Death Penalty and where it gets weird

[adrift]

An interesting point for those who want to google this fancy bit of footwork… When all the pro-death penalty sites quote the Catechism, they pretty much all change the wording of 2266 to 'the primary scope of the penalty’, as though this paragraph specifically deals with the death penalty, when in the official wording it is addressing ‘the primary scope of punishment’ in general, following on from that with the reference to the death penalty. I]

I want to go back to this statement. The charge is made that the wording is changed. This charge was not substantiated but instead had it’s own “fancy bit of footwork” It attempted to make it sound like the death penalty had nothing to do with 2266. Amazingly, what is written actually shows the opposite.

when in the official wording it is addressing ‘the primary scope of punishment’ in general, following on from that with the reference to the death penalty

Followed on by the death penalty thereby directly connecting 2267 to 2266.
Note that what you call general does not limit the right to inflict punishment which includes the death penalty. The right and duty must be proportionate to the gravity of he offense. In addition it is followed up with 2267 to include additional guides specific to the death penalty.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party

 

[LongingSoul]

I want to go back to this statement. The charge is made that the wording is changed. This charge was not substantiated but instead had it’s own “fancy bit of footwork” It attempted to make it sound like the death penalty had nothing to do with 2266. Amazingly, what is written actually shows the opposite.

Followed on by the death penalty thereby directly connecting 2267 to 2266.
Note that what you call general does not limit the right to inflict punishment which includes the death penalty. The right and duty must be proportionate to the gravity of he offense. In addition it is followed up with 2267 to include additional guides specific to the death penalty.

I want to get the chance to see an up to date copy of the Catechism before I continue with this line because if 2266 has in fact had a wording change and the subheading of Capital Punishment added in 2003 to what shows on that Vatican link, I’ll have to concede that I was wrong. I’ll be shocked to see such a change but want to be able to see it with my own eyes by going to our Cathedral bookshop, where they have everything up to date.

What I was actually saying was that by adding the heading ‘Capital Punishment’ right above 2266, it makes 2266 sound as if it is directly applying to the death penalty. When it says *"Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(Referring to capital punishment which we are now addressing by virtue of the sub heading) *the primary scope of the penalty * (the penalty as in the death penalty we are now addressing)is to redress the disorder caused by the offense."

This makes the ‘new’ wording sound like far from the death penalty being a measure of last resort, it is impelled by the State as a duty, rather than that sentence applying to punishment in general.

The ‘old’ wording that was addressing punishment in general without separating 2266 and 2267 from the Legitimate Defense justification and giving the death penalty its own justification not limited by the legitimate defense justification, seems to be deliberate in order to impel States to use the death penalty without being restricted by the Church teaching.

As I said, I need to see the most up to date copy of the Catechism first before I try to wrap my head around these changes.

 

[Ender]

I want to get the chance to see an up to date copy of the Catechism before I continue with this line because if 2266 has in fact had a wording change and the subheading of Capital Punishment added in 2003 to what shows on that Vatican link, I’ll have to concede that I was wrong.

Well, you were wrong but the error is pretty much irrelevant. It doesn’t mean what you think it does.

What I was actually saying was that by adding the heading ‘Capital Punishment’ right above 2266, it makes 2266 sound as if it is directly applying to the death penalty.

It may seem that way but 2266 is actually generic: everything in that section pertains to all punishment. Only 2267 is specifically about capital punishment.

When it says "Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (Referring to capital punishment which we are now addressing by virtue of the sub heading)…

This passage applies to all punishment. This is the responsibility of the magistrate. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis (Bellarmine)

… the primary scope of the penalty (the penalty as in the death penalty we are now addressing)is to redress the disorder caused by the offense."

The use of penalty here is synonymous with punishment and this observation is true of all punishment. the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)
You are reading way too much into that subheading, although it is fair to observe that it would have been better had it simply said “punishment” rather than “capital punishment.”

Ender

 

[johnnyt3000]

That are no guarantees that the church is right about anything at all.

There is a guarentee that the Church is right when speaking on matters that have been infallibly defined.

 

[BellsMom]

Ender,

I’ve read countless threads where you are unwavering in your support of the right to use the death penalty.

Please answer me this, how can you trust a unquestionably amoral government (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia) to properly and justly met out death sentences to it’s citizens?

This makes no sense to me.

 

[Ender]

Please answer me this, how can you trust a unquestionably amoral government (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia) to properly and justly met out death sentences to it’s citizens?

There are two very different ways to argue against the use of capital punishment. One approach is moral, the other is practical. The points you raise above are practical objections; we can’t trust an immoral government with such power so we shouldn’t employ it.

Most of my arguments are about the morality of its use. I don’t get into too many practical arguments against it as they are primarily differences of opinion that rarely make much progress. I have several times acknowledged that there can be legitimate prudential reasons for opposing capital punishment. What I have steadfastly opposed is the assertion that there are moral objections to it.

Ender

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **