Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[wheels10]

It is certainly true that I do not accept 2267. It is not true, however, that my position is at odds with Church doctrine as 2267 is not doctrine but prudential opinion. People make a lot out of my rejection of 2267 even as they ignore the fact that they in turn must reject 2260 as it is not logically possible to accept them both. It is in fact 2260 that is the expression of Church doctrine, not 2267.

I accept both 2260 and 2267. 2260 has been created based on text from the Old Testament. 2267 has been created based on text from the New Testament. Both are good and both are True. However, realize that there are qualifications that have been added to the text that is referenced in the Old Testament:

Matthew5:21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
John 8:7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Matthew 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
James 2:13There will be no mercy for those who have not shown mercy to others. But if you have been merciful, God will be merciful when he judges you.

So feel free to follow only the laws of the Old Testament. However, you may want to review the New Testament to understand the ramifications of doing so.

 

[Ender]

I accept both 2260 and 2267.

Given that 2260 says murderers should be executed and 2267 says they should not, I have trouble accepting your statement. What is your position: should murderers be executed or not?

2260 has been created based on text from the Old Testament. 2267 has been created based on text from the New Testament.

2260 is not simply “based” on scripture; the relevant passage is quoted in its entirety. Nor is it true that 2267 is based on the NT or any other part of the Bible. It’s only reference is an end note pointing to Evangelium Vitae and the only reference in (the relevant part of ) EV points back to 2267. They point to each other, not to scripture. 2267 is in fact not based on anything at all beyond the prudential opinion of JPII.

Both are good and both are True. However, realize that there are qualifications that have been added to the text that is referenced in the Old Testament: Matthew5:21 …

The Church nowhere applies Mat 5:21 to her understanding of Gen 9:6. Your personal interpretations have nothing to do with what the Church teaches. If you can’t cite a Church document that supports your position there is no reason for me to believe your opinion is valid.

So feel free to follow only the laws of the Old Testament. However, you may want to review the New Testament to understand the ramifications of doing so.

I follow what the Church teaches whether from the Old or the New Testament and I do so without adding my own personal interpretation of scripture. You will find, on this subject, that’s not a claim you can make.

Ender

 

[wheels10]

Given that 2260 says murderers should be executed and 2267 says they should not, I have trouble accepting your statement. What is your position: should murderers be executed or not?

I will definitely require a great deal of Mercy on my day of judgement, and even if I did not, I would still choose not to execute the murderer. I want to keep the commandments of thou shall not kill and the second greatest commandment, Love your neighbor, which includes your enemy.

The Church nowhere applies Mat 5:21 to her understanding of Gen 9:6. Your personal interpretations have nothing to do with what the Church teaches. If you can’t cite a Church document that supports your position there is no reason for me to believe your opinion is valid. I follow what the Church teaches whether from the Old or the New Testament and I do so without adding my own personal interpretation of scripture. You will find, on this subject, that’s not a claim you can make.

I’m not interpreting The New Testament. I’m just citing it.

 

[Ender]

I will definitely require a great deal of Mercy on my day of judgement, and even if I did not, I would still choose not to execute the murderer. I want to keep the commandments of thou shall not kill and the second greatest commandment, Love your neighbor, which includes your enemy.

I think what you’re actually recommending is not mercy but clemency. Mercy is not merely a reduced sentence; it is something else altogether. As for keeping the commandments, what you are implying is that you do but the Church does not as she has always taught that there are exceptions to that commandment. Are you claiming she is wrong on this? Finally, it is a mistake to assume that not punishing someone shows love while punishing them shows hate. This too is contrary to what the Church teaches.

I’m not interpreting The New Testament. I’m just citing it.

Come, you are citing it because you believe it is applicable to the discussion. I could just as easily cite random passages and claim that they support my position but surely the point is that it is how the Church interprets those passages that matters, and in the case of the passage you cited the Church has never applied it to this topic. It is not relevant.

Ender

 

[wheels10]

I think what you’re actually recommending is not mercy but clemency. Mercy is not merely a reduced sentence; it is something else altogether. As for keeping the commandments, what you are implying is that you do but the Church does not as she has always taught that there are exceptions to that commandment. Are you claiming she is wrong on this? Finally, it is a mistake to assume that not punishing someone shows love while punishing them shows hate. This too is contrary to what the Church teaches.

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=mercy
Defintion for Mercy:
•S: clemency, mercifulness, mercy (leniency and compassion shown toward offenders by a person or agency charged with administering justice) “he threw himself on the mercy of the court”
•S: mercifulness, mercy (a disposition to be kind and forgiving) “in those days a wife had to depend on the mercifulness of her husband”
•S: mercifulness, mercy (the feeling that motivates compassion) •S: mercy (something for which to be thankful) “it was a mercy we got out alive”
•S: mercy (alleviation of distress; showing great kindness toward the distressed) “distributing food and clothing to the flood victims was an act of mercy”

You know what? I’ve thought about this some more and I think you are correct. When God sends a soul to hell, He is Loving that soul, since God is always Loving and always Good. But here’s the thing. I agree that both Justice and Mercy are equally Good and they do not oppose each other, since Good cannot oppose Good. But Justice and Mercy are different. So when we show Justice with Mercy to our neighbor, we are showing God that we prefer this Good. When we show Justice without Mercy, then we are showing God that we prefer this Good. You see, we get to choose the Good that we prefer. And this is the Good that God will give to us since this is our preference.

 

[lelhajj]

personal opinnion: who are we to decide that a criminal should have the death penalty? we are not God. God will provide his own punishment. I am really against death penalty. Even the criminals have a soul. Isn’t it better to try to address his/her spiritual problems in order to improve his/her behavior? I believe we are taking in our hands decisions that we should leave to God only. If we promote the death penalty and we agree on it, we are certainly guilty of encouraging such actions.

 

[dudleysharp]

Mercy & the Death Penalty

1. Saint Augustine: " . . . 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.)
2. Saint Thomas Aquinas: . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6, 2
3. “. . . 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.” Quaker, biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey (1) (p. 116).
4. 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. The Catechism of The Roman Catholic Church (2005) states: “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.” 2266

This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.

We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime/disorder of the aggressor and hold them accountable for it by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the guilt/sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice/just retribution/just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example of 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.”

1. 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

Mercy, salvation and redemption will not be measured by the method of our earthly death, but by our state of grace in the context of the eternal.

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

contd

1. C. S. Lewis: "According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. "

“I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal.”

“The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”

“My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.”

“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .”.

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "

“The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment.”

“But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”

"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "

" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis

1. C. S. Lewis: "Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. " “The Complete C.S. Lewis”, Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002
2. Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution), that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior, that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.

1. “Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices…A murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole can still laugh, learn and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do the thousand-and-one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his victims.” Don Feder, Boston Herald Columnist. “McVeigh Makes the Case for Capital Punishment”. 21 May 2001
2. Never Forget Mercy for the Innocent

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

---

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 ,
   www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

 

[d97c]

“who are we to decide the ciminal should have the death penalty?”…you said…
Well,with that logic, who are we to decide that a criminal should have his total freedom taken away in life without parole? Who are we to decide any punishment??
Who are we to decide a criminal should have to spend 10 years in jail?..for robbing a bank?? WE , the state, have the duty to tight the wrong of a convicted–guilty–murderer. To do otherwise is to disrespect the life of the innocent victim.
You must read and see that the Church had NO problem with allowing the state to inflict the death penalty, considered the most serious and proportional punishment for the crime of murder, if one was convicted. Do you understand that it is not reasonable to say “who are we to execute a murderer?”
The Pope disagrees with you, (says that Catholics can disagree with the current trend against the penalty), and so do all the other writers dudlysharp cited to you. I cant believe that you would NOT execute Hitler, for example, if he had been convicted. You really want him interviewed, fed 3 meals a day at TAXPAYERS expense?? I dont, and neither do the families of the 6 million Jews he killed !

 

[Ender]

I agree that both Justice and Mercy are equally Good and they do not oppose each other, since Good cannot oppose Good. But Justice and Mercy are different.

Just so: “Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it .” (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)

So when we show Justice with Mercy to our neighbor, we are showing God that we prefer this Good.

Justice is always appropriate and necessary; mercy is conditional and is not always appropriate.

There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But* in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy**.* (Aquinas)
*
Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) “obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant.” (Aquinas)

*What one tends to overlook, however, is the merciful nature of punishment itself.

*Any punishment which aims at correcting the one who does wrong is in fact a form of mercy. *(Augustine)

And, as others have pointed out, the acceptance of death by the criminal serves to expiate his crime and pay the entire debt of punishment incurred by his action, which clemency in the form of life in prison does not.

Ender

 

[crazzeto]

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?

There’s no contradiction, rather what the Pontiff is saying is if it is not necessary to execute a criminal for the protection of society, then is execution for it’s own sake truely the most just course of action?

This because a particularly interesting point when one considers the number of “criminals” on death row set free within our own nations prisons after a careful evalutation of evidence has determained not only that they were innocent, but in a disturbing number of incidents indeed the “criminal” was rail roaded by the prosecution and police because it was politically expedient.

 

[Ender]

There’s no contradiction …

The contradiction exists because JPII said murderers should not be executed and the constant teaching of the Church, which is expressed in 2260 - is that they should be.

rather what the Pontiff is saying is if it is not necessary to execute a criminal for the protection of society, then is execution for it’s own sake truely the most just course of action?

It is a distortion to say that execution is done for its own sake; it is done for the sake of justice which demands that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. That and the fact that it was God himself who specified not only what the punishment for murder should be (He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed …) but also why (.… because man is made in the image of God.)

Although concerns about the inerrancy of the criminal justice system are valid they are not relevant to a discussion about the morality of capital punishment, so even though I disagree with your comments I won’t contest them.

Ender

 

[crazzeto]

The contradiction exists because JPII said murderers should not be executed and the constant teaching of the Church, which is expressed in 2260 - is that they should be.
It is a distortion to say that execution is done for its own sake; it is done for the sake of justice which demands that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. That and the fact that it was God himself who specified not only what the punishment for murder should be (He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed …) but also why (.… because man is made in the image of God.)

Although concerns about the inerrancy of the criminal justice system are valid they are not relevant to a discussion about the morality of capital punishment, so even though I disagree with your comments I won’t contest them.

Ender

Paragraph 2260 of the CCC does not teach that execution is a necessary punishment.

In fact Paragraph 2267 more directly speaks on the matter:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Which is pretty much what JPII was teaching.

 

[Ender]

Paragraph 2260 of the CCC does not teach that execution is a necessary punishment.

I guess strictly speaking that’s true: it is the scripture passage that 2260 quotes that calls for it.

In fact Paragraph 2267 more directly speaks on the matter:

More directly but not more accurately.

• The first sentence is simply wrong on a matter of fact. The Church has never limited the use of capital punishment to the need to protect society; this claim is false.
• The third sentence is an opinion about the capabilities of modern penal systems and cannot conceivably be considered Church doctrine. I happen to think the estimate is exactly backward but the calculation of which view is correct is hardly a moral concern.
• The second sentence is the most egregious. Aside from the inscrutable claim that avoiding the death penalty is* “more in keeping with the common good”, the statement that other punishments are “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”* reverses the meaning of Gen 9:6. Scripture says that murderers should be executed because of the heinousness of their crimes, heinous specifically because the victims were made in the image of God. This new formulation says murderers should not be killed because they are made in the image of God - the dignity of the slain is thus rendered irrelevant.

Which is pretty much what JPII was teaching.

I think what he was saying was that, in his opinion, the death penalty in current societies causes more problems than it resolves and, as a prudential matter, it should be avoided. That is the only interpretation that makes sense to me in light of what is in fact Church doctrine on the subject.

Ender

 

[wheels10]

Justice is always appropriate and necessary; mercy is conditional and is not always appropriate.

There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. (Aquinas)

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

What one tends to overlook, however, is the merciful nature of punishment itself.

Any punishment which aims at correcting the one who does wrong is in fact a form of mercy. (Augustine)

And, as others have pointed out, the acceptance of death by the criminal serves to expiate his crime and pay the entire debt of punishment incurred by his action, which clemency in the form of life in prison does not.

Ender

Mercy is ALWAYS at the discretion of the judge. I will always want to choose Mercy. And for me, that would be NOT TO KILL. You are free to view killing as Mercy. God will also provide you with your version of Mercy.

James 2:13There will be no mercy for those who have not shown mercy to others. But if you have been merciful, God will be merciful when he judges you.

 

[wheels10]

It is a distortion to say that execution is done for its own sake; it is done for the sake of justice which demands that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. That and the fact that it was God himself who specified not only what the punishment for murder should be **(He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed …) **but also why (… because man is made in the image of God.)

Although concerns about the inerrancy of the criminal justice system are valid they are not relevant to a discussion about the morality of capital punishment, so even though I disagree with your comments I won’t contest them.

Genesis 4:10The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. 11Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.” 13Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” **15But the Lord said to him, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” **Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

 

[Ender]

Mercy is ALWAYS at the discretion of the judge. I will always want to choose Mercy. And for me, that would be NOT TO KILL. You are free to view killing as Mercy.

I’ll remind you of JPII’s comment that: “Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it .” Your perception seems to be that mercy means the same thing as clemency and that it trumps justice, but if you always choose it over justice you act improperly.

Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?
A.* God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all.* (Baltimore Catechism)

There is nothing in Church teaching that suggests that sinners never deserve the full weight of the punishment their sins have earned for them. Quite the opposite. Repentance is obligatory before mercy can be received.

CCC 1847 *“God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.”*To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults.

God will also provide you with your version of Mercy.

I hope so, and inasmuch as my version of mercy is the one described by Aquinas, Augustine and the Church I think optimism on my part is warranted.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Genesis 4:10…

The Catechism quotes this section of Genesis as well, to talk about original sin and the wickedness of Cain’s act.

2259 In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain, Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: “What have you done? the voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. and now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.”

It is the very next section (2260) where the Catechism quotes Gen 9:6 which demands the life of the murderer because of the severity of the crime, because man is made in God’s image. There is nothing there to explain why the example of Cain’s treatment in 2259 should overturn the general rule specified in 2260. We know there are exceptions to that rule; we do not know why God made an exception of Cain.

Ender

 

[sedonaman]

Purposes of Punishment

1. Defense of society against the criminal.
2. Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
3. Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal’s transgression.

This is what Sr. Mary taught us in Catechism class in 1949.

 

[crazzeto]

I guess strictly speaking that’s true: it is the scripture passage that 2260 quotes that calls for it.

More directly but not more accurately.

• The first sentence is simply wrong on a matter of fact. The Church has never limited the use of capital punishment to the need to protect society; this claim is false.
• The third sentence is an opinion about the capabilities of modern penal systems and cannot conceivably be considered Church doctrine. I happen to think the estimate is exactly backward but the calculation of which view is correct is hardly a moral concern.
• The second sentence is the most egregious. Aside from the inscrutable claim that avoiding the death penalty is* “more in keeping with the common good”, the statement that other punishments are “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”* reverses the meaning of Gen 9:6. Scripture says that murderers should be executed because of the heinousness of their crimes, heinous specifically because the victims were made in the image of God. This new formulation says murderers should not be killed because they are made in the image of God - the dignity of the slain is thus rendered irrelevant.

I think what he was saying was that, in his opinion, the death penalty in current societies causes more problems than it resolves and, as a prudential matter, it should be avoided. That is the only interpretation that makes sense to me in light of what is in fact Church doctrine on the subject.

Ender

With all due respect, it is my opinion at least that the Vatican has had a lot more time to think over this scripture, as well as to consider this scripture in the context of the whole of scripture and Christian tradition. It is this which informs their opinion, not just reading one verse in the bible in and of its self.

The Christian is called to greater justice… Is it not more just not to resort to execution when it is not required for the protection of society, particularly knowing how imperfect our judicial system is?