The question may be obvious but I consider it irrelevant; I am trying to establish a principle, not figure out in which specific cases it may apply. I claim that there are crimes for which the only just punishment is death. If that claim is wrong then we don’t need to concern ourselves with specific examples and if it is right then the point is made and 2267 is found to be unsupportable.
One of the most frequently quoted passages in Scripture, to be found in one encyclical after another, is Gen 9:6, as this establishes the sacredness of human life: it is “made in the image of God.”
How very “spirit of Vatican II”-ish. When the plain teachings become too much to rebut, just dismiss them in favor of the “broader context of reality.”
Well this is disingenuous. I’ve already cited Cardinal Dulles, and entire sections of the Catechism of Trent referring specifically to those passages. Perhaps you see fit to ignore them as not being relevant to the “broader context of reality.”
Ah, argument from absence. You invent a phrase you suppose to be meaningful, point out that it isn’t there, and claim “Aha”. The phrase is irrelevant. The significance of Dulles’ remarks was the specific reference to Gen 9:5-6 in the context of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty.
I’m not. I’m discussing the Church’s teachings on punishment.
This is true (except for the nonsense part) but it’s not the point. As both retribution and protection are valid objectives of punishment they can both be validly considered in determining the appropriate punishment, nonetheless they have completely separate objectives. What 2267 says is that since executions are not necessary to provide security they are not necessary for retributive purposes either, but retribution has its own standard that must be met regardless of whether or not those of security are satisfied.
Ender, I’ll assume that it is not your intention simply to be hypocritical here and ask you to explain what is wrong with my representation of your position:
You push my careful comments over the edge with the way you use terms like “all” and “only.” I use those terms, but not that way.
Bear in mind that as Catholics, we are to understand all Scripture, which is a Church document, in light of the teaching of the Church. In any case, the Law given specifically to Moses for the people of Israel does not extend to the Church. There is no question that murder is deserving of death, just as sin is deserving of Hell. Yet we do not expect that all will go to Hell. For justice is always balanced by mercy.
Ender, Betterave and pnewton:
There is no doubt that those words mean … just what they say. This isn’t rocket science. However the fact that the meaning is obvious does not also mean that the Church finds those words binding on us today. I am willing to cite scripture only if the Church cites it … which is why I focus so much on Gen 9:5-6, not just because the Church refers to it so frequently but because she has referred to it in specifically the context of capital punishment.
Again, the meaning is obvious. The significance of the passage comes from the significance it is given by the Church, which was fully set forth in the Catechism of Trent.
I find the inclusion of 2260 utterly baffling. It says essentially what was said in the Catechism of Trent and then affirms that it is not just true but necessary for all time. And then comes 2267 which suggests we should ignore what we just read. I have no explanation for this.
Capital punishment cannot be justified by the defense of society criterion so I don’t give it much thought. The effectiveness of different approaches is not in any event a moral question - determining what works best calls for entirely prudential calculations.
I think that has been accepted by all, at this point, as even Pope Benedict agrees.
Here is the whole passage:
The Pharisees were questioning God on a specific point of the Mosaic Law. They were questioning this because Jesus and His followers (like us today) were not following all the Jewish traditions. Therefore, Jesus quoted from the Mosaic Law.
I did read the whole text and looked up the interpretations of it.
You are right. I won’t. You asked a question of me and I answered. You gave a general “every translation disagrees with” type of answer. I took you are your word as wanting an answer. I will not waste more time.
You accuse me of proof texting. That’s OK and a reasonable assumption.
A direct challenge to what 2267 does NOT directly say? Smells fishy to me! Does it ‘effectively state’ what you claim it does? Can you try to read what I write and see why it may not? I’m not asking you to change your mind, just make a sincere effort to try to see why.
Ender: 2267 nowhere suggests that murder does not merit death! Please read it:
Execution has never been absolutely necessary to expiate the sin of murder. Do you not recognize that?? Your claim that the socially acceptable degree of punishment for a given crime can never change is patently false, as I have already explained. (You don’t want to advocate killing mother-and-father-cursers too now, do you?
)Ignore for the moment deterrence and rehabilitation (2267 does so this shouldn’t be a problem.) What is meant by “murder merits death”? Obviously in this context it can be merited only by protection or retribution but 2267 says that because of technological advances in protection the need for the use of the death penalty is rare or non-existent. That is, it ties the use of capital punishment solely to protection without any regard given to retribution, but if retribution is not to be considered then it cannot be said that the crime of murder merits death because protection is not directed at redressing the effects of past crimes but solely at preventing future ones.
This is true, and if you want to interpret 2267 as merely advisory then this would be a reasonable position, but in fact that passage is universally interpreted as being virtually an outright ban on capital punishment, not a warning of its unintended side effects in current societies.
No, I don’t. In light of Gen 9:6 why would I accept your statement as other than an unsupportable - and incorrect - opinion?
Stop, please . I never made such a claim. You keep trying to generalize my comments which were specific to murder and make them universals. I haven’t talked about “crimes” in general; I am solely talking about the crime of murder. As I’ve said before, what other crimes may or may not deserve the death penalty is irrelevant to the question of whether or not murder in general merits death.Your claim that the socially acceptable degree of punishment for a given crime can never change is patently false, as I have already explained. (You don’t want to advocate killing mother-and-father-cursers too now, do you?
“There are crimes for which the only just punishment is execution.”
I think you’re making this too complicated. “Murder merits death” means that in strict justice those who intentionally and unjustly take the life of another deserve to be killed themselves. That’s it. 2267 simply states a position on the advisability of treating murderers according to their deserts. As you say:
What you say may be true to some extent, but I don’t see how the text itself supports that reading.
How about, for example, in light of Gen 4:8-15:
The problem with this statement is that it is too vaguely stated to speak to the specific issue here, which is about the appropriateness of specific penal sanctions for specific crimes at this general point in history. Simply put, 2267 plainly does not contradict your statement.
Giving a person his due is the very definition of justice - and there is absolutely nothing whatever in 2267 that pertains to justice. I don’t understand how you can make such an allegation; 2267 is solely concerned with protection.
The difference between Gen 4:8-15 and Gen 9:5-6 is that the Church cites the latter as the basis of her position on capital punishment and (to my knowledge) has never cited the former. I have not chosen random passages and given my interpretation of them; I have cited passages the Church cites and simply repeated her interpretation.
I haven’t implied it or anything like it. You constantly distort my comments by making them unconditionally universal when there is no justification for doing so. If I said that men are taller than women and you interpreted it to mean that all men are taller than all women it would be clear that your interpretation is nothing like my claim. This has been your approach. Deal with my comments without distorting them.
I disagree. 2267 directly contradicts this comment by claiming that it is security that determines the severity of the punishment. It is clear that, given perfect security, there would be no need for capital punishment (according to 2267) but my statement completely contradicts that position by claiming that the nature of certain crimes demands the death penalty as a condition of justice. Justice is independent of security and no condition of security can change the obligation to justice.
What allegation are you referring to here? (And please don’t paraphrase.)But the Church does not give the vaguely explicit
] interpretation of Gen 9:5-6 that you suggest it does. We can circle around on this forever if you want, but I’d much prefer that you stop begging the question.Doh! Ender, do you understand the notion of logical implication? Let me explain:
Please restate this argument using *citations *from 2267 rather than just your interpretive paraphrases.
“2267 simply states a position on the advisability of treating murderers according to their deserts.”
“Vaguely explicit”? You’re defending your position with oxymorons? In regard to those passages in Genesis, however, there is nothing vague about the way the Church refers to them.
Since I never made the claim, what it logically entails is irrelevant. Once again you attack what you incorrectly attribute to me rather than what I actually said.
Yes, quite well. Do you understand the notion of responding to my actual comments?