Catholic tradtion holds that there are four ends of punishment: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. Cardinal Avery Dulles in his First Things article says “The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four ends of punishment.” He gives a clear explanation of why the State itself is not qualified to exact Divine retribution in its penalties.The condition is that the punishment must be appropriate for the crime. That capital punishment may not be necessary for the protection of society is one of a number of practical concerns that should be considered in determining the proper sentence. Retribution is the primary objective of all punishment although clearly not the only one. Protection is a valid objective as well, although it is a secondary one.
Ender
Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.
For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.
The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four ends of punishment. It does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about salutary repentance. It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society against the criminal. Whether it serves to deter others from similar crimes is a disputed question, difficult to settle. Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt.
There is more to be said. Thoughtful writers have contended that the death penalty, besides being unnecessary and often futile, can also be positively harmful.
I don’t think anyone believes the State is qualified to exact Divine anything; that isn’t its role. It is, however not only qualified but obligated to act justly, and that includes imposing retributive justice on those who commit crimes.[Dulles] gives a clear explanation of why the State itself is not qualified to exact Divine retribution in its penalties.
And at the top of the list of common goods is justice.Consequently there must be one supreme virtue essentially distinct from every other virtue, which directs all the virtues to the common good; and this virtue is legal justice.The States primary concern is to serve the common good.
The problem here is that you are assuming that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church towards your point of view without having made a completely sound case that your view is the one that is most consistent with the entire body of Church teaching.It really is pointless having a rational debate with someone who lives in some past time rejecting any movement of the Holy Spirit through the living Church.
The problem with this point is that sometimes “one more chance” frequently leads to postponement of repentance. Sometimes it is necessary to be placed into the position of making a final choice that confronts an attitude that takes it for granted that “more chances” will follow. It is not clear to me that putting off accountability or not being held ultimately accountable is beneficial to human moral growth or responsibility.Well as a Catholic, I leave the issue of someones desserts to the Churchs teaching which I can faithfully trust and the states just regard for the common good. But in my heart, I put myself into someones shoes and feel relief to live in a place where no matter how terrible a person I am, my community values my life as intrinsically good and redeemable and allows me Gods time to redeem myself instead of definitely taking away that possibility. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” “There but for the grace of God go I”. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others”. “…render one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.”
If the Church’s concession is that the death penalty is “legitimately debatable” then that would include listening and considering points raised from all legitimate positions, including Ender.I’m bowing out of the impasse of discussion with you now, Ender. I know by the contributions of others to this topic that there are very few who find your argument credible or purposeful other than those who want to undermine the Church. Your position is quite distinct from the Churchs concession that the application of the death penalty is legitimately debatable within a community …
For what it is worth, my moral sympathies lie with a position very close to that argued by LongingSoul, but for very different reasons. From that perspective, you have done an exceptional job providing alternative “food for thought” regarding the issue.What Aquinas appears to have been saying is not that man should not imitate God’s action but that priests (like Peter) should not. In the OT priests had that right (as Aquinas pointed out), in the new they did not. This point was explicitly codified by the 4th Lateran Council.
That this wasn’t the traditional teaching is most easily seen by looking at the corresponding section of the 1992 version of the catechism, whose definition of the traditional teaching differs from the 1997 version. The 1992 version is in accord with the catechisms that went before it (Piux X, Baltimore, Douay, Bellarmine, Trent, and Thomas). None of them included the caveat mentioned in the 1997 edition.
I can see that you are frustrated because I refuse to repudiate nearly 2000 years of church teaching on this subject.
I will point out (again) that your position contains within it a condemnation of the church’s position as it existed unchanged at least until 1995. It is an implicit assertion that the church prior to that date did not do unto others, did not forgive, and did not value life.
From a simply historical perspective the assertion that earlier societies did not have the capability of permanently incarcerating people appears to be incorrect. Life sentences were quite well known through the centuries.
Most people are unaware of what the church has said on this subject beyond what is in CCC 2267. They may remain unconvinced that capital punishment should be used after reading my comments but they will at least be more knowledgeable about the topic and better able to distinguish valid arguments from invalid ones.
Ender
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Jesus’ advice to “settle matters quickly” seems at odds with LongingSoul’s point about living in a community that offers prolonged opportunity for settling matters.“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. **Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. **(Matt 5:21-26)
I note that you are from Australia so perhaps it is different there but in he US suicides and alcoholics(never heard that one before) are not denied Catholic funerals.The Church also forbids suicides and alcoholics from Catholic funerals and burials. The Church teaches that only the formally baptised can enter heaven. The Church bars females from serving at Mass.
Exactly. The State is qualified to act justly and the measure of justice is in how it serves the common good. The Church, recognising the pervading culture of death deems the death penalty cruel, unnecessary and harmful to the common good ie. unjust.I don’t think anyone believes the State is qualified to exact Divine anything; that isn’t its role. It is, however not only qualified but obligated to act justly, and that includes imposing retributive justice on those who commit crimes.
And at the top of the list of common goods is justice.Consequently there must be one supreme virtue essentially distinct from every other virtue, which directs all the virtues to the common good; and this virtue is legal justice.
If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas)
Ender
I’ve been to-ing and fro-ing with Ender on this topic for what seems like years. It was never really my intention to have a side on the issue, but more to defend to value of the Church current teaching on capital punishment against a view that relegates it as nothing more than ‘opinion’.Originally Posted by LongingSoul
It really is pointless having a rational debate with someone who lives in some past time rejecting any movement of the Holy Spirit through the living Church.
So my view simply finds no disparity between the teaching of the Church 2000, 1000, 500, 100 or 18 years ago… and today. I’ve never regarded capital punishment itself as a divine law.
The problem with this point is that sometimes “one more chance” frequently leads to postponement of repentance. Sometimes it is necessary to be placed into the position of making a final choice that confronts an attitude that takes it for granted that “more chances” will follow. It is not clear to me that putting off accountability or not being held ultimately accountable is beneficial to human moral growth or responsibility.Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Well as a Catholic, I leave the issue of someones desserts to the Churchs teaching which I can faithfully trust and the states just regard for the common good. But in my heart, I put myself into someones shoes and feel relief to live in a place where no matter how terrible a person I am, my community values my life as intrinsically good and redeemable and allows me Gods time to redeem myself instead of definitely taking away that possibility. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” “There but for the grace of God go I”. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others”. “…render one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.”
I know you are making a valid point and the Church says there is room to debate the application of the death penalty as to how it truly serves the common good. What I am really saying is that if the protection of society can be achieved by non lethal means and if the successful rehabilitation of a person can be achieved by non lethal punishment and if it is definitively proved that capital punishment is not a deterrent to further crime … the cultural morality of the society is all that there is to determine whether it is a just punishment or not. Its moral legitimacy depends on how it serves to promote the dignity of human beings.
If the Church’s concession is that the death penalty is “legitimately debatable” then that would include listening and considering points raised from all legitimate positions, including Ender.Originally Posted by LongingSoul
I’m bowing out of the impasse of discussion with you now, Ender. I know by the contributions of others to this topic that there are very few who find your argument credible or purposeful other than those who want to undermine the Church. Your position is quite distinct from the Churchs concession that the application of the death penalty is legitimately debatable within a community …
Ender’s position is an eminently reasonable one and is quite consistent with the body of Church teaching. I do not see that he is trying to undermine the Church nor that his views suffer from any glaring error. In fact, he has made several very good points regarding the Aquinas citation you posted - points to which you have not responded adequately.
As then Card. Ratzinger said… *“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” *
Enders position is not that he feels that it remains ‘permissible to have recourse to capital punishment’ if the state deems it so, but that it is the states right and duty to impose it, making exceptions only for the variants of each individual case. There is a vast difference between Enders position and what the Church is allowing.
For what it is worth, my moral sympathies lie with a position very close to that argued by LongingSoul, but for very different reasons. From that perspective, you have done an exceptional job providing alternative “food for thought” regarding the issue.
I do think it is very easy to lose sight of justice in this matter. When harm is done to others by our actions, we are responsible for that harm. Even when mercy is shown due to repentance and sincere remorse, I do believe we ALL will be held accountable for our actions. We will need to make things right and that will cost. No where should we live with a false comfort that merely repenting for sin will be sufficient to avoid judgment.
Jesus, also made this point very clearly…
For what it is worth, I know that there is an unrealistic ideal that is touted by what some might unkindly call, ‘the bleeding hearts’ crowd. That’s not a position I believe in either. The common good is not served by excessive leniency in punishment. What we are specifically talking about here is only the death penalty. What a death penalty means in a culture that is underpinned by the Commandments and the understanding of the godlessness of murder… is quite different in a culture that has a very a-theistic understanding of the evils of murder. One that doesn’t factor the inalienable dignity of every human being. Capital punishment in that environment can only serve further godlessness unless it is resorted to only to protect the lives of others.Jesus’ advice to “settle matters quickly” seems at odds with LongingSoul’s point about living in a community that offers prolonged opportunity for settling matters.
As I said, my sympathies, generally, are with the position you have been espousing. My reasons, however, are more because of distrust of most political and judicial authorities to take a “clean hands” approach to the issue. I doubt that many decisions regarding capital punishment can be or are being made by authorities who understand the pure idea of justice, which is a position Ender seems to be promoting - that justice requires an appropriate response to evil.For what it is worth, I know that there is an unrealistic ideal that is touted by what some might unkindly call, ‘the bleeding hearts’ crowd. That’s not a position I believe in either. The common good is not served by excessive leniency in punishment. What we are specifically talking about here is only the death penalty. What a death penalty means in a culture that is underpinned by the Commandments and the understanding of the godlessness of murder… is quite different in a culture that has a very a-theistic understanding of the evils of murder. One that doesn’t factor the inalienable dignity of every human being. Capital punishment in that environment can only serve further godlessness unless it is resorted to only to protect the lives of others.
I have not seen a document, perhaps you can provide it, that states the Church deems the death penalty “cruel” or harmful to the common good ie. unjust.Exactly. The State is qualified to act justly and the measure of justice is in how it serves the common good. The Church, recognising the pervading culture of death deems the death penalty cruel, unnecessary and harmful to the common good ie. unjust.
I was making the point to Ender that things evolve with time and understanding. Until 1983 it was the official position of the Church that suicides were denied Catholic funeral and burial because of the graveness of the sin. We are now more aware of the nature of mental illness and how it can diminish a persons culpability. Mental illness was never really addressed by the Church in the past.I note that you are from Australia so perhaps it is different there but in he US suicides and alcoholics(never heard that one before) are not denied Catholic funerals.
The Church does not teach that only the formally baptized can enter heaven unless you are defining formally as including blood and desire? The Church does not bar female from serving at mass they are altar servers but if you mean as priest than it isn’t the Church but God.
The death penalty can be applied unjustly because the death penalty is just a penal tool to serve justice by defending the common good. Using Aquinas’ example, it is like an amputation of an infected limb that is poisoning the whole body. The virtue of applying such a treatment depends on its intention with regards the overall health of the body.I have not seen a document, perhaps you can provide it, that states the Church deems the death penalty “cruel” or harmful to the common good ie. unjust.
It is my opinion that the Pope would have liked to have eliminated it because of personal beliefs but in order to do that he would have had to retract the teaching of the Church that was not possible so he did what he could by making the use “rare”.
The death penalty is not in its self unjust and the Church doesn’t say it is.
And from where does the nation obtain the authority to dispense justice? Remember, the nation at it’s birth has given an oath, “one nation under God”.I don’t think anyone believes the State is qualified to exact Divine anything; that isn’t its role. It is, however not only qualified but obligated to act justly, and that includes imposing retributive justice on those who commit crimes.
And at the top of the list of common goods is justice.Consequently there must be one supreme virtue essentially distinct from every other virtue, which directs all the virtues to the common good; and this virtue is legal justice.
If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas)
Ender
I think you are missing Ender’s point. He is saying that as an aspect of the state’s responsibility for the well-being of its citizens comes the authority to dispense justice. Just as parents, purely by becoming parents, have conferred upon them a responsibility for the well-being of their offspring. That responsibility brings with it a concomitant moral authority to teach and impose justice to prevent and correct wrongdoing by their children.And from where does the nation obtain the authority to dispense justice? Remember, the nation at it’s birth has given an oath, “one nation under God”.
I think we have to continue to be aware that we are talking only of the death penalty as the extreme measure that has its own specific purpose in serving justice. When we are talking about the states right to inflict punishment, this applies to non lethal punishment in general. When the death penalty is addressed, it is always as an extreme resort that serves an acilliary purpose. It doesn’t come under the umbrella of the general rule of punishment.I think you are missing Ender’s point. He is saying that as an aspect of the state’s responsibility for the well-being of its citizens comes the authority to dispense justice. Just as parents, purely by becoming parents, have conferred upon them a responsibility for the well-being of their offspring. That responsibility brings with it a concomitant moral authority to teach and impose justice to prevent and correct wrongdoing by their children.
Similarly, the state, as the body responsible for looking after the well-being of its citizens, is conferred the authority to impose sanctions on some to protect others, i.e., to dispense justice.
We must be careful not to mix up dogma with disciplines. What you speak of here is a discipline not a dogma.I was making the point to Ender that things evolve with time and understanding. Until 1983 it was the official position of the Church that suicides were denied Catholic funeral and burial because of the graveness of the sin.
The teaching ‘no salvation outside the Church’ has been positively formulated in more recent times as being 'not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
This is a dogma and you are mistaken that it was recent times. It is off topic so I won’t go into it other to say that you are correct that dogma can indeed develop. **
The death penalty can be applied unjustly because the death penalty is just a penal tool to serve justice by defending the common good.
This of course applies to the entire penal system. What you are saying is the application of the death penalty might be unjust but the Church has always taught that government has the right to use the death penalty. The death penalty is not unjust but the application might be.
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”
This is not an explanation of what is universally unjust but of what is unwise in particular circumstances. Nor could the church, having recognized the justness of capital punishment for nearly two millennia, ever deem the death penalty unjust. Morality - and that which is just - does not change with time.Exactly. The State is qualified to act justly and the measure of justice is in how it serves the common good. The Church, recognising the pervading culture of death deems the death penalty cruel, unnecessary and harmful to the common good ie. unjust.
Rom 13:1-4Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.And from where does the nation obtain the authority to dispense justice? Remember, the nation at it’s birth has given an oath, “one nation under God”.
The right of states to inflict punishment applies to all punishment; there is nothing in the church’s understanding of punishment that distinguishes between lethal and non-lethal forms.When we are talking about the states right to inflict punishment, this applies to non lethal punishment in general.
Sure it does. Where does the church make the distinction you allude to?When the death penalty is addressed, it is always as an extreme resort that serves an acilliary purpose. It doesn’t come under the umbrella of the general rule of punishment.