Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Gloria1]

I do support life in jail but I don’t support death penalty no matter the circumstance because in many cases innocent people are condemned to death for no fault of theirs. Our lives do not belong to us and we don’t have the right to take it. If the ‘criminal’ refuses to confess then how do we know for sure they committed the act? and if they confess and feel sorry for their wrong doings then why must we put them to death?. There are many forms of punishment but in my opinion, only God has the right to decide who gets death penalty.

 

[d97c]

Under your theory Gloria, we shouldnt ever act on anything of substance unless 500 people with 20-20 could see, feel, touch, smell and hear it. We convict people and put them behind bars for life under the principle of guilty"beyond a reasonable doubt." Juries make those determinations every day. Juries are not perfect, judges, also not perfect.Its called human nature Gloria. Life is not perfect. Lets just not arrest anyone…because under your theory, “we cant be sure.” Most people who are convicted or plead guilty ARE morally and factually guilty.

 

[frantony]

To say that someone has authority is not the same as saying that authority can’t be abused. Christ himself recognized that Pilate had the authority to have him executed but that clearly didn’t make it acceptable.

Even a mugger in New York (if he has a gun or a knife) can kill a man or even a cop in the street as can Hitler or the Pope. The issue is not whether he has a gun, or knife or soldiers or power to execute the murders. The question is whether such killings are morally correct

I reject this claim; if you believe it to be true then give examples. What would your solution be: the Protestant approach where each individual is free to interpret the Bible as he chooses?

Why should anybody be denied the right to interpret the Bible or Quran or Shakespears’s works or data from the New York Stock Exchange?

My position is that of the Church; she has taught the same thing about capital punishment from the beginning. I will tell you the same thing I have told others: the current prudential opinion expressed in 2267 does not rise to the level of Church teaching. It is not doctrine.
Catholic Church’s doctrines also are not timeless. The Pope because he is infallible (because he wears fancy dresses ? ) can declare that henceforth, the beginning of the year is June, and that those who do not agree will spend 100 years in Purgatory 1 before going to the regular Catholic Purgatory. It is because Catholic Church teachings are not supported by logic that they had to use punishments and excommunications and be-headings to fight heresy, while Jesus did not have to hurt even a fly to fill the earth with His teachings…

You should heed your own advice. You have made a number of claims but not one of them has been supported by any evidence.

My evidences at least do not contradict each other unlike yours which are just statements from a CCC with contradicting statements.
I would like to see some plausible supporting evidences for Purgatory, Ascension of Mary, and infallibility of Pope to just mention a few “beliefs” which you take as “Truths” just because they are uttered by the Pope.
So let us not talk of “evidences”. Statements in CCC can at best be called “Catholic beliefs or teachings” which are accepted as Truths by Catholics only because they are Catholics who have to accept them as Truths if they have to remain a Catholic. I hope you can see the cyclic reasoning in your arguments.

Just like Hitler had authority to kill the Jews, the Pope in his CCC may have the authority to declare or proclaim whatever he feels. But the question here is whether they are correct especially when the statements within the book contradict each other
Can anybody put their trust in a book that says 1+2 =3 in one place, and 1+2= 5 in another place, even if it is written by an “infallible” mathematician?

Tony

 

[Ender]

Therefore, there are two possible directives in that passage:

1. Thou shalt not kill. (That is, the point of saying that is to scare people into never committing murder by telling them how grave it is in the eyes of God.)

Unless you believe that words mean whatever we want them to, there is only one way to interpret Gen 9:6. “Whoever murders (sheds the blood of man) shall be executed (by man shall his blood be shed.)” It’s just not that complicated. You may argue that it no longer applies but there is no other rational interpretation of that phrase.

1. What if we don’t know for sure who the killer is? If we have to execute somebody to avoid being guilty of breaking this directive, there’s a very real risk of becoming murderers ourselves by shedding innocent blood – surely a far greater travesty!

I can’t take this objection seriously, it is simply ludicrous. "Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime." What if the public authorities don’t know who the criminal is? The dilemma is the same. The point seems too obvious to make but … there is no moral obligation to solve every crime.

Clearly we are in a dilemma – in general we can’t be so certain who the guilty person is as to be willing to run the risk of breaking the first directive, but not executing anyone means we are breaking the second.

Clearly this objection is spurious.

On the contrary, as soon as you admit that not every murder requires the murderer to be executed, the inconsistency vanishes – 2267 is merely giving guidance on when execution is appropriate and when it is not, and there’s nothing wrong with updating that guidance over time as circumstances change.

You’ve actually gotten something partially right here. First, I have never claimed that every murderer must be executed; what I said was that that should be the norm. Second, I do in fact accept that JPII was stating his opinion that in contemporary society executions do more harm than good, which is a valid reason for not applying them. What I don’t accept is that the decision of whether or not someone should be executed has much if anything to do with the state of a nation’s penal system or that the safety of society is of equal importance with the need for the application of a just punishment. The “guidance” being given here is misguided.

But the question arises: where does 2260 say that there can be exceptions? If you believe that it embodies the second directive I listed above, then “its meaning is rather obvious” – there is no mention of an exception to the directive. It doesn’t say “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, unless other considerations determine otherwise.”

Where in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” does it say there can be exceptions? The argument is silly. By your “logic” there can be no exceptions to killing since the commandment doesn’t specifically state that exceptions exist, yet we all know that they do. It’s no different with Gen 9:6.

Ender

 

[Ender]

My point was that if the Church feels unconstrained by interpreting those passages as an obligation on Christians, I see no reason why it shouldn’t feel the same way about interpreting Gen. 9:6 in a way that only considers the first directive I highlighted (“Thou shalt not kill”) while not obliging us to follow the second (“Thou shalt execute murderers”).

Your first “directive” is pure invention; it is no part of the Church’s interpretation. As to what the Church should or shouldn’t consider regarding Gen 9:6, I can only respond as to how they have regarded it, which is to consider its use an example of “paramount obedience” to the fifth commandment.

For someone who feels free to ignore parts of the Catechism based on what you perceive as conflicts with your interpretation of other parts, I find it odd that you would now insist on Church documents in support of my interpretation of the Bible.

I make no statement that I can’t document. You’ve made none that you can.

Are you suggesting that Jesus caused them to sin by tricking them into not fulfilling their oglibations to stone the woman?

No. Among other things they had no such obligation.

You deny the Pope’s right to determine Catholic teaching? You deny the modern Church the right to interpret scripture in a modern context?

No; those points are not at issue … except for the implication that morality somehow changes with the times.

2267 merely says that in the modern world the cases where execution is necessary to defend and protect people’s safety are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

This argument is inadequate. The primary objective of punishment is not protection, it is retribution and retribution demands that the severity of the punishment be proportionate to the severity of the crime … and we have been explicitly told what that proportionate punishment is.

BTW, I asked my priest about this on the weekend. You may want to do the same. The Catechism is the official and definitive Church teaching, and Catholics do not get to pick and choose which bits of the Catechism they accept and which bits they do not.

BTW you should read more. 2267 contains prudential opinion and no opinion rises to the level of doctrine. We have no obligation to assent to it, a point made very clear by Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB.

I certainly assume the Church knows better than I do what the historical interpretations were and wouldn’t put obviously contradictory clauses several paragraphs apart. I feel it far more likely that your interpretation of 2260 and historic Church teaching as requiring us to execute murderers is in error.

That’s a very reasonable position to take. The only problem with it is that you have provided no evidence whatever that the position is correct. Beyond saying “It’s in the Catechism” you have no argument.

Ender

 

[Ender]

frantony:

The issue is not whether he has a gun, or knife or soldiers or power to execute the murders. The question is whether such killings are morally correct

And the Church has answered this question:
*“It is lawful to kill when … carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime…" *(Catechism of Pius X)

Why should anybody be denied the right to interpret the Bible or Quran or Shakespears’s works or data from the New York Stock Exchange?

If you insist on having your personal interpretation then there is nothing more here than differing opinions, as in “Who was better, Mantle or Mays?” I present what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I can understand why that might not be persuasive to someone who doesn’t belong to that Church but you should also recognize that I won’t find the “My opinion is right because its mine” argument very persuasive.

My evidences at least do not contradict each other unlike yours which are just statements from a CCC with contradicting statements.

I have conceded that 2267 conflicts with Church teaching. With that one exception, however, what the Church has taught in this are has been consistent from the beginning. Nor have my references been limited solely to the present Catechism. There are statements from five catechisms, at least half a dozen popes and any number of Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church all saying the same thing.

So let us not talk of “evidences”.

Well, you certainly haven’t talked of any so I understand why you would want to avoid the subject.

Ender

 

[JasonSB]

Unless you believe that words mean whatever we want them to, there is only one way to interpret Gen 9:6. “Whoever murders (sheds the blood of man) shall be executed (by man shall his blood be shed.)” It’s just not that complicated.

If that’s so, then why did you feel the need to change the words? If we are to take literal interpretations at face value we could conclude that it obviously requires anyone who cuts another causing them to bleed to be cut themselves in return and nobody would want to be a surgeon. It’s this kind of thinking that leads some to refuse blood transfusions on the basis that it contradicts Gen. 9:4’s prohibition on eating flesh with blood in it.

Furthermore, if every phrase in the Bible can be read in isolation and taken at face value the way you are here, what need do we have of the Church?

You may argue that it no longer applies but there is no other rational interpretation of that phrase.

The Church would seem to disagree, given that they display it prominently in the Catechism, explicitly state that it “remains necessary for all time”, and then immediately go on to contradict the interpretation that you say is the only rational one!

Either the Church is not rational, or your interpretation is not the only “rational” one.

I can’t take this objection seriously, it is simply ludicrous. "Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime." What if the public authorities don’t know who the criminal is? The dilemma is the same. The point seems too obvious to make but … there is no moral obligation to solve every crime.

What makes it ludicrous is your interpretation that murderers must be executed. As soon as we agree that it is not required then not only does the dilemma disappear, so does the claimed inconsistency.

You’ve actually gotten something partially right here. First, I have never claimed that every murderer must be executed; what I said was that that should be the norm.

Yet you argue that it “should be the norm” on the basis that Gen. 9:6 requires us to execute murderers, but if not every murderer must be executed then why are you using a clause to support your argument that, according to your own interpretation of it, disagrees with you?

If you accept that Gen. 9:6 does not require every murderer to be executed, then there is no conflict between that verse and the Church giving guidance on when it should be applied.

Second, I do in fact accept that JPII was stating his opinion that in contemporary society executions do more harm than good, which is a valid reason for not applying them. What I don’t accept is that the decision of whether or not someone should be executed has much if anything to do with the state of a nation’s penal system or that the safety of society is of equal importance with the need for the application of a just punishment. The “guidance” being given here is misguided.

I hope you’ll forgive me for being reluctant to label a Pope “misguided”.

It seems to me that the problem really is that you don’t agree that life in prison is a “just punishment” for a murderer – that somehow the culprit is getting off lightly.

I actually disagree.

I assume you’re familiar with the phrase “Death’s too good for them”? A lifetime in prison, knowing they will never be free again, seems more punitive to me, and has the advantage that if you make a mistake and convict the wrong person – a depressingly common occurrence – the mistake can be undone.

Even worse, though, is that as soon as you decide a given level of crime warrants the death penalty, there is absolutely no disincentive for the criminal, having reached that point, to not go further. Any crimes beyond that point are “free”. If you decide that a single murder warrants the death penalty, then they may as well kill as many as they can after the first one because there is no punishment for those at all. In fact, after killing someone, they are actually better off if they kill all the witnesses as well because then at least they’ll have a chance of getting away with the crime.

Of course, the same logic argues against “life in prison” for murder as well – the punishment has to get worse with each additional crime and if you’ve already hit the maximum you’ve got a problem. Here the maximum is 25 years, and the murder rate here is just 20% of the murder rate of states in the US with the death penalty.

Where in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” does it say there can be exceptions? The argument is silly. By your “logic” there can be no exceptions to killing since the commandment doesn’t specifically state that exceptions exist, yet we all know that they do. It’s no different with Gen 9:6.

Thanks for making my argument for me. If you agree that we are not required to execute murderers despite what you interpret Gen. 9:6 to mean, then the Church is free to explain the circumstances under which execution is or is not required.

 

[JasonSB]

Your first “directive” is pure invention; it is no part of the Church’s interpretation.

I made the point that Gen. 9:6 is one of the seven laws given to Noah. It’s the only one that refers to murder. Are you really suggesting that interpreting it as a directive not to kill is “pure invention”?

I’m impressed that not only can you speak so authoritatively on what the Church’s interpretation is, but also on which parts of the Church’s teaching are “misguided” and can be ignored.

As to what the Church should or shouldn’t consider regarding Gen 9:6, I can only respond as to how they have regarded it, which is to consider its use an example of “paramount obedience” to the fifth commandment.

The problem is that your own argument is contradictory.

You wish to treat Gen. 9:6 as a requirement to execute murderers to support your argument that the Church is wrong in saying that non-lethal means of punishment must be used where they are sufficient to protect society, but then you ignore the requirement that your “straightforward” interpretation of Gen. 9:6 gives to justify why execution should merely be the “norm” and that it should not be applied “if other considerations determine otherwise”.

I make no statement that I can’t document.

Then it’s a shame you’ve chosen not to. Indeed, the few attempts to document your claims that I have seen have been misleading because you’ve chosen to document your claim with the obsolete, provisional version of the Catechism on the Vatican’s website (while suggesting that it’s somehow the “official” Catechism) rather than using the final, definitive version that is also on the Vatican’s website.

You’ve made none that you can.

Rubbish. I’ve referenced the current Catechism, I’ve referenced the definitive Latin version of the Catechism, and I’ve referenced numerous verses of the Bible.

If this is an example of your logical and observational powers in action then I guess it says all that needs to be said.

No. Among other things they had no such obligation.

Unless you believe that words mean whatever we want them to, there is only one way to interpret Deut. 22:22. 'If a man is caught having sexual intercourse with another man’s wife, both must be put to death: the man who has slept with her and the woman herself. You must banish this evil from Israel. " It’s just not that complicated. You may argue that it no longer applies but there is no other rational interpretation of that phrase, and the scribes and Pharisees certainly agreed: “The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman along who had been caught committing adultery; and making her stand there in the middle they said to Jesus, ‘Master, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery, and in the Law Moses has ordered us to stone women of this kind. What have you got to say?’” (John 8:3-5) (Emphasis mine.)

No; those points are not at issue … except for the implication that morality somehow changes with the times.

I see no evidence of that – merely a statement that the reason a particular practice was appropriate more often in the past was due to circumstances that are now being clarified because they have changed.

This argument is inadequate. The primary objective of punishment is not protection, it is retribution and retribution demands that the severity of the punishment be proportionate to the severity of the crime … and we have been explicitly told what that proportionate punishment is.

2267 follows on from the more general clause 2266, which clearly states that punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder, along with rehabilitation and protecting people’s safety.

2267 can only be said to be in conflict if you feel that not exercising the death penalty fails to redress the disorder because the punishment would not be proportionate. Since you claim we have been explicity told what “proportionate punishment” is, I’m interested to see that. What’s the “proportionate punishment” for one murder? Ten? Genocide?

BTW you should read more. 2267 contains prudential opinion and no opinion rises to the level of doctrine. We have no obligation to assent to it, a point made very clear by Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB.

I’ve read then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum on receiving Holy Communion and statements by Cardinal Dulles and it seems that the theory that 2267 is merely prudential opinion is not as clear-cut as you suggest.

One article states that the question of whether the conditions are satisfied (i.e. has the guilty party’s identity and responsiblity been fully determined? Are non-lethal means sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety?) is prudential, but the conditions themselves are not. Cardinal Ratzinger’s memo seems to merely re-state what the Catechism actually says, correcting some misunderstandings of it, rather than suggesting you can freely ignore parts of it. This article states that only the final sentence in 2267 is prudential, but the first two sentences (including the “requirement to use bloodless means when they are sufficient to the purpose”) is doctrinal.

So if you have official Church documentation that states we are free to ignore all of 2267 if we wish, I would be interested in reading it.

That’s a very reasonable position to take. The only problem with it is that you have provided no evidence whatever that the position is correct. Beyond saying “It’s in the Catechism” you have no argument.

For many Catholics, that would be sufficient. The only problem with your position is that beyond saying “The Catechism is misguided” you have no argument.

 

[dudleysharp]

JasonSB:

I think the Catechism and EV are much more problematic.

There is an obvious conflict between:

(a) the ill conceived 2267 “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” and

(b) 2267 rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM” and 2265 the “common good” “REQUIRES” an unjust aggressor be rendered “UNABLE TO INFLICT HARM”, which is in concert with 2260 “If ANYONE sheds the blood of man, by man SHALL his blood be shed.” “This teaching remains necessary for ALL TIME" – all of which contradict (a). My CAPS for emphasis.

The contention that the new limitation in (a) above is a product of evolving doctrine is in error. It is, instead, a doctrinal disaster which conflicts with well known teachings. (review all of Reference 2, starting with 1-4, therein and see also 5, below).

Such obvious conflicts shouldn’t exist within the Catechism and show how poorly considered and constructed this subject was.

2267: “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Consider this newest recommendation:

(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context:

(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)

and (a)'s obvious conflict with Genesis also has additional conflicts within its own document, just as one section above

(c) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. (2265) as well as within 2267, itself, as rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM”.

The Catechism is stating that “The common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265) except that we should rarely, if ever, render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. There is a contradiction.

This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.

Does the absence of death penalty better correspond with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person”?

In the first part of this Catechism, the document makes the opposite argument.

Commensurate punishments, by definition, better correspond to the common good and human dignity and the absence of a commensurate punishment injure both the common good as well as human dignity.

With Numbers 35:31 there is: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.”

Deserves as in justice, retribution.

When it comes to commensurate or proportional sanctions, of course we can disagree on what that may mean, prudentially. However, with murder and its proper sanction, I think we are instructed with Genesis, Numbers and traditional Church teachings that the proper sanction is death.

In addition, had EV been properly thought through, it would have concluded that innocents were better protected with the death penalty and was, therefore a greater defender of society and, as such EV would have not created the errors which were then wrongly put into the Catechism.

 

[Ender]

If that’s so, then why did you feel the need to change the words?

You seemed to be having trouble understanding what they mean so I tried to make its point obvious.

If we are to take literal interpretations at face value we could conclude that it obviously requires anyone who cuts another causing them to bleed to be cut themselves in return and nobody would want to be a surgeon.

Then don’t take it literally, the Church certainly doesn’t. In fact, 2260 explains what the passage is actually referring to: The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.

Furthermore, if every phrase in the Bible can be read in isolation and taken at face value the way you are here, what need do we have of the Church?

You seem completely unaware of how (and how often) the Church refers to this passage or that it is the basis for the Church’s position on capital punishment.

*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)

Yet you argue that it “should be the norm” on the basis that Gen. 9:6 requires us to execute murderers, but if not every murderer must be executed then why are you using a clause to support your argument that, according to your own interpretation of it, disagrees with you?

Positive precepts are not always binding; there can always be circumstances that hinder their execution. Only the negative commands are binding in every circumstance. Drop this line of argument; you misunderstand it and it goes nowhere.

If you accept that Gen. 9:6 does not require every murderer to be executed, then there is no conflict between that verse and the Church giving guidance on when it should be applied.

“Giving guidance” is deliberately vague and avoids the particular guidance being given, which in this case is faulty.

It seems to me that the problem really is that you don’t agree that life in prison is a “just punishment” for a murderer – that somehow the culprit is getting off lightly.

The problem is that God has specified the punishment for murder (Gen 9:6) and the Church has always used this passage as the basis for her teaching on the subject. My opinion on life in prison is irrelevant; what matters is that the opinion expressed in 2267 does not agree with the Church’s historical position.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Rubbish. I’ve referenced the current Catechism, I’ve referenced the definitive Latin version of the Catechism, and I’ve referenced numerous verses of the Bible.

I make no issue of the differences in the Vatican’s versions of the Catechism other than to note they exist; I find the differences intriguing but not significant. As to your Bible references, they are irrelevant as you provide your personal interpretation of them. If they are to mean something you need to show how the Church interprets them. I don’t just cite Gen 9:6, I cite the Church citing and explaining that verse.

‘Master, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery, and in the Law Moses has ordered us to stone women of this kind. What have you got to say?’" (John 8:3-5) (Emphasis mine.)

Is it your position then that every Jew who was not present with stone in hand was disobeying the law? The Church teaches that the individual has no right to punish the guilty; that right lies solely with the State.

I see no evidence of that – merely a statement that the reason a particular practice was appropriate more often in the past was due to circumstances that are now being clarified because they have changed.

The point is that the circumstances that determine the severity of the punishment have not changed nor can they. The protection of society - which is all that 2267 addresses - is about preventing future crimes, it has nothing whatever to do with redressing the harm caused by the crime already committed. Since redressing the disorder caused by the crime (viz retribution) is the primary objective of punishment, and since the severity of the crime of murder cannot change from age to age, the punishment required to satisfy the obligation of justice cannot change either.

2267 follows on from the more general clause 2266, which clearly states that punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder, along with rehabilitation and protecting people’s safety.

The primary obligation is retribution; rehabilitation, deterrence, and safety are all secondary objectives.

2267 can only be said to be in conflict if you feel that not exercising the death penalty fails to redress the disorder because the punishment would not be proportionate.

That’s correct - and that seems to be the way the Church has been inclined to interpret it in the past as well.

I’ve read then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum on receiving Holy Communion and statements by Cardinal Dulles and it seems that the theory that 2267 is merely prudential opinion is not as clear-cut as you suggest.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter is not definitive but to interpret it as you do would mean that his wording was very sloppy and that he didn’t understand what it implied (correctly or not). Cardinal Dulles’ position is as clear as words can make it: "The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good."

This article states that only the final sentence in 2267 is prudential…

Good, then we are agreed that the Catechism contains prudential opinion, which quite clearly does not require our assent. Your position has become mine: the Catechism contains opinion.

… but the first two sentences (including the “requirement to use bloodless means when they are sufficient to the purpose”) is doctrinal.

Not only is it not doctrinal, but the first sentence isn’t even correct, nor will you find anything in Church history to support it.

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. (Kevin L. Flannery, S.J., Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, 2007)

So if you have official Church documentation that states we are free to ignore all of 2267 if we wish, I would be interested in reading it.

Didn’t you just argue that the Catechism contains an opinion? That’s what I’ve been saying. We disagree about how much of 2267 is opinion but at least there shouldn’t be any more charges about my picking and choosing what parts of the Catechism to accept. I accept the parts that aren’t opinions.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

One response to JasonSB’s clearly reasoned points ran as follows:

Quote:
You’ve actually gotten something partially right here

Now we may not all be gifted at making good arguments, but if you’re going to make bad arguments, at least try not to be arrogant while doing so.

 

[Betterave]

You seem completely unaware of how (and how often) the Church refers to this passage or that it is the basis for the Church’s position on capital punishment.

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)

JasonSB,
I don’t know how much of the thread you’ve read, but just to let you know, this quote has already been cited ad nauseam in this thread (along with the typical kind of ridiculously condescending preface you got here from Ender), and it has been pointed out ad nauseam that it does not support (it is irrelevant to) the claim that the Catechism contradicts itself or Church teaching (or that JPII did). However, in case you missed it the first 20 times, here it is yet again! Thanks for that, Ender!

Before anyone cites any such passage again, some useful reading for reflection: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

 

[JasonSB]

JasonSB:

I think the Catechism and EV are much more problematic.

There is an obvious conflict between:

(a) the ill conceived 2267 “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” and

(b) 2267 rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM” and 2265 the “common good” “REQUIRES” an unjust aggressor be rendered “UNABLE TO INFLICT HARM”, which is in concert with 2260 “If ANYONE sheds the blood of man, by man SHALL his blood be shed.” “This teaching remains necessary for ALL TIME" – all of which contradict (a). My CAPS for emphasis.

Sorry, but you are begging the question – you are assuming that the only way to render an aggressor incapable of doing harm is by killing them, manufacturing the “obvious conflict”. If that was the case, then there would be no need for the term “unable to cause harm” and 2265 would read “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be executed…”

Without that the only questions are:

1. Does 2260 require the death penalty for murderers?
2. Does the term “proportionate punishment” used in 2266 require the use of the death penalty for murderers?

If the answer to both is “no” then there is no contradiction with 2267. If the answer to either one is “yes” then there is a problem.

Now, simply restating Gen. 9:6 over and over again is unconvincing; I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that the Pope and the Church know how to interpret that scripture better than I and that they would not put obviously contradictory clauses just a few paragraphs apart.

Here is a quick test – let’s replace the quote from Gen. 9:6 in 2260 with the interpretation that you and Ender hold:

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

Whoever murders shall be executed.

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.​

Seriously – if Gen. 9:6 actually said that in the eyes of the Church, then the words introducing the quote in 2260 would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. The quote is meant to support the claim that God’s covernent is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence; if it was intended to be a reminder that we must execute murderers then the introduction would have been different.

Clauses 2259-2262 give scriptural background for the section “RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE”. 2262, for example, which I didn’t see you mention, states:

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

It cites Mt. 5:22-39, which, as I’m sure you know, includes:

'You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well;"

On the fact of it, this contradicts the later clauses of legitimate defence as well, but in the opposite way. Why are you so sure about the contradiction you perceive with 2260 but completely oblivious to the opposite contradiction in 2262?

I have no such problem. The Church has the authority to interpret scripture, and if they present as background material scripture that appears, on the fact of it, to contradict the very next thing that they say, then I assume it’s my interpretation at fault until compelling evidence convinces me otherwise.

 

[JasonSB]

I make no issue of the differences in the Vatican’s versions of the Catechism other than to note they exist; I find the differences intriguing but not significant.

The significance, of course, being that it directly refutes your claim that I’ve made no claim that I can document.

As to your Bible references, they are irrelevant as you provide your personal interpretation of them.

I’m sorry you hold scripture in such low regard.

If they are to mean something you need to show how the Church interprets them. I don’t just cite Gen 9:6, I cite the Church citing and explaining that verse.

Really? As I said in my last post, Gen. 9:6 is introduced in 2260 as an example of the reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence that the covenent between God and mankind is interwoven with. It is your interpretation of Gen. 9:6, not what the Catholic Church says about Gen. 9:6, that is at issue.

Is it your position then that every Jew who was not present with stone in hand was disobeying the law? The Church teaches that the individual has no right to punish the guilty; that right lies solely with the State.

The scribes and Pharisees clearly stated that they believed the Law of Moses ordered them to stone women of this kind. Jesus’ response caused them to drop their rocks and walk away. The woman went unpunished – indeed, her sins were forgiven and she was told to sin no more, in start contrast with the Law’s clear and unequivocal statement that she “must be put to death”.

My position is that if Jesus could be responsible for a clear violation of Mosaic Law – not only for causing her not to be put to death but for actually forgiving her rather than banishing “this evil from Israel” – then it is not so far-fetched for us to accept that the Church might choose to use Gen. 9:6 as an example of the many reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence without intending it to be interpreted that we must execute murderers.

The point is that the circumstances that determine the severity of the punishment have not changed nor can they. The protection of society - which is all that 2267 addresses - is about preventing future crimes, it has nothing whatever to do with redressing the harm caused by the crime already committed.

2267 does not talk about redressing the disorder or expiation because they are already covered by 2266. 2266 is the general clause that covers all cases; 2267 goes into detail of one particular way of redressing the disorder because there are serious risks associated with that particular method (e.g. it cannot be “undone”, and slaying the innocent and the righteous is universally forbidden, always and everywhere).

2267 is only in conflict with 2266 if you assume that non-lethal means cannot redress the disorder introduced by the offence, which is begging the question.

Since redressing the disorder caused by the crime (viz retribution) is the primary objective of punishment, and since the severity of the crime of murder cannot change from age to age, the punishment required to satisfy the obligation of justice cannot change either.

Non-sequiter – of course the punishment required can change. The requirement is that the punishment is “proportionate”, not that it is identical to the crime. If the Church wanted to say that the punishment should be identical to the crime then they could have said that. Clearly, the existance of masochists mean that punishment identical to the crime would have the opposite effect to that desired!

Wikipedia has an interesting (and referenced) section on punishment in Judaism that is worth reading.

You must have missed the following questions the first time so allow me to repeat them:

Since you claim we have been explicity told what “proportionate punishment” is, I’m interested to see that. What’s the “proportionate punishment” for one murder? Ten? Genocide?

 

[JasonSB]

That’s correct - and that seems to be the way the Church has been inclined to interpret it in the past as well.

Then why not cite references?

Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter is not definitive but to interpret it as you do would mean that his wording was very sloppy and that he didn’t understand what it implied (correctly or not).

He said that it may still be permissible to have recourse to capital punishment, which 2267 does not deny. He may have been correcting a misconception that some may have had that 2267 denies captial punishment can ever be in line with the Church’s teaching, but since I don’t read 2267 as saying that then his comments are completely unremarkable.

What he is saying is that Catholics can legitimately disagree with each other or even the Pope on the question of whether capital punishment is warranted in a particular case or whether it is permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor in a particular case. In other words, the answers to the “If-questions” in the Catechism can legitimately be different. This is in contrast with the teaching on abortion or euthanasia, where there are no “If-questions”.

He most certainly did not say that the clauses themselves were “optional”.

Cardinal Dulles’ position is as clear as words can make it: "The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good."

That would agree with the notion that the third sentence in 2267 is prudential, because that’s exactly what it says. But you’re still stuck with the second sentence:

If, however, nonlethal 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.

Now, it is OK to argue over whether nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety in a particular case, but not with the requirement that authority will limit itself to such means if that is true.

Good, then we are agreed that the Catechism contains prudential opinion, which quite clearly does not require our assent. Your position has become mine: the Catechism contains opinion.

Not so fast – I am open to the idea that it does, and Cardinal Dulles’ comment (and the article I cited) both suggested that is the case, but none of them support the idea that 2267 is merely prudential opinion.

The third sentence, immediately after the one quoted above, states “Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, … the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” This really does sound like a pre-emptive answer to the “If” in the second sentence, and the language of it really does make it sound like an opinion. The first two sentences, however, are completely different.

Not only is it not doctrinal, but the first sentence isn’t even correct, nor will you find anything in Church history to support it.

Then hopefully you won’t have any trouble finding historical Church teachings that contradict it, as well as Church teachings that deny the right of the Pope to further develop Church teaching.

Didn’t you just argue that the Catechism contains an opinion? That’s what I’ve been saying. We disagree about how much of 2267 is opinion but at least there shouldn’t be any more charges about my picking and choosing what parts of the Catechism to accept. I accept the parts that aren’t opinions.

Firstly, an official Church statement of which parts are opinion and which parts are doctrinal would be helpful, because otherwise how do we know what parts we are free not to accept? Otherwise I can simply label anything I disagree with as “opinion”.

Secondly, even if I can be convinced that the third sentence is prudential opinion and that Catholics can legitimately disagree with it in particular circumstances, I assume you object to the second sentence as well, which is the actual point of 2267.

 

[JasonSB]

Clauses 2259-2262 give scriptural background for the section “RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE”. 2262, for example, which I didn’t see you mention, states:

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

It cites Mt. 5:22-39, which, as I’m sure you know, includes:

'You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well;"

On the fact of it, this contradicts the later clauses of legitimate defence as well, but in the opposite way. Why are you so sure about the contradiction you perceive with 2260 but completely oblivious to the opposite contradiction in 2262?

It occurred to me that the Compendium of the Catechism might be a good way to determine exactly what message we are supposed to glean from clauses 2258-2262. After all, since the whole point of the Compendium is to summarise the Catechism into an easier-to-understand format, the summary of those clauses is bound to be interesting:

1. Why must human life be respected?

2258-2262
2318-2320

Human life must be respected because it is sacred. From its beginning human life involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. It is not lawful for anyone directly to destroy an innocent human being. This is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator. “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous” (Exodus 23:7).
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Isn’t it odd that not once in their summary of those clauses did they think to mention that there is a teaching that remains necessary for all time that we must execute murderers?

Perhaps that’s not the point of 2260 after all…

 

[dudleysharp]

Sorry, but you are begging the question – you are assuming that the only way to render an aggressor incapable of doing harm is by killing them, manufacturing the “obvious conflict”. If that was the case, then there would be no need for the term “unable to cause harm” and 2265 would read “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be executed…”.

Jason:

You are correct, it is the only way “to render an unjust aggressor incapable of doing harm.”

When I said the Catechism and EV were problematic, I meant it.

Just because you and I and others may think such a stance is idiotic, that is exactly what the Catechism is saying. Should the rewrite it. Of course. The whole section is a complete mess.

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

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

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

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

2266: “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.”

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

Then, let’s look at this from the constant nonsense which is 2267:

2267 "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56). (3)

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation and prior Church teachings. 2267 cannot stand.

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

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

JasonSB:

contd

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

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

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

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

It has always been so.

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

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

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

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

The Catechism is making both claims as equals within the same section. Obvioulsy, this nonsense must end at some point with a complete amendment to this section.

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

1. Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty
   homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx
2. a) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website, Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_muslims

b) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqaeda-members-in-jailbreak-20090924-g4no.html

c) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/massive_jailbreak_in_yemen.htm

d) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11/30/authorities-sex-offender-pulls-gun-on-texas-guards-during-prison-transfer-search-ongoing-17934/

e) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5if_tdQrE5B6tvgSYXBtfmfMOLEwwD9CACTHG0

f) Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005 policeone.com/corrections/articles/120563-Officials-embarrassed-by-Texas-death-row-inmate-escape/

“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.

g) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day seemingly forever, if it cared to look.

 

[dudleysharp]

1. Does 2260 require the death penalty for murderers?
2. Does the term “proportionate punishment” used in 2266 require the use of the death penalty for murderers?

If the answer to both is “no” then there is no contradiction with 2267. If the answer to either one is “yes” then there is a problem.

The problem is is both require the death penalty and then don’t require the death penalty, just as I stated. That is how bad it truly is.

It is not hard to both read and understand the sections, its words and what it is saying. That is the problem.

There are conflicts and problems, everywhere.

Although you are trying to run away from it, it really is quite clear what these mixed up sections and paragrapsh are saying and how in conflict they are.

Your running away from them, really doesn’t help the discussion.

Just as it is clear what both the Genesis passage and the Numbers passages mean.

I find it equally clear that there are mitigating circumstances, discussed in detail within the Bible, that render a punishment less than death as an appropriate option with certain types of killings and other sins/crimes.

Which simply leads us back to this entire poor section of the Catechism and the inevitability of its thorough amending.