Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Ender]

Every time the death penalty is carried out, the hands of all our people are covered with blood.
Every single time.
Are you willing to live with that?
We are implicated in mass murder worldwide because we allow the slaughter of our fellow human beings, and it doesn’t matter if it is by the abortionist’s or executioner’s hand.
It doesn’t matter if it’s for convenience, honor, defense of society or punishment of the individual.
The death penalty is wrong.
Wrong in one case, wrong in every case, wrong today, wrong tomorrow.

This is a passionate objection to capital punishment but it is based on your personal perspective and not on anything the Church teaches. It is a mistake to lump all killing into the same category and condemn everything as if there were no distinctions. It is the Church which makes the distinctions you are rejecting.

Ender

 

[viveret]

The death penalty is a confounding of vengeance with justice and you know it.
It is irrationality going under the guise of reciprocity-- the devil’s reciprocity.
There is nothing passionate in my position.
It is the more reasonable course.
And it is the right course.
The church accommodates great passion on the issue of abortion.
Why should it seem strange to you that a person who is prolife favors sparing the condemned in our prisons?
If you favor the life of an innocent and choose to be indifferent to the life of that person who is not innocent, you are not taking a Christian stance.
You are taking a Muslim stance. Because Muslims claim to know who is innocent and who is not. And they do indeed give themselves permission to kill and kill all the time.
As Christians, we choose to entertain no such presumption.
The death penalty is wrong in every case.

 

[viveret]

Mercy is the greater part of salvation.
Without it, you have no hope.

 

[pnewton]

The death penalty is a confounding of vengeance with justice and you know it.

Not according to Catholic teaching. The death penalty is allowable as an act of societal protection. The “vengence is mine” argument against the death penalty is a strawman.

 

[dudleysharp]

Every time the death penalty is carried out, the hands of all our people are covered with blood.
Every single time.
Are you willing to live with that?.

Please review:

St. Augustine: “The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, for the representative of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice.” The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21

St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions “frivolous”, citing Exodus 22:18, “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live”. Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)

St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.

God: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell." Matthew 5:17-22.

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit - to God - through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

 

[dudleysharp]

Mercy is the greater part of salvation.
Without it, you have no hope.

Salvation is for eternity. Legal sanction by man is temporal.

Mercy & Redemption
Dudley Sharp

1.) Quaker, biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey:

Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer:

“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” (p. 116).

1. Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.

“The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods.

This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’

The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.” (2)

Some opposing capital punishment ” . . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (2)

Some death penalty opponents “deny the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death.” (2)

1. synopsis of “A Bible Study”.from Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992. Dr. Carey was a Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College.
2. “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,
   domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

 

[Ender]

The death penalty is a confounding of vengeance with justice and you know it.

• The Church has always recognized the right of the state to apply capital punishment and has never equated it with mere vengeance.

It is irrationality going under the guise of reciprocity-- the devil’s reciprocity.

• Again, it is the Church which teaches that the severity of the punishment **must **be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

There is nothing passionate in my position. It is the more reasonable course.

• Yet you have provided no reasons to support it other than your personal opinions.

And it is the right course.

• You will have a hard time demonstrating this based on what the Church teaches.

Why should it seem strange to you that a person who is prolife favors sparing the condemned in our prisons?

• I don’t consider it strange, I consider it misguided.

If you favor the life of an innocent and choose to be indifferent to the life of that person who is not innocent, you are not taking a Christian stance.

• I am not indifferent to life, even that of the guilty. It is precisely because life is sacred that the punishment for murder has been set so high.

The death penalty is wrong in every case.

• This is completely at odds even with what is taught in 2267. The Church disagrees with you.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

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.

Well OK. But I thought we were dealing with truths in the context of Catholic teachings.

To state the obvious, it is EV and the newest CCC that are trying to put the death penalty into current secular standards of security.

You are in error.

Historically, from the beginning of recorded history until today, execution has been seen as a commensurate punishment for the crime of murder.

Biblically, this is also true and, surprisingly, even recognized in this newest CCC

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.”

 

[Betterave]

The Church has never taught this nor is it a logical conclusion based on what the Church does teach.

"Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity." (Aquinas)
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.

Ender

Okay, so the obvious question is: what constitutes “horrible deformity”? Let’s take Aquinas’ approval of capital punishment for theft if you don’t think that obscene pornography is not “horribly deformed.” Do you think that if Kenneth Lay had not had a heart attack, the state should have executed him? Aquinas apparently would have. (That Enron business was horribly deformed, you have to admit.)

 

[Betterave]

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?

No, murder is not less foul, that is not at all the point I’ve been making. The crime that was commensurate in one historical setting may not be in another because the general standards of punishment change, not because the crime changes. (Think of adultery, for example.)

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.

Whether or not that is the case, the context of a “this”-reference should not be intentionally obscured (repeatedly!).

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?

But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one of these cities, the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die. Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you. (Dt 19:11-13)

Given that the Church has not singled out Gen 9:5-6 in the one-sided way you suggest, you should not suggest that she has. There is no question of ignoring Bible passages when we take care to read them intelligently and in context.

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?

2266 does not mention a distinction, but the distinction is an obvious one and it certainly does make sense - even if you choose to ignore my arguments explaining why this is the case.

No, I did not suggest that security should be a ‘higher objective’ than justice. Justice is a much broader concept than retribution, I do hope you recognize. Punishment is one aspect of justice. Retribution is one aspect of punishment. In any case, since security may be positively linked to effective retribution it wouldn’t make sense to oppose the one to the other, so I don’t know where you came up with this suggestion.

 

[Betterave]

Well OK. But I thought we were dealing with truths in the context of Catholic teachings.

To state the obvious, it is EV and the newest CCC that are trying to put the death penalty into current secular standards of security.

You are in error.

Historically, from the beginning of recorded history until today, execution has been seen as a commensurate punishment for the crime of murder.

Biblically, this is also true and, surprisingly, even recognized in this newest CCC

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.”

Well, Dudley, I think you are in error, so…

Have you ever read Newman’s essay on the development of christian doctrine? (I think it was called something like Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and it’s available on-line.)

 

[dudleysharp]

Let’s take Aquinas’ approval of capital punishment for theft if you don’t think that obscene pornography is not “horribly deformed.” Do you think that if Kenneth Lay had not had a heart attack, the state should have executed him? Aquinas apparently would have. (That Enron business was horribly deformed, you have to admit.)

Betterave:

Apparantly, you have never understood what Ender has articulated in nearly all of his posts, which is, it isn’t what Ender thinks, it is what Church teachings are and the differences between fallible prudential judgements and infallible Church teachings.

There are much better examples that what Aquinas taught. Let’s look at the Word of God and see what they may mean, in the context of the discussion.

God: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell." Matthew 5:17-22.

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit - to God - through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

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.”

If you are a religious person and believe in the Word of God, what do all of these mean to you?

Are these instructive to Christians?

How?

 

[dudleysharp]

Well, Dudley, I think you are in error, so…

Have you ever read Newman’s essay on the development of christian doctrine? (I think it was called something like Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and it’s available on-line.)

Thank you.

We have been through this nearly countles times.

I don’t think Newman would approve of an error filled prudential judgement as an acceptable develoment of Christian doctrine.

Even Pope Benedict has stated that Catholics can disagree with the Church on the death penalty, based upon EV and its amendment into the CCC. Rationally, that recognizes that this newest teaching may be in error. The problems are very obvious.

You have never identified my wrror, but yours has been identified.

 

[Ender]

Betterave:

Let’s take Aquinas’ approval of capital punishment for theft

The Church has no teaching on the application of capital punishment to thieves. She does, however, have one on the application of capital punishment to murderers.

No, murder is not less foul, that is not at all the point I’ve been making. The crime that was commensurate in one historical setting may not be in another because the general standards of punishment change, not because the crime changes. (Think of adultery, for example.)

The significance of the crime of murder cannot change with the times or in different historical settings nor can the standard of punishment, as it has been set “for all time.” Whatever may be true of other crimes is irrelevant.

Given that the Church has not singled out Gen 9:5-6 in the one-sided way you suggest, you should not suggest that she has.

How many references are required before you admit that this is exactly how she perceives Gen 9:5-6? Those passages are the very basis for all that is said about capital punishment in the Catechism of Trent, and are clearly acknowledged today as the foundation of the Church’s position.

*“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)

2266 does not mention a distinction, but the distinction is an obvious one and it certainly does make sense - even if you choose to ignore my arguments explaining why this is the case.

The Church teaches that there are four objectives of punishment and that retribution is primary. Are you suggesting that in this teaching she is actually referring to the objectives of divine punishment? Surely you jest.

No, I did not suggest that security should be a ‘higher objective’ than justice. Justice is a much broader concept than retribution, I do hope you recognize.

Actually, I do. Justice* “in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, ‘Rendering to each one his right’”*. Furthermore, “We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.” (Aquinas) Since we are discussing punishment specifically the broader concepts of justice are irrelevant.

Punishment is one aspect of justice. Retribution is one aspect of punishment. In any case, since security may be positively linked to effective retribution it wouldn’t make sense to oppose the one to the other, so I don’t know where you came up with this suggestion.

I have never opposed one to the other so it’s not surprising you don’t know where I came up with the suggestion: I didn’t. Nor can security in any way be linked to retribution, for while they are not opposed neither are they similar. Retribution is directed at correcting what was done in the past; security is directed at controlling what may be done in the future. Their focus and goals are entirely separate and distinct.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

Let’s see which of these contradicts EV and the CCC and supports the notion that execution must be the penal norm in cases of murder and only in cases of murder, as Ender and Dudley claim should be the case, based on the ‘clear’ teaching of the Church:

dudleysharp wrote:

Please review:

St. Augustine: “The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, for the representative of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice.” The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21
NO

St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions “frivolous”, citing Exodus 22:18, “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live”. Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146
NO

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.
NO

Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)
NO

St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.
NO

God: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4
NO

Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11
NO

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43
NO - MUCH THE OPPOSITE - HERE A THIEF IS BEING JUSTLY CRUCIFIED (SUGGESTING, PERHAPS, THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR MODERN STATES TO RESURRECT CRUCIFIXION AND APPLY IT TO THIEVES AS WELL AS MURDERERS?)

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell." Matthew 5:17-22.
NO

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit - to God - through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.
NO

 

[Betterave]

…continued:

dudleysharp wrote:

Betterave:

Apparantly, you have never understood what Ender has articulated in nearly all of his posts, which is, it isn’t what Ender thinks, it is what Church teachings are and the differences between fallible prudential judgements and infallible Church teachings.

There are much better examples that what Aquinas taught. Let’s look at the Word of God and see what they may mean, in the context of the discussion.

God: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4
NO

Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11
NO

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell." Matthew 5:17-22.
NO

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit - to God - through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.
NO

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.”
NO

If you are a religious person and believe in the Word of God, what do all of these mean to you?
Are these instructive to Christians?
How?

Your first question is far too broad to be answerable here. Yes, they are instructive to Christians. Your third question is again too broad.

 

[Betterave]

continued…

Ender wrote:

*“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)
NO

“We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.” (Aquinas)
NO

So where’s this Church teaching?

 

[Betterave]

Thank you.

We have been through this nearly countles times.

I don’t think Newman would approve of an error filled prudential judgement as an acceptable develoment of Christian doctrine.

Even Pope Benedict has stated that Catholics can disagree with the Church on the death penalty, based upon EV and its amendment into the CCC. Rationally, that recognizes that this newest teaching may be in error. The problems are very obvious.

If only they were! Your reading here is nonsensical. If the Church teaches something prudentially, then it is not a matter of doctrine, and the only error it may commit is a prudential one… Yet you have repeatedly claimed that the error is a doctrinal one, a contradiction of the constant and irreformable teaching of the Church!

You have never identified my wrror, but yours has been identified.

You haven’t *really *been through it even once until you actually understand the argument that is being made against you and stop simply begging the question (“you are in error” - right, given that I disagree with you and you are not in error - but I don’t accept that claim!).

 

[Betterave]

The Church has no teaching on the application of capital punishment to thieves. She does, however, have one on the application of capital punishment to murderers.

Yes, as we’ve seen.

The significance of the crime of murder cannot change with the times or in different historical settings nor can the standard of punishment, as it has been set “for all time.” Whatever may be true of other crimes is irrelevant.

That’s your personal interpretation, not Church teaching. The Church has never condemned any country for abolishing the death penalty (or even mildly objected, for that matter!). It good to refer to texts, but you need to try to be sensitive to the broader context of reality as well.

How many references are required before you admit that this is exactly how she perceives Gen 9:5-6? Those passages are the very basis for all that is said about capital punishment in the Catechism of Trent, and are clearly acknowledged today as the foundation of the Church’s position.

One would be nice (for starters).

*“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)

Note what the good Cardinal does NOT say: If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty is the best way to exercise 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). You are the one saying that and erroneously claiming that Cardinal Dulles supports you in doing so.

The Church teaches that there are four objectives of punishment and that retribution is primary. Are you suggesting that in this teaching she is actually referring to the objectives of divine punishment? Surely you jest.

Surely I jest? Why would you say that?

Actually, I do. Justice* “in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, ‘Rendering to each one his right’”*. Furthermore, “We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.” (Aquinas) Since we are discussing punishment specifically the broader concepts of justice are irrelevant.

The point you are missing is that we are discussing not just punishment per se, but social policy on punishment.

I have never opposed one to the other so it’s not surprising you don’t know where I came up with the suggestion: I didn’t.

Actually, yes you did. The question you asked me clearly implied the suggestion.

Nor can security in any way be linked to retribution, for while they are not opposed neither are they similar. Retribution is directed at correcting what was done in the past; security is directed at controlling what may be done in the future. Their focus and goals are entirely separate and distinct.

That’s nonsense (you’re also contradicting Dudley here). The two may obviously be causally linked. A particular form of retribution (e.g., execution) may obviously produce better security. Thus a prudential judgment about security may well inform a prudential judgment about the appropriate form retribution.

 

[Ender]

Let’s see which of these contradicts EV and the CCC and supports the notion that execution must be the penal norm in cases of murder and only in cases of murder, as Ender and Dudley claim should be the case, based on the ‘clear’ teaching of the Church:

This is a somewhat depressing comment to read. You seem quite intelligent enough to understand my comments so when you make such a poor representation of my position I have a hard time understanding why.

Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.
NO

Your comment deserves high marks for clarity but rather lower ones for persuasiveness, especially as this comment does support the position that for some crimes the criminal should be executed.

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.”
NO

I’d like a little more than just “no” here; how do you interpret this section?

Ender