In my heart, I do not view capital punishment as being merciful. If others view capital punishment as being merciful, then that is something they will need to explain to both God and the person that was killed. However, one may want to note the following: The explanation that is used to justify capital punishment will be the same explanation that will be used to justify any punishment they may receive.I think this is a red herring, for both you and Ender. Justice and mercy are both good. A legislator is not helped in his deliberations about capital punishment by noting that this is so. It has already been noted, e.g., that capital punishment, in some cases, may in fact be a merciful punishment.
I completely agree with this - since my position is that capital punishment is the just penalty for the crime of murder. The State has the obligation to impose just punishments and, as I understand what the Church teaches, that includes the death penalty.The explanation that is used to justify capital punishment will be the same explanation that will be used to justify any punishment they may receive.
It is not only reasonable, but the simpliest of grammar. The antecedent of pronouns are properly the closest noun prior to the pronoun. It is also logical. If one extended this pronoun to Genesis, then we also must obey the dietary kosher law of draining all blood from meat. This is no where in Catholic teaching. I have not read where either you or any other person who uses the covenants with Noah and Moses obey these dietary restrictions.The conclusion that “this teaching” refers to the simple explanation that “blood is a sacred sign of life” instead of to the quote from Genesis 9:5-6 is just not reasonable.
“Redress the disorder.” That is what is used. Not retribution. I never, never accept proof-texting as an argument in the way you used it. You cut and paste different statements, from different sources, carrying different weight of authority, in different context,to make your syllogism.]But “retribution is the most important” is exactly what the Church has said.
The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (CCC 2266) r
What is the Just punishment for sin?I completely agree with this - since my position is that capital punishment is the just penalty for the crime of murder. The State has the obligation to impose just punishments and, as I understand what the Church teaches, that includes the death penalty.
Ender
Whatever. If the comment applies to the explanation of how the term blood was used in the OT then it is simply absurd. There is no rational purpose for including a claim that “the way they used this term will be true for all time.”It is not only reasonable, but the simpliest of grammar. The antecedent of pronouns are properly the closest noun prior to the pronoun.
Your past contributions have been reasonable ones, whether or not I agreed with them, but this … communication becomes impossible when words lose their simple meanings.It is also logical. If one extended this pronoun to Genesis, then we also must obey the dietary kosher law of draining all blood from meat.
It is true that the Catechism does not use the word retribution; the question is whether that is what is meant by the phrase “redress the disorder”. When I point out from other Church documents that this is in fact what the phrase means, however, you dismiss my comments as proof-texting. This is silly. I have taken nothing out of context and the meaning of the comments I cite is clear. You find yourself in disagreement with me but you have no means of rebutting my argument - so you simply ignore it. If quoting other Church documents is not allowed then how are we to proceed? When did the rule get passed that we can quote only the Catechism? This debate has degenerated into a word game; it’s like debating with Clinton over what the definition of “is” is.“Redress the disorder.” That is what is used. Not retribution.
One way to test our understanding is to see whether it holds up to everything the Church says. This is why I quote so many sources. My explanation satisfies them all; yours clearly does not.Catholics are not supposed to try an prove what they believe. They are supposed to understand what the Church is teaching.
"Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict* penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.***" (CCC 2266)What is the Just punishment for sin?
What the Church says is found in the pages of the Catechism. What members of the Church have said, is found in your quotes. Surely you can understand this grammatical distinction.One way to test our understanding is to see whether it holds up to everything the Church says. This is why I quote so many sources. My explanation satisfies them all; yours clearly does not.
Ender
Thank you for providing the above quotes. I would also like to include the following:"Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict* penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.***" (CCC 2266)
"Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments." (Aquinas, ST I/II 87, 3 ad 1)
“A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction" (Pius XII)
*“The impartial and unchangeable justice of God metes out reward for good deeds and punishment for sin.” *(Leo XIII)
“Regarding criminal punishment, retribution is a demand of justice whereby the criminal is compelled to render his proper due in satisfaction of the order violated by his actions.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1317, 6th Ed 1990)
Ender
But this citation comes with your own interpretation; my citations were the interpretations which the Church provides. I would make no attempt to interpret what this passage means regarding the question of capital punishment and I am aware of no instance where the Church links the two. I’m not providing my own opinions; I’m repeating what the Church has said.Thank you for providing the above quotes. I would also like to include the following:
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Surely I do understand it, but since morality does not change over time or place one would expect to find that what the Church said agrees with what she says, especially as what she said was unchanged for nearly two millennia. What we find, however, is that this is not the case as what is said in the current Catechism is inconsistent with what she had traditionally taught. Worse, what is presented in 2267 is not even consistent with what is presented in 2260-2266.What the Church says is found in the pages of the Catechism. What members of the Church have said, is found in your quotes. Surely you can understand this grammatical distinction.
Ender; your whole premise in this thread seems be at complete odds with what Pope John Paul II wrote in the Catechism concern his views and wisdom in speaking of 2267.Surely I do understand it, but since morality does not change over time or place one would expect to find that what the Church said agrees with what she says, especially as what she said was unchanged for nearly two millennia. What we find, however, is that this is not the case as what is said in the current Catechism is inconsistent with what she had traditionally taught. Worse, what is presented in 2267 is not even consistent with what is presented in 2260-2266.
Ender
For the most part I would agree with you on this to a point. If the hard stance in your views that you see that Capital Punishment must be rigorously maintained in the moral views of the Catholic Church that as most view cannot be changed.morality does not change over time or place one would expect to find that what the Church said agrees with what she says, especially as what she said was unchanged for nearly two millennia.
** I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."**
I strongly believe that JPII’s comments represent his opinion about the advisability of using capital punishment in current social conditions. If it is opinion then it is not doctrine and Catholics may disagree with it (a point Cardinal Ratzinger made).Ender; your whole premise in this thread seems be at complete odds with what Pope John Paul II wrote in the Catechism concern his views and wisdom in speaking of 2267.
Because (if) it is opinion it should not be treated as doctrine; we should accept it for what it is and recognize that, as doctrine, it would repudiate all that the Church had taught about capital punishment for pretty much her entire history. Second, yes, I believe that he was mistaken in his opinion. The Church has always based her position on the need for capital punishment on Genesis 9:6, which explains that the penalty for murder is death *because *man is made in the image of God. This explains why, even as support for the death penalty was generally diminishing, it was strongest within Christian enclaves. We have reversed the meaning of that passage from “we must execute the guilty because the life he took was sacred” to “we may not execute the guilty because his life is sacred”.Therefore in your estimation and wisdom you strongly believe Pope John Paul II to be in error.
*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). * (Cardinal Dulles, 2002)If the hard stance in your views that you see that Capital Punishment must be rigorously maintained in the moral views of the Catholic Church that as most view cannot be changed.
*Their [the pope and bishops] * prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Dulles, 2001)In view of my support of Pope John Paul II assertion of 2267 I propose you read here in Matthew Chapter 16: Where Jesus declares to Peter the first Pope and all papal successors after him;
I strongly believe that JPII’s comments represent his opinion about the advisability of using capital punishment in current social conditions. If it is opinion then it is not doctrine and Catholics may disagree with it (a point Cardinal Ratzinger made).
Because (if) it is opinion it should not be treated as doctrine; we should accept it for what it is and recognize that, as doctrine, it would repudiate all that the Church had taught about capital punishment for pretty much her entire history. Second, yes, I believe that he was mistaken in his opinion. The Church has always based her position on the need for capital punishment on Genesis 9:6, which explains that the penalty for murder is death *because *man is made in the image of God. This explains why, even as support for the death penalty was generally diminishing, it was strongest within Christian enclaves. We have reversed the meaning of that passage from “we must execute the guilty because the life he took was sacred” to “we may not execute the guilty because his life is sacred”.
*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). * (Cardinal Dulles, 2002)
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. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)
*Their [the pope and bishops] * prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Dulles, 2001)
Ender
I won’t contradict the main thrust of your statement here. However; can’t you at least admit that what Pope JP-II was trying to express in 2267 that there were alternative moral considerations whereby retributive justice could be undertaken in other ways that didn’t necessarily require the death of hardened criminal guilty of murder in question?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)
This is the point I have trouble with. I don’t believe JPII was really ready to alter Church teaching on justice and redefine the meaning of Genesis 9:6. I believe that his concern was that capital punishment in current society, because of the way it was perceived, caused more problems than it solved. I think his concern was determined by practical considerations and that it was not a reevaluation of the morality of the death penalty.However; can’t you at least admit that what Pope JP-II was trying to express in 2267 that there were alternative moral considerations whereby retributive justice could be undertaken in other ways that didn’t necessarily require the death of hardened criminal guilty of murder in question?
No, it is absolutely not the Church’s position, nor is it mine. I do believe, however, that based on retributive justice alone there are some people who quite literally deserve to be executed because of the nature of their crimes.Not all criminals serving prison time for Murder One are sadistic psychopaths. Is it the moral retributive cause of justice in the Catholic Church to see fit that every person who murders an innocent person deserves an automatic death sentence?
The Church teaches that the punishment must be commensurate to the severity of the crime; she also teaches about extenuating circumstances. I do not deny that justice can sometimes be satisfied - even in murder cases - without executing the offender. My only claim is … sometimes it cannot, and those cases have nothing whatever to do with whether the execution is necessary for defense.I don’t believe this is the stance of the Catholic Church when other modes of retributive justice and punishment can be sought in certain murder cases that don’t require the extreme measure of exacting the death of a criminal who is guilty of murder.
Be careful to distinguish between the obligations of the individual and the duties of the State. The individual is forbidden to seek retribution while the State is obligated to. It was God himself who gave us Genesis 9:6 - “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed” … and it is the Church who adds *“This teaching remains necessary for all time.” *(CCC 2260).Even Jesus Himself had something to say against the old adage “An Eye for an Eye A Tooth for a Tooth”
My own interpretation? OK, if you say so. Though the last time I checked, it appears to me that we will all suffer death in this world as a result of sin. Hey ya know what? Even the murderer will suffer death! So we do not need to worry that Justice will not be served.But this citation comes with your own interpretation; my citations were the interpretations which the Church provides. I would make no attempt to interpret what this passage means regarding the question of capital punishment and I am aware of no instance where the Church links the two. I’m not providing my own opinions; I’m repeating what the Church has said.
Ender
Yes, they are. I think you and Ender have been ignoring the general context in which the state creates a criminal justice system that has penalties ‘commensurate’ to crimes, commensurate always within a particular historical-cultural context, i.e., a context that has significantly changed over the centuries.I don’t think anyone is questioning that. Are they?
Obviously there no question of a ‘proper’ policy if this is based upon an ‘improper’ evaluation.It is not a matter of if there is more than one way, but if it is proper to all but exclude executions based upon an improper evaluation.
The issue is an improper limitation of a commensurate punishment - a limitation in sharp contrast to both previous Church teachings as well as biblical text which uses the word “shall” from Genesis forward in the context of when we should put murderers to death
Please, when you have a phrase that begins “This teaching…”, don’t drop out potentially inconvenient words.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.”
But that observation obviously misses my point.No one on this forum has yet to proclaim man’s justice as perfect.
I believe that the following text, as within the clear meaning of “shall”, as first reviewed, above, is making a clear case that, with proper evidence, all murderers are to be executed.
This is in the specific context of when punishments should be limited and when they should not.
Numbers 35 NAB
31‘Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. 32‘You shall not take ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to live in the land before the death of the priest. 33‘So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. 34‘You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD am dwelling in the midst of the sons of Israel.’”
If anyone is aware of a scholarly evaluation of this text, please present it.
It is antecedently possible that the Church could have singled out this passage and used it in the way you suggest. But the Church has not in fact done so. (Please provide the evidence if you believe otherwise.) And on the face of it, if you read the passage in context, what you suggest appears not to make sense. If you want me to explain in detail what is wrong with your reading of the passage, please say so.As noted, there appears to be a way out of execution for all crimes except murder.
Again, the justice of the punishment imposed by the state is to be judged within a framework that respects all four criteria, including rehabilitation, defence, and deterrence, and *not *only retribution.
That is the whole point of this debate. Of those 4 the Church has made it very clear that retribution, redress, balance, etc, all of which are part of retribution, is most important of them all.
A concentration of defense/deterrence, to the exlcusion of the others, as in EV, as amended into CCC, is improper. EV and CCC are both stating that based upon the wildly varying standards of secular prison security, or lack thereof, that the implementation of the death penalty shall be limited or ended, because it is not necessary for the defense of society.
What about the defense of established Church teachings, which contradict such a foundation?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Church teaches that the most important purpose served by punishment is retribution. She does not teach that the most important purpose served by secular penal sanctions is retribution. You seem to be consistently failing to distinguish these two notions.In addition, executions are a stronger defense of society than is incarceration, making it more than curious why the Church is contradicting well known Church teachings and establishing a new standard which guarantees more innocents sacrificed so that more murderers shall live.
If that were true, then executions would necessarily be appropriate (they would be necessarily be good policy).This is a valid argument. Surely if there is more than one punishment that satisfies the obligation of justice for a “commensurately severe” penalty then capital punishment would not be necessary. Before getting into this, however, would you agree that if there is not another punishment that is commensurate with the gravity of murder then executions are not just appropriate but necessary?
If he owes a pound of flesh, make him pay his pound of flesh! But no, seriously, taking someone’s last $500 isn’t always a good idea (obviously!).So? Are we to disregard our own obligations to dispense justice because we cannot dispense it perfectly? If a person owes $2000 but can only repay $1000 should he only be fined $500 because, if he can’t repay it all, the amount he does repay doesn’t matter?
For just one example, I refer you to your own quote of Aquinas expressing approval for the execution of thieves.Different standards? What do you refer to here?
No, the structure of my argument is bedrock basic logic. In *your *example, there *can *be two different winners - for example, if there are two races - so the implication you suggest still does not hold.This is tied to the first point above so I’ll wait for your response to my question there before going on with this. Regarding “P and not-P”: “P is the winner” surely implies “not-P is the loser”; the structure of your argument is not valid in all cases.
No, it has been… apparently not in a way that you’re prepared to accept, but I’ll keep trying.No, it has not, which is why I keep asking it.
That the norm of retribution is not the only one being applied. If it were, execution of those who produce and distribute obscene pornography would be perfectly appropriate. All mortal sins would be punishable as such.No. What point are you trying to make here?
I don’t know what you mean by “validity” here, but with that caveat I have to say that your statement appears to be false in the relevant context here.If a punishment is just it is valid (but not ideal) even if it fails in deterrence, defense, and rehabilitation; if it succeeds in deterrence, defense, and rehabilitation but is unjust it is invalid. It is justice that determines the validity of a punishment, not the three secondary objectives.
The Church has never taught this nor is it a logical conclusion based on what the Church does teach.That the norm of retribution is not the only one being applied. If it were, execution of those who produce and distribute obscene pornography would be perfectly appropriate. All mortal sins would be punishable as such.
Ender: If a punishment is just it is valid (but not ideal) even if it fails in deterrence, defense, and rehabilitation; if it succeeds in deterrence, defense, and rehabilitation but is unjust it is invalid. It is justice that determines the validity of a punishment, not the three secondary objectives.
By using “valid” I was simply trying to find an unobjectionable word to describe a morally acceptable punishment. Since you disagree with my statement it would be helpful if you would explain why.Betterave: I don’t know what you mean by “validity” here, but with that caveat I have to say that your statement appears to be false in the relevant context here.
Is murder somehow less foul today than 100 years ago? If the crime is the same today, how can a punishment that was commensurate before be incommensurate now? What new penalties do we now employ that were unavailable to our predecessors?Yes, they are. I think you and Ender have been ignoring the general context in which the state creates a criminal justice system that has penalties ‘commensurate’ to crimes, commensurate always within a particular historical-cultural context, i.e., a context that has significantly changed over the centuries.
The words that were not included are not significant to the point being made. The teaching that is necessary for all time is Gen 9:5-6, not the explanation of how “blood” is used in the passage.Please, when you have a phrase that begins “This teaching…”, don’t drop out potentially inconvenient words.
Given that the Church has singled out Gen 9:5-6, that should be enough to make the point, however there are any number of other passages that make the point as well and surely you don’t hold that they should all be ignored?It is antecedently possible that the Church could have singled out this passage and used it in the way you suggest. But the Church has not in fact done so.
Actually, that is just what she teaches; it is precisely the meaning of 2266. She makes no distinction between human and divine punishment in the objectives of punishment itself. Nor would it make any sense to do so - or do you suggest that we should make security a higher objective than justice in secular law?Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Church teaches that the most important purpose served by punishment is retribution. She does not teach that the most important purpose served by secular penal sanctions is retribution.