Death Penalty-magisterium-vs-left-and-right

[Ender]

Commensurate is what a court says is commensurate with a capital crime.

I’m sure you don’t believe this - or would you accept the execution of Christian converts as just simply because Sharia law calls for it? Morality is not determined by courts. This is a moral question that should be determined by what the Church teaches on the subject.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I’m sure you don’t believe this - or would you accept the execution of Christian converts as just simply because Sharia law calls for it? Morality is not determined by courts. This is a moral question that should be determined by what the Church teaches on the subject.

What the Church teaches? I have yet to see the Church enter amicus curiae briefs either for or against any particular punishments meted out in Western courts, including the death penalty.

{Added: If it has done so in any country, I will stand corrected, but will presume that such briefs were made by it against the imposition of the death penalty.}

As for Shariah law, I find it of no relevance to the administration of justice in the western countries and to the imposition of punishments in the West. You were perfectly aware that I was refering to Western law.

 

[shaky]

This doesn’t address my comment that in the case of a lifer who commits a murder in prison, 2267 would prohibit any punishment if it could be reasonably assumed that he could be prevented from killing a third time. This is so because there is no additional punishment to be levied against him since he’s already serving life and 2267 will not allow the death penalty.
True, but again it misses the point. How, with the restrictions of 2267, do you punish a prisoner who is already serving a life sentence if he commits another crime in prison?
Retribution is the primary objective of punishment (2266) and the State has a positive obligation to apply it. It is the only objective that can justify punishment - although other objectives (safety, deterrence, rehabilitation) are also important and every attempt should be made to secure those objectives as well. The point is: none of these other objectives alone can justify a particular punishment. Only retribution - justice - can do that.

Ender

People who get life imprisonment can still be punished further by having privilages taken away. Like TV etc

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

People who get life imprisonment can still be punished further by having privilages taken away. Like TV etc

That’s peripheral. Solitary confinement on a 23.5/7 (half hour to shower) basis would be more in keeping with severe punshment. IMO.

 

[Ender]

What the Church teaches? I have yet to see the Church enter amicus curiae briefs either for or against any particular punishments meted out in Western courts, including the death penalty.

This discussion is not a study of world penology; it is about determining the proper use of capital punishment and for us that means understanding what the Church teaches on the subject. What other countries or the various states do is simply irrelevant.

You were perfectly aware that I was refering to Western law.

Your responses have a way of being off topic so I’m often unsure of the point you’re trying to make.

Ender

 

[Ender]

People who get life imprisonment can still be punished further by having privilages taken away. Like TV etc

This pretty much makes my point: a person commits murder and loses his TV privileges. Can we possibly cheapen the value of life more than by sentencing those who kill with the same punishments we use on disobedient children?

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

This discussion is not a study of world penology; it is about determining the proper use of capital punishment and for us that means understanding what the Church teaches on the subject. What other countries or the various states do is simply irrelevant.

The Church teaches that the death penalty may be appropriate in certain cases, as has been discussed endlessly on this and other threads, and it also doesn’t demand that it be used, also as has been equally discussed.

You are one of those who demand the death penalty. Others do not demand it. And, both these basic positions are consistent with Church teaching and the Church’s position. So, I fail to see your difficulty in accepting that.

BTW, the Church is also an actor in the world community, and its relationship to the rest of the world is quite relevant. If the Church doesn’t engage with the world - it will risk becoming irrelevant itself.

 

[Ender]

You are one of those who demand the death penalty. Others do not demand it. And, both these basic positions are consistent with Church teaching and the Church’s position. So, I fail to see your difficulty in accepting that.

What I have objected to are the arguments being used to oppose capital punishment. I accept that people can be against capital punishment but I expect them to be able to articulate a valid reason for their position. So far that has not been the case.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

What I have objected to are the arguments being used to oppose capital punishment. I accept that people can be against capital punishment but I expect them to be able to articulate a valid reason for their position. So far that has not been the case.

The operative word, as I see it, is “valid” - and you seem to accept as valid only that which you personally consider as valid. However, there is no stock reason for opposing the death penalty or for insisting on its administation. Imposing the death penalty entails so many nuanced variables as not to make it a simple black-or-white decision.

I accept executing a man or woman if there are extenuating circumstances that would make a llife sentence inappropriate - I come back to the murder of prison guards or prisoners by a lifer or murder of several people “with callous disregard for life.” Life on top of life doesn’t seem like much of a sentence in those cases.

I, however, accept making the punishment less than death, as the Church also accepts, and am comfortable with maximum punishments that range from 25 years to life without parole. As an attorney, I cannot view the punishment for murder except as part of the penology of where it is imposed. I am in good company for the Church nowhere demands the death penalty and nothing else, as the proper punishment for murder.

 

[Ender]

The operative word, as I see it, is “valid” - and you seem to accept as valid only that which you personally consider as valid.

Not exactly. A valid argument is one based on Church doctrine; an invalid argument is one based on personal interpretation of scripture. It’s not really all that complicated.

However, there is no stock reason for opposing the death penalty or for insisting on its administration.

The stock reason for opposing it is that it is opposed in 2267; the stock reason for supporting it is that it is supported everywhere else (in the documents of the Church.)

As an attorney, I cannot view the punishment for murder except as part of the penology of where it is imposed.

As a Catholic, I cannot view the punishment for murder except as part of Church teaching.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The stock reason for opposing it is that it is opposed in 2267; the stock reason for supporting it is that it is supported everywhere else (in the documents of the Church.)

And even in supporting the death penalty, the Church nowhere says that it must be imposed.

As a Catholic, I cannot view the punishment for murder except as part of Church teaching.

That does not conflict with the State’s right to either impose it or not, and the Church has not, to the best of my knowledge, interfered with the actions of the State in determining what the punishment for murder should be.

 

[shaky]

This pretty much makes my point: a person commits murder and loses his TV privileges. Can we possibly cheapen the value of life more than by sentencing those who kill with the same punishments we use on disobedient children?

Ender

With our children we use short punishments. But a lifer for murder would think twice about murdering somebody in prision, especially with the thought of life without TV.

 

[shaky]

What I have objected to are the arguments being used to oppose capital punishment. I accept that people can be against capital punishment but I expect them to be able to articulate a valid reason for their position. So far that has not been the case.

Ender

Well I would say if somebody murdered one off. Was truly sorry and asked God for forgiveness. God would not punish them in any way at all. But if we have unforgiveness and still want the death penalty for that person we would be in Sin.

Locking that person up for life should be for the purpose of preventing future murder and to protect the public. If the lifer feels he is being punished for being locked up for life. That is his problem. because there are plenty of free people that are paralised from the neck down that are in prision in there body. And all the other sufferings in the world.

 

[Ender]

With our children we use short punishments. But a lifer for murder would think twice about murdering somebody in prision, especially with the thought of life without TV.

This observation is from the Catechism of Trent:

*Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *

I would say we have no conception of the wickedness of murder when the argument is made that losing television privileges constitutes a just punishment for taking someone’s life. On the other hand, our abhorrence of murder is naturally affected by society’s reaction to it, which has over time shifted from outrage over the crime and compassion for the victim to compassion for the criminal and outrage over the punishment.

Well I would say if somebody murdered one off. Was truly sorry and asked God for forgiveness. God would not punish them in any way at all.

Given our current muddled view of crime and punishment this opinion is probably fairly common, but it is nonetheless incorrect. Forgiveness does not erase the debt incurred by sin.

• At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” (**Ex 34: 6-7). In the Second Book of Samuel, King David’s humble confession after his grave sin obtains God’s forgiveness (cf. 2 **Sm 12: 13), but not the prevention of the foretold chastisement (cf. **ibid., 12: 11; 16: 21). God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good (cf. **Heb 12: 4-11). * (JPII, General Audience, 1999)

Locking that person up for life should be for the purpose of preventing future murder and to protect the public. If the lifer feels he is being punished for being locked up for life. That is his problem.

But he should feel he is being punished because that is the only valid justification for his imprisonment. He is being punished, that’s the whole point. His sin demands it and is in no way mitigated by his being forgiven.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, I recognize this “argument”: It’s-in-the-Catechism-so-I-don’t-need-to-discuss-it, and I recognize why you cling to it, it is after all (usually) a strong position. It is also your only argument as there is no logical defense of 2267. But let’s be clear, when you say “the Catholic Catechism” what you really mean is the latest (1997) version of the Catholic Catechism, as opposed to the Catholic Catechisms of Baltimore, Pius X, Trent, and St. Thomas (or even the earlier 1992 version) with which it is not compatible.

Actually, that’s not quite correct either, because what you must also do in appealing solely to the 1997 document is to limit the discussion to section 2267 alone and ignore (at least) sections 2266 and 2260. The position that the “Catechism trumps any arguments you might present” only sounds strong on the surface, once you poke at it even a little it rapidly falls apart. But I do understand why you don’t want to debate the ideas expressed in 2267 … there really is no way to sustain them.

Ender

So…you believe your position is so strong that you can ignore what the CCC states? Have you torn the pages you disagree with out of your copy of the CCC?

I’m going to do that, too. They will be different pages; perhaps the pages on ABC. Or abortion.

 

[Suudy]

LittleSoldier:

So…you believe your position is so strong that you can ignore what the CCC states? Have you torn the pages you disagree with out of your copy of the CCC?

I have to admit, reading the discussion between you and Ender has prompted me to do some reading of my own. Karl Keating wrote an e-letter back in 2004 on this very point:

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

From that article:
Hasn’t the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” imposed a new regime to which all Catholics must subscribe? Hasn’t the Church fine-tuned her teachings in recent years so that Catholics now are obliged to oppose the imposition of capital punishment except is cases so rare that they may be considered to be almost non-existent?
This would certainly seem to be your position. Interestingly enough, there was some analysis, done by an expert, on this very point. Karl outlines some key points from that article in his e-letter. You may have to register to gain access to the actual article from Fr. Dunnigan, but here’s a link:

ssl4.westserver.net/st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4

From Karl’s article:
In short, there is an ambiguity in the “Catechism.” Other punishments are looked at not just in terms of legitimate defense but under all three purposes of punishment in general. The death penalty, for some unexplained reason, is looked at only in terms of one of the three purposes, protection of innocent parties.
Which is a great point. Why is the death penalty excepted? Cardinal Dulles thinks the Catechism is not expressing what an out of context plain reading of 2267 lead many to think. Rather, it must be understood in the context of traditional Church teaching and the reasons for the text. As Karl wrote (emphasis mine):
How are we to understand this? Avery Cardinal Dulles has noted (in a letter to the “National Catholic Register”) that a denial of retribution as a legitimate purpose of capital punishment would be contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church, but this is not, he thinks, what the magisterium is doing in the “Catechism.”

						**Dulles believes that section 2267 and "Evangelium Vitae" are not Church 							teaching, in the proper meaning of the term, but reflect the "prudential 							judgment" of John Paul II.**And Karl's conclusion is most telling:

You can be a good Catholic and think that the death penalty should be done away with entirely, and you can be a good Catholic and think that it should be applied more often than “rarely.”

						You are not bound in conscience to adopt one position over the other. You 							are free to make your own prudential determination--but you are not free to 							say that someone whose prudential determination differs from yours is 							therefore a "bad Catholic."

I hope this is a lesson we can call understand and learn from.

 

[Ender]

I have to admit, reading the discussion between you and Ender has prompted me to do some reading of my own. Karl Keating wrote an e-letter back in 2004 on this very point…

Keating came to the same conclusion I reached: 2267 contains opinion, not doctrine.

To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And Karl’s conclusion is most telling:

"You can be a good Catholic and think that the death penalty should be done away with entirely, and you can be a good Catholic and think that it should be applied more often than “rarely.”

You are not bound in conscience to adopt one position over the other. You are free to make your own prudential determination–but you are not free to say that someone whose prudential determination differs from yours is therefore a “bad Catholic.”

I hope this is a lesson we can call understand and learn from.

Agree wholly. It seems that the sentiment among most Catholics is towards abolishing use of the death penalty, which IMO is a good thing, but there are some, albeit narrow, circumstances where it is the only punishment that makes any sense.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have to admit, reading the discussion between you and Ender has prompted me to do some reading of my own. Karl Keating wrote an e-letter back in 2004 on this very point:

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

From that article:
Hasn’t the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” imposed a new regime to which all Catholics must subscribe? Hasn’t the Church fine-tuned her teachings in recent years so that Catholics now are obliged to oppose the imposition of capital punishment except is cases so rare that they may be considered to be almost non-existent?
This would certainly seem to be your position. Interestingly enough, there was some analysis, done by an expert, on this very point. Karl outlines some key points from that article in his e-letter. You may have to register to gain access to the actual article from Fr. Dunnigan, but here’s a link:

ssl4.westserver.net/st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4

From Karl’s article:
In short, there is an ambiguity in the “Catechism.” Other punishments are looked at not just in terms of legitimate defense but under all three purposes of punishment in general. The death penalty, for some unexplained reason, is looked at only in terms of one of the three purposes, protection of innocent parties.
Which is a great point. Why is the death penalty excepted? Cardinal Dulles thinks the Catechism is not expressing what an out of context plain reading of 2267 lead many to think. Rather, it must be understood in the context of traditional Church teaching and the reasons for the text. As Karl wrote (emphasis mine):
How are we to understand this? Avery Cardinal Dulles has noted (in a letter to the “National Catholic Register”) that a denial of retribution as a legitimate purpose of capital punishment would be contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church, but this is not, he thinks, what the magisterium is doing in the “Catechism.”

						**Dulles believes that section 2267 and "Evangelium Vitae" are not Church 							teaching, in the proper meaning of the term, but reflect the "prudential 							judgment" of John Paul II.**And Karl's conclusion is most telling:

You can be a good Catholic and think that the death penalty should be done away with entirely, and you can be a good Catholic and think that it should be applied more often than “rarely.”

						You are not bound in conscience to adopt one position over the other. You 							are free to make your own prudential determination--but you are not free to 							say that someone whose prudential determination differs from yours is 							therefore a "bad Catholic."

I hope this is a lesson we can call understand and learn from.

Thank you for the link. I do agree fully with the CCC that the death penalty should never be used except in cases where it is the only way the public can be protected. Mr. Keating is, as far as I know, not any sort of expert on Catholicism. About the only thing I know about him is that he started CAF, a remarkably conservative (if not reactionary) website.

Why is Mr. Keating considered to be an expert? I’m not trying to be uncharitable (this is difficult when using letters and emoticons online); I’m asking for information.

I also do not believe that human beings have the right to kill other human beings - unless that is the only way the public can be protected. This includes times of war and self-defense.

I feel very strongly about the death penalty issue because the entire pro-life issue is very important to me and I don’t limit my beliefs and actions to fighting abortion.

I hope you noticed that nobody in the conversation you referred to called anyone a “bad Catholic.” I’m sure you did (I’m just putting this in so that anyone who has not read that exchange will know). Actually I believe the entire exchange was conducted in a charitable manner and I appreciate that. Many subthreads are not.

But I question why the Church would allow the CCC to contain information that is not Church teaching.

And I question why anyone would refuse to accept the following (as it comes from the USCCB, which I believe is part of the Magisterium):

**“The test of whether the death penalty can be used is whether society has alternative ways to protect itself, not how terrible the crime was. Life in prison without parole provides a non-lethal alternative to the death penalty. We can’t know whether God has a purpose for a person’s life, even one who has committed a terrible crime and must spend his or her life behind bars.” **

usccb.org/deathpenalty/questions_answers.shtml

There is a lot of debate about ABC. Is it acceptable for me to say that I will use ABC and can remain a good Catholic? I get the impression that I should rip the page about capital punishment out of the CCC as there is debate on it and it may not be Church teaching. If that is true, then every other item in the CCC is subject to the same criticism. Again, I’m not trying to be uncharitable, but the smacks of moral relativism.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Agree wholly. It seems that the sentiment among most Catholics is towards abolishing use of the death penalty, which IMO is a good thing, but there are some, albeit narrow, circumstances where it is the only punishment that makes any sense.

What are those “some, albeit narrow, circumstances?”