping of further disorder is insufficient to constitute the full medicinal character of justice, which purpose alike and primarily entails the manifestation of the truth. Thus this foundational sense of the medicinality of penalty is retained even when others drop away.” (6)

Justice is the soul of sanction. All other results - protection, safety and deterrence - although beneficial and desired, are a result of sanction, not the reasons for it. Rehabilitation/redress/correction/redemption/expiation have a foundation in just retribution, but depend upon the free will choice of the criminal who we hope will, by grace, avail themselves of those choices.

 

[pnewton]

It appears the Catechism’s (& EV) authors never considered the reality of such sufferring. (3&4).

You have got to be kidding. The Venerable John Paul II could write the book on suffering.

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation and expiation. This cannot and should not be the standard…

This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. Do the authors of the Catechism have no grasp of reality? (4) Apparently not.

It can be the standard. It** is **the standard in catholic moral teaching. For Catholics, they can accept this moral teaching, or dissent from it. You are not the first crusader to say that Catholic leadership has no grasp on reality. It is a common thread among those who engage in Catholic dissent. Catholics have a choice to listen to the teaching of the Church and understand moral issues from the mind of the Holy Spirit, or listen to those who appoints themselves advocate for the death penalty.

Yes, the Catechism has a grasp on reality. It is a reality that transcends the need for retribution and sees all life as having intrinsic value. Thus, if the death penalty can be used only to preserve life. Suffering is a separate issue and is dealt with elsewhere. It is not germaine to a Catholic understanding of the death penalty.

 

[dudleysharp]

You have got to be kidding. The Venerable John Paul II could write the book on suffering.

Yes, the Catechism has a grasp on reality. It is a reality that transcends the need for retribution and sees all life as having intrinsic value. Thus, if the death penalty can be used only to preserve life. Suffering is a separate issue and is dealt with elsewhere. It is not germaine to a Catholic understanding of the death penalty.

PNEWTON:

You have no grasp of the realities here.

The reason I was astounded by PJPII’s EV is because he reversed the realities of defense of society. His position provided less defense of society and more harm to innocents.

You write: The Catechism “transends the need for retribution.”

No, it does not. Have you read it?

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

Both secular and religious governments are responsible for defending the lives of their citizens. “The common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”.

The definitions of “require” and “unable” are clear in meaning and in context.

It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor - by definition, the death penalty.

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.”

The “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm.” 2265

2266: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

Biblically, theologically, traditionally and rationally, the death penalty is “commensurate with the gravity of the crime” of murder. There are numerous passages within the New and Old Testaments where the imposition of the death penalty, in the Words of God, Jesus, or in the context of the Holy Spirit, are mandatory, proportional and/or commensurate. In addition, the works of biblical scholars and theologians through 2010 provide a foundation of death penalty support which, in breadth and depth, overwhelms the writings in conflict with that support (Reference 2, below).

2266: “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.”

The Catechism states: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” 2266 This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.

 

[o_mlly]

…

So, how can one reconcile these conflicting ideas?

Simple.

If you believe the death penalty is never a remedy available to the state, your belief is not “Catholic.”

If you believe the death penalty is a remedy of first choice to the state, your belief is not “Catholic.”

If you believe the death penalty is a remedy of last choice to the state, your belief is “Catholic.”

If you think a pope or bishop will in the future approve as justified any particular use of the death penalty, you are probably wrong.

If you think a pope or bishop will in the future dis-approve as justified any particular use of the death penalty, you are probably right.

 

[pnewton]

PNEWTON:

You have no grasp of the realities here.

The reason I was astounded by PJPII’s EV is because he reversed the realities of defense of society.

Then I am in good company. And yes, I have read the CCC cover to cover three times. I have the 2266 and 2267 practically memorized. I, like those who compliled the CCC do not see this contradiction you do.

It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor - by definition, the death penalty.

Here is the** whole** section:

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

You take a phrase out of the section on self-defense and paste it into the paragraph on the death penalty. You can not proof-text the CCC. That is a reality I grasp. A person who is not in the process of committing aggression is not an aggressor in this sense. Self-defense by its nature is not allowed to be pre-emptive (i.e. done to prevent a future aggression.) If someone threatens you, you can not go hunt him down to keep him from following through with his threat.

 

[dudleysharp]

You take a phrase out of the section on self-defense and paste it into the paragraph on the death penalty. You can not proof-text the CCC. A person who is not in the process of committing aggression is not an aggressor in this sense. Self-defense by its nature is not allowed to be pre-emptive (i.e. done to prevent a future aggression.) If someone threatens you, you can not go hunt him down to keep him from following through with his threat.

First, you avoid two of the major points, that we both commented on:

The reason I was astounded by PJPII’s EV is because he reversed the realities of defense of society. His position provided less defense of society and more harm to innocents.

Then, that error was wrongly amended into the CCC.

Then you said that the Church had transcended retribution.

No, the Church has never made a claim of transcending retribution. It can’t.

What the CCC is, now, saying is that only one form of retribution, the death penalty, must be limited because we have the means to defend society without it.

There is no limitation of other retributive sanctions.

But a major position change, such as this, can never be based soley on a current, wildly unequal standard of penal security, when the evidence is that more innocent lives will be lost without the death penalty and even if penal security was equal with incarceration as with execution.

Why?

Both CCC and EV failed to consider 1) the additional harm to innocents by allowing murderers to live and how it lessens defense of society and 2) that this revision overrode justice, retribution, just desserts, redress and commenserate punishments as the foundation for sanction and replaced that only with the self defense aspects of a sanction, which is not the reason for sanction, but an outcome of it.

Please address those issues.

Your complaint is well founded, re my using self defense in the same context as the death penalty, within the CCC.

Thank you. I will be clear in the future.

But you don’t seem to realize the error that you, EV and the CCC have made.

First, Genesis is clear that death is the required retribution for murder. The CCC enforces this.

Secondly, the Majesterium has repeatedly confirmed that with historical teachings, inclusive of 2260.

Thirdly, the CCC repeats many of the teachings of Aquinas and Augustine as authoritative footnotes/references, throughout the CCC, yet the CCC, incredibly, eliminates those readings which claim that the death penalty should be used to preserve future peace and defense within society, just as previous Church teachings do.

I think this is a product of PJPII’s personal bias against the death penalty, which wrongly made it into the Catechism.

I will clarify these point in a revision of my essay. Thank you, again.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave:

I am not sure what you are questioning.

Redressing the disorder in an intergral component of retributive justice. They are inseperable.

We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime of the aggressor and hold them accountable for that crime/sin/disorder by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice, retributive justice, just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

To “redress the disorder” has various relevant meanings – to make amends, to correct the balance, to set right, to remedy or to rectify, even reform, all of which may be used in the context of justice, just retribution or just deserts (and similar concepts), all of which have relevance in the context of the religious.

I don’t disagree with any of this, except the implied claim that there is a strict requirement of execution of murderers entailed by the requirement of the ‘appropriateness’ of penal sanctions.

 

[Betterave]

“is forfeit” doesn’t imply anything. It is not an implication, but a truth. It’s not “may be” forfeit or “sometimes” forfeit, but “is” forfeit.

A simple way to explain this is to note that the lives of unrepentant sinners are ‘forfeit’ (i.e., given up, taken away). But they are not simply ‘killed’ and done away with; we believe they continue to exist (to ‘live’) in a kind of eternal living death in hell. Thus ‘forfeiture of life’ necessarily implies a kind on constraint that is placed upon one’s freedom to dispose of one’s own life. It need not imply a complete removal of life of any kind and, strictly speaking, never does.

No one is is freely dismissing the opinion in 2267 as error and contradiciton. However, in 2267, the opinion “is” contradiciton and error.

These are points that are being consistently ignored. Just as:

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

The definitons and understanding of “shall” are well known.

2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

Both secular and religious governments are responsible for defending the lives of their citizens. “The common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”.

The definitions of “require” and “unable” are clear in meaning and in context.

It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor - by definition, the death penalty.

Based on my explanation above hopefully you can see that you are begging the question here. My point is that your charge of contradiction and error are based on a particular reading of 2267. This reading is not necessary, therefore charity (a foundation of sound exegetical practice) dictates that a different reading be preferred.

It is certainly not a “rational truism” that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm” (i.e., kill again); it is not even an empirical fact. And in any case, it is unreasonable to simply insist upon a strict reading of “unable” in this context, for the rather obvious reasons mentioned above.

 

[Betterave]

I have tried, but may have failed, to be conservative in my comments. Please identify what you find to be my excesses.

I certainly agree with your comment to pnewton that the Catechism does not “transcend the need for retribution.” But I heartily agree with pnewton’s “you’ve got to be kidding” when it comes to your condescending ad hominem remarks about the ‘ignorant’ writers of EV and the CCC (!). What purpose do these remarks even serve? Why not just present your case with the facts and reasons favoring your position? I find much of your position very deserving of consideration, although I think you overestimate the compellingness of your own prudential recommendations and give very short schrift to the opposing view (even to extent of evoking a “you’ve got to be kidding”-type of reaction in several places - hopefully you can recognize which ones based on the comments already made).

p.s.: I have appreciated, learned from, and sympathize with the constructive elements that you have proposed here, so thank you for those contributions.

 

[Betterave]

You have got to be kidding. The Venerable John Paul II could write the book on suffering.

It might be worth keeping in mind that that ‘ignorant’ writer of EV was himself a victim of attempted murder (I assume we all know the story).

 

[MarieaGrace]

Dudley, I wanted you to know this man is almost free today and i know his social worker, he sid he was not very nice but can take walks by his self now and they are ready to let him loose again in society, pray tell what do you think of this?

NewspaperArchive.com/Maine+Deaths! 2 nuns killed, 2 injured in Maine convent attack - The Boston …
2 nuns killed, 2 injured in Maine convent attack - WATERVILLE, Maine – A convent of nine nuns devoted to quiet prayer : Encyclopedia.com.

encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-8367885.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
TWO NUNS KILLED, TWO WOUNDED ATTACKER’S MOTIVE REMAINS UNCLEAR …
TWO NUNS KILLED, TWO WOUNDED ATTACKER’S MOTIVE REMAINS UNCLEAR.(NEWS) - Byline: Associated Press WATERVILLE, Maine – ‘‘Pray for us,’’ : Encyclopedia.com.

encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-72846342.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

 

[Ender]

Self-defense by its nature is not allowed to be pre-emptive (i.e. done to prevent a future aggression.) If someone threatens you, you can not go hunt him down to keep him from following through with his threat.

I agree with you but this raises an interesting question: if self defense may not be pre-emptive then how is it that we may execute someone to “defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”? That is certainly an example of pre-emptive self defense because there is nothing in that statement (or anywhere else in 2267) that talks about the just punishment for the crime already committed, it is solely about preventing the next crime , which is an entirely pre-emptive concern.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I have the 2266 and 2267 practically memorized. I, like those who compliled the CCC do not see this contradiction you do.

Section 2267 is an embarassment and a source of tremendous confusion; it is composed of three sentences and there are problems with all of them.

(1)* The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.*

This statement is factually incorrect. The traditional teaching of the Church never had a defense condition on the use of the death penalty, and there is no teaching in the entire history of the Church that I can find that even mentions such a condition. There is perhaps an obscure comment by an early Father that suggests this but such a concept has never been part of Church teaching, traditional or otherwise.

(3) "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, …’

Any claim that there are no opinions in the Catechism cannot withstand the evidence given by this claim, a claim that not only cannot be proven by moral argument but cannot even be debated on moral grounds. The truth of this statement can only be determined by the studies of social scientists and a close evaluation of criminal statistics. Not only is this an opinion and not Church teaching, there are good reasons to believe it is factually incorrect as well.

(2) "If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

According to 2260 and the Catechism of Trent it is precisely because of the dignity of the human person that the penalty for murder is decreed to be so severe. This part of 2267 turns the command of Gen 9:6 upside down. There, it is because man is made in God’s image that he who murders someone is to be himself executed; here, the dignity of the victim is ignored and it is the life of the murderer that is claimed to be inviolate. There truly is nothing in 2267 that withstands analysis.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

But I heartily agree with pnewton’s “you’ve got to be kidding” when it comes to your condescending ad hominem remarks about the ‘ignorant’ writers of EV and the CCC (!). What purpose do these remarks even serve? Why not just present your case with the facts and reasons favoring your position? I find much of your position very deserving of consideration, although I think you overestimate the compellingness of your own prudential recommendations and give very short schrift to the opposing view. …

p.s.: I have appreciated, learned from, and sympathize with the constructive elements that you have proposed here, so thank you for those contributions.

I thank you and pnewton for the correction. My comments could have been more reserved and wise. I am most appreciative of those comments.

I give very short shrift to the opposing views, invoked in EV and the CCC, because they are contradicted by the facts. I, as everyone, am very concerned about protecting innocent lives. EV and CCC either did not consider the cost to innocents if the death penalty was not invoked or if they did, we can find no evidence of it in those writings.

For me, this was an astounding reversal of the Church’s normative concentration on protecting innocents. The evidence, not contradicted on this board or by the Church is that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

If the Holy See so desired, they could find that thousands upon thousands of innocents are killed every year, because of the problems with worldwide criminal justice systems.

Just in that very small set of murderers that have served on the US death penalty since 1973, the beginning of the modern death penalty era in the US, we find that at least 8% of those on death row had murdered at least one person, prior to committing the additonal murder(s) which put them on death row, or at least 640 additonal innocents murdered.

How many innocents do we have proof have been executed in the US since 1973? Zero.

That is just one example.

2267 cannot stand because it makes prudential errors that contradict established Church teachings.

 

[pnewton]

I agree with you but this raises an interesting question: if self defense may not be pre-emptive then how is it that we may execute someone to “defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”?

Because, again, that is a separate section. We can not proof-text. In exercising a recourse to capital punishment there is already evidence that shows a person committed murder. From a Catholic point of view, the justified execution would also need to include the inability to safely incarcerate.

 

[pnewton]

Section 2267 is an embarassment and a source of tremendous confusion; it is composed of three sentences and there are problems with all of them.

I am not embarrassed by it, but then I do not presume to edit the CCC.

I think we do not give enough credit to those who compile this work. You quote the Council of Trent. I am reasonably certain Pope John Paul II was familiar with the council of Trent, as was all the Curia. Your knowledge (and dudley’s) of Church Tradition may exceed those of the Holy Father and all who contribute to the doctrine of the Church, but I can not count on it. Therefore, I have no option but to limit any defense the death penalty to the what the Catechism allows.

 

[Lapell]

I’d just like to comment on JPII’s words on the death penalty. There seems to be a contradiction.

As has been taught by the Church, the primary purpose of punishment is to redress the order that the crime messed up. Thus, the criminal must accept a punishment for the crime to redress the order, and this is the most important thing in punishment. Everything else, then, is secondary. Correct?

JPII says: The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” He then says:

"Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated."

The non-bolded part is obviously the most important part of the punishment, because he next says the the punishment “also” does these other things. It seems obvious that he is mentioning these other things as secondary to the primary purpose he mentioned first: to redress the order by an adequate punishment.

This makes sense, but it gets odd in the next paragraph. He says:

"It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society."

So, instead of the death penalty being a suitable punishment because it is a just punishment commensurate to the crime, it is a suitable punishment and should be used only when it is necessary to defend society. Thus, in this case of the death penalty, JPII replaces the primary purpose of punishment (justice) with a secondary purpose (defense of society).

So, how can one reconcile these conflicting ideas?

If one repeatedly murders other people and don’t show any intent that he would stop no matter what… then what should one do? Transport him and release him in some no-man’s land?

 

[Ender]

Because, again, that is a separate section. We can not proof-text. In exercising a recourse to capital punishment there is already evidence that shows a person committed murder. From a Catholic point of view, the justified execution would also need to include the inability to safely incarcerate.

It is not a question of proof texting, it is a problem with conflicting ideas. Self defense may not be preemptive. You believe this as do I. 2267, however, allows preemptive self defense; there is simply no other way to understand what the words say. It says it is acceptable to execute someone if that is the only way to keep him from killing again. The punishment is acceptable if it defends against what might be done in the future. How is that not preemptive? Yes, there are separate sections involved and one would reasonably expect them to reinforce one another but that is not the case here where 2267 permits something another section condemns.

Ender