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

[Rich_Olszewski]

Courts do have discretion in imposing penalties - within certain limits in that a punishment is unjust that is either too severe or too lenient.

There are a great number of variables involved in determining the punishment that haven’t anything to do with the punishment’s possible severity or lenience. Extenuating circumstances is one, the number of victims is another, degree of brutality is another.

Regarding what was done centuries ago, a punishment that was just then is just today since morality does not change from time to time or place to place, so if capital punishment for murder was a just punishment in the past it is equally just today.

As the Church does not say that capital punishment may not be imposed, the death penalty can be imposed if certain criteria are met.

Yes, well this is the question: is life in prison an adequate punishment for murder? Based on what the Church teaches (excluding 2267) the answer would seem to be no; based on 2267 it would seem to be yes. This puts us back at the same point as before: either we accept 2267 and ignore everything else or we accept everything else and understand 2267 as a prudential recommendation.

The Church’s current position doesn’t preclude capital punishment. The decision to impose it and the criteria for imposition, however, are the perogatives of the State. Alternatives such as life imprisonment or sentences of “40 to Life” are also up to the State.

 

[shaky]

There are a great number of variables involved in determining the punishment that haven’t anything to do with the punishment’s possible severity or lenience. Extenuating circumstances is one, the number of victims is another, degree of brutality is another.

As the Church does not say that capital punishment may not be imposed, the death penalty can be imposed if certain criteria are met.

The Church’s current position doesn’t preclude capital punishment. The decision to impose it and the criteria for imposition, however, are the perogatives of the State. Alternatives such as life imprisonment or sentences of “40 to Life” are also up to the State.

How come in the past the church used the death penalty on heretics and witches?? Was there a catechism that supported this??

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

How come in the past the church used the death penalty on heretics and witches?? Was there a catechism that supported this??

I don’t know. Perhaps Ender can cite the Church document(s) that supports the death penalty for those crimes.

 

[Ender]

There are a great number of variables involved in determining the punishment that haven’t anything to do with the punishment’s possible severity or lenience. Extenuating circumstances is one, the number of victims is another, degree of brutality is another.

The circumstances always need to be considered. In general, however, it seems that the appropriate punishment for murder is execution.

As the Church does not say that capital punishment may not be imposed, the death penalty can be imposed if certain criteria are met.

Yes, but in 2267 the sole criterion for imposing the death penalty is whether it is necessary to secure the safety of the public - and this is the wrong guide to use.

The Church’s current position doesn’t preclude capital punishment. The decision to impose it and the criteria for imposition, however, are the perogatives of the State. Alternatives such as life imprisonment or sentences of “40 to Life” are also up to the State.

Of course the State has not just the right but the duty to determine the punishment; what we are discussing is what the Church teaches about punishment and the proper application of the death penalty, and while 2267 doesn’t theoretically rule it out, in practice it has been opposed in all instances.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I don’t know. Perhaps Ender can cite the Church document(s) that supports the death penalty for those crimes.

I don’t find the question interesting or relevant. If you want to argue that capital punishment was improperly used in the past for crimes that did not merit it, go ahead, but the relevant question here is whether it is the appropriate punishment for the crime of murder. Whether it is inappropriate for other crimes is irrelevant to that question.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The circumstances always need to be considered. In general, however, it seems that the appropriate punishment for murder is execution.

It may indeed be the appropriate punishment, given the circumstances, but 35 years (maximum in Brazil and a few other countries) or 40 to Life or Life Imprisonment may be just as appropriate. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. As you say, the circumstances always need to be considered.

Of course the State has not just the right but the duty to determine the punishment; what we are discussing is what the Church teaches about punishment and the proper application of the death penalty, and while 2267 doesn’t theoretically rule it out, in practice it has been opposed in all instances.

The hierachy certainly have opposed it in all instances, from the Pope on down, and I think they have the discretion to do so.

 

[manualman]

There is a problem with this because infallibility does not extend to opinions and the third part of section 2267 is just that, an opinion. It states:

*“Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by *rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it …”

Clearly, the evaluation of the effectiveness of a country’s penal system is not a theological question and cannot be determined by evaluating any Church teaching whatever. In determining whether the claim is true one would have to do a survey of criminal justice statistics, hardly a matter of faith and morals.

That statement alone is enough to demonstrate that the entire Catechism cannot be considered infallible but the problem is greater than that since 2267 is in conflict not just with the traditional teaching of the Church but with other parts of the same Catechism.

2266 states that the primary objective of punishment is retribution. Protection is a valid objective but it is a secondary one so, contra 2267, the severity of the punishment cannot be determined solely by whether or not it is needed to meet a secondary objective. It must be determined by whether or not it meets the obligation of the primary objective.

And there is more. What are we to make of section 2260 - which cites Gen 9:5-6? Those are the passages on which the Church based her teaching on the acceptability of capital punishment, and, given that the Catechism added the comment that “This teaching remains necessary for all time”, what are we to make of that? How can I accept both 2260 (which repeats the traditional teaching that the life of a murderer is forfeit) and 2267 (which says that the life of a murderer is protected)? How does one accept both 2266 (which says that retribution is the primary objective of punishment) and 2267 (which ignores the primary objective altogether)? How does it make more sense to accept 2267 and jettison quite literally everything the Church ever wrote on the subject rather than to accept everything else and to understand 2267 as a prudential recommendation that using capital punishment in current society causes more problems than it solves?

Ender

Here’s 2266, since you DO seem to want a battle of quotes after all: “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.”

You seem to want that to say “retribution”, but I don’t see it. “redressing the disorder” does NOT seem equivalent to me to “an eye for an eye”. Rather, it sounds to me more like what I do as a parent. When my child does something wrong, I set a punishment intended to help her LEARN that it is wrong and if possible WHY it is wrong.

As for 2260, why do you think Jesus had to die on a cross? It was PRECISELY for this reason! Our sins bring about death and destruction (and not just murder either). He shed his blood willingly for the sins of us ALL.

You make a valid point that 2267 appears to pop from nowhere explicit in Tradition. But you have not made a convincing case that it is in OPPOSITION to Tradition. So far, everything I see still looks like a new insight and conclusion inferred from previous understood principles in Tradition. A conclusion not possible or necessary to consider before society, economics and political stability made humane life imprisonment a feasible option.

Your arguments also contain a flaw you haven’t addressed yet. By any reasonable standard, Saul (St. Paul) was guilty of conspiracy to commit multiple murders. He lead hunts for christians for the express purpose of turning them over for execution. By your principles, didn’t God commit an injustice by enlisting him to be the world’s greatest evangelist? I hope you don’t consider harboring a murder a capital offense too!

I will agree with you that the language DOES make it clear that deciding the practicality of life imprisonment is a prudential judgement, by definition not something that can be infallible. Thus DP opponents (of which I am one) cannot claim that the DP is an “inherently evil” institution. Governments have the role of making prudential decisions, though wise ones should seriously consider the (name removed by moderator)ut of the bishops and magisterium on such issues. I learned that one the hard way when I decided to disagree with nearly every bishop on earth regarding the status of an allegedly “just war” some years back…

 

[JW10631]

Shea can write whatever he wants. Shea has a recent article equating Himmler’s final Solution to the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Given that Shea wasn’t around in 1945, and certainly was not on a transport ship with orders to fight in Operation Olympic, I consider Shea as someone who often does not know what he is talking about and would rather poke a needle in the eye of anyone he considers “conservative”.

Last August, Shea sharply criticized Glenn Beck and his “Restoring Honor” rally. Shea is too lazy to realize that Beck is a Libertarian, not a conservative and Shea’s rantings about Fox News seem to come straight from the DUmp (Democratic Underground)

Have some murderers committed crimes worthy of a death penalty? John Muhammad (the DC sniper), and - if convicted - the Philadelphia abortionist are two who come to mind. Shea would say no. Fine. Shea can spout his opinion in Inside Catholic, on his blog, at the National Catholic Register and wherever else he wants. That does not mean Shea is right. I’ve read enough of Shea that when someone persists in challenging him, Shea gets nasty.

One would get more from reading Father Z’s blog.

 

[Ender]

Here’s 2266, since you DO seem to want a battle of quotes after all:…

It is a question of understanding what the Church teaches, and in order to do that it is good to know what the Church actually says.

You seem to want that to say “retribution”, but I don’t see it. “redressing the disorder” does NOT seem equivalent to me to “an eye for an eye”.

Retribution is what is meant by redressing the disorder; you misunderstand the meaning of the word.

As for 2260, why do you think Jesus had to die on a cross? It was PRECISELY for this reason! Our sins bring about death and destruction (and not just murder either). He shed his blood willingly for the sins of us ALL.

There is no evidence anywhere that the Church ever associated Christ’s death with Gen 9:6.

You make a valid point that 2267 appears to pop from nowhere explicit in Tradition. But you have not made a convincing case that it is in OPPOSITION to Tradition. So far, everything I see still looks like a new insight and conclusion inferred from previous understood principles in Tradition. A conclusion not possible or necessary to consider before society, economics and political stability made humane life imprisonment a feasible option.

This is quite simply untrue. Societies have had life sentences since Roman days. In 1215, the Fourth (Fifth?) Lateran Council specified life sentences for repeat offenders.

By your principles, didn’t God commit an injustice by enlisting him to be the world’s greatest evangelist?

No.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Have some murderers committed crimes worthy of a death penalty? John Muhammad (the DC sniper), and - if convicted - the Philadelphia abortionist are two who come to mind. Shea would say no. Fine. Shea can spout his opinion in Inside Catholic, on his blog, at the National Catholic Register and wherever else he wants. That does not mean Shea is right.

Nor can you say that what you spout is right. You say that it’s just Shea’s opinions. Okay, I’ll buy that, but I can’t accept to a fair thee well that your opinion - or mine, or anybody else’s - is the right one either.

 

[Ender]

Nor can you say that what you spout is right. You say that it’s just Shea’s opinions. Okay, I’ll buy that, but I can’t accept to a fair thee well that your opinion - or mine, or anybody else’s - is the right one either.

This is more than merely a debate about opinions; either it is a question of where the truth lies or the discussion is irrelevant - and I’m thinking that most people don’t consider whether or not a person is executed to be an irrelevant subject. It is a question of understanding what the Church teaches and accepting that, if she has a position on the topic, that position is the one to go with. In the case of Shea’s article, he provided virtually nothing to move the debate along.

JW1063 raised a valid point: was execution the proper punishment for the DC sniper? That’s a yes or no question where one answer is correct and the other is incorrect regardless of one’s personal view about capital punishment. It is a matter of truth, not opinion, and it seems to me that JW is right: the sniper got what he deserved.

Ender

 

[manualman]

1. It is a question of understanding what the Church teaches, and in order to do that it is good to know what the Church actually says.
2. Retribution is what is meant by redressing the disorder; you misunderstand the meaning of the word.

3.There is no evidence anywhere that the Church ever associated Christ’s death with Gen 9:6.

1. This is quite simply untrue. Societies have had life sentences since Roman days. In 1215, the Fourth (Fifth?) Lateran Council specified life sentences for repeat offenders.
   No.

Ender

1. Correct. So far, you’ve failed to demonstrate that the innovative “protective” purpose in the current catechism is REFUTED by earlier tradition. The fact that earlier tradition cites other purposes does not preclude the possibility that those earlier descriptions merely omitted the current (correct) insight. Infallibility is a negative protection, remember. It doesn’t mean that a correct and complete answer will be given to a question, just that the answer given won’t be outright wrong.
2. This is just plain assertion on your part, not argument.
3. The Church always and consistently teaches that the purpose of the first covenant (old testament) is to prepare Israel to receive the New Covenant. Christ is foreshadowed everywhere in the OT. That’s basically OT theology 101.
4. “Life Sentence” in cultures before very recently was merely a euphansim for death sentence, just a somewhat prolonged and suffering one. We’ve been over this.

Clearly I’m not going to convince you, I can see that. But unless you bring something with a little more beef to the table you simply aren’t going to convince me to trust your interpretation and insight over John Paul II and Benedict XVI’s. Sorry.

 

[Ender]

1. Correct. So far, you’ve failed to demonstrate that the innovative “protective” purpose in the current catechism is REFUTED by earlier tradition.

Protection is not an innovation; it has always been a valid objective of punishment. More significantly, it has always been - and remains so today - a secondary objective. The primary objective, as laid out in 2266, is retribution.

1. This is just plain assertion on your part, not argument.

This is from a USCCB statement on capital punishment put out in 1980:

The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.

I think it’s pretty clear this relates to the primary objective as explained in 2266:

Punishment has the primary aim of** redressing the disorder** introduced by the offense.

1. The Church always and consistently teaches that the purpose of the first covenant (old testament) is to prepare Israel to receive the New Covenant. Christ is foreshadowed everywhere in the OT. That’s basically OT theology 101.

I’m willing to bet that nowhere, in anything the Church or theologians have written in 2000 years, is there a single comment supporting this interpretation.

1. “Life Sentence” in cultures before very recently was merely a euphansim for death sentence, just a somewhat prolonged and suffering one. We’ve been over this.

Shall I dismiss all of your comments the way you did mine: “This is just plain assertion on your part, not argument”? You present nothing to support your position or refute mine. If you reject documentation with the assertion that the words mean something other than what they say then citations become meaningless.

Clearly I’m not going to convince you, I can see that. But unless you bring something with a little more beef to the table you simply aren’t going to convince me to trust your interpretation and insight over John Paul II and Benedict XVI’s. Sorry.

Every point I have made is supported by Church history; I have said nothing I cannot document. The difference in our positions is that you’ve said virtually nothing you can support.

Ender

 

[manualman]

Actually you haven’t provided historical backup. USCCB statements are FAR less authoratitive in stature than the universal catechism (thank goodness, since the old NCCB put out some doozies in its day). Besides that, your quote appears to claim that “redress” is the THIRD purpose, while you claim it is “primary.” At least be internally consistent or provide the larger quote.

You are correct on my assertion about life sentence equals lingering death sentence. Off the cuff, I have no citation for you other than my general sense of history that prior to the last several decades prisons were generally unheated stone and iron affairs with no medical treatment, no healthy physical activity, no educational opportunity and little to no attempts to protect inmates from one another. (With the possible exception of prison colonies, a concept I admit to forgetting until now, but is still fairly recent in history)

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It is a question of understanding what the Church teaches and accepting that, if she has a position on the topic, that position is the one to go with.

I fail to see your problem. The Church doesn’t have one position on the topic.

In the past, the Church did not say that the death penalty could not be imposed. It still holds the same today.

Today, however, the Church puts more emphasis on protection of the public by incarceration of the guilty party than by his or her execution.

Execution where the circumstances might dictate it, incarceration otherwise. The Church, as I see it, has no problem with both notions.

So, again, I fail to see your problem with the Church’s stance.

 

[JW10631]

Nor can you say that what you spout is right. You say that it’s just Shea’s opinions. Okay, I’ll buy that, but I can’t accept to a fair thee well that your opinion - or mine, or anybody else’s - is the right one either.

Rich, you have seemingly unlimited time to argue with people here.

I don’t.

My point was - and it went entirely over your head, Rich - that Muhammad and the Philadelphia abortionist (should he be found guilty) are two people that may be worthy of the death penalty based upon their crimes. I did not say that they were with certainity. Muhammad was convicted and I believe sentenced to death but the sentence has not been carried out.

I work during the day. Shea spouts off and gets paid for it. I dare anyone to challenge him about torture and he can become the Internet version of a raving madman.

Does it mean that torture is okay? Of course not. Torture is not justified. Neither is a random application of the death penalty - someone who stupidly plays with a loaded gun and makes it go off and kills another person is not the same as Muhammad.

Shea became royally PO’d at the Bush Administration over the torture allegations and subsequently blamed anyone who he considered “conservative” guilty by association.

Shea does something similar over the death penalty and the nuclear bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Shea is nothing more than a holier than thou who forgets that three fingers point back at him when he points his index finger at someone else.

 

[Ender]

Actually you haven’t provided historical backup. USCCB statements are FAR less authoratitive in stature than the universal catechism (thank goodness, since the old NCCB put out some doozies in its day). Besides that, your quote appears to claim that “redress” is the THIRD purpose, while you claim it is “primary.” At least be internally consistent or provide the larger quote.

I don’t have a lot of confidence in pronouncements from the USCCB either, but I do at least expect them to know the basics of what the Church teaches - such as the meaning of retribution. As far as it being the third purpose, that referred to it’s being the third listed objective; they made no attempt to categorize their relative importance. In fact, they didn’t even list protection as a separate objective but talked about it as a subset of deterrence. There is, I think, a valid objection to what they said in that they listed deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution as objectives justifying punishment but I think in fact that it is retribution alone that can justify punishment. That is, no punishment can be considered just that does not satisfy the obligation of retributive justice regardless of whether or not it satisfies the other objectives.

Ender

 

[Ender]

In the past, the Church did not say that the death penalty could not be imposed. It still holds the same today.

In theory 2267 leaves open the possibility that capital punishment could still be used but in practice that door has been closed. It is universally opposed regardless of the circumstances. If there was ever a situation where the criteria of 2267 were met it was the situation of Saddam Hussein where his rescue/escape could in no way be guaranteed with any degree of certainty and where such an escape could have disastrous consequences. Even there, the Vatican opposed his execution. This was a virtual decree that capital punishment was never to be used, but that position is not in accord with traditional teaching that held that in fact execution was a just punishment - a deserved punishment - for certain crimes.

Today, however, the Church puts more emphasis on protection of the public by incarceration of the guilty party than by his or her execution.

What 2267 does is not only to put protection ahead of retribution in importance but to render to insignificance the importance of retribution itself. The problem with this is that 2266 just confirmed that it was retribution that was the primary objective of punishment. So, which is it? Is retribution the primary objective (2266) or not (2267)?

By focusing solely on protection the whole concept of retribution and its importance is lost.

Ender

 

[Ender]

My point was - and it went entirely over your head, Rich - that Muhammad and the Philadelphia abortionist (should he be found guilty) are two people that may be worthy of the death penalty based upon their crimes.

I am not familiar with the (gruesome) details of the abortionist, but I will go further in the case of Muhammad and say the he in fact deserved the death penalty. That was the proper punishment for his crimes. The state of Virginia agreed and executed him in November, 2009

Shea spouts off and gets paid for it. I dare anyone to challenge him about torture and he can become the Internet version of a raving madman.

This is true - first hand experience with this one.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

In theory 2267 leaves open the possibility that capital punishment could still be used but in practice that door has been closed. It is universally opposed regardless of the circumstances. If there was ever a situation where the criteria of 2267 were met it was the situation of Saddam Hussein where his rescue/escape could in no way be guaranteed with any degree of certainty and where such an escape could have disastrous consequences. Even there, the Vatican opposed his execution. This was a virtual decree that capital punishment was never to be used, but that position is not in accord with traditional teaching that held that in fact execution was a just punishment - a deserved punishment - for certain crimes.

Even so, there is no requirement to impose the death penalty. The Church has never said that criminals are not to be punished. It does not object to life imprisonment as an adequate retribution for the offender’s crimes.

By focusing solely on protection the whole concept of retribution and its importance is lost.

If the Church says that punishment must be the prime object, I have no problem with that. I, however, would not extend the method of inflicting punishment to killing the offender. Half a century behind bars gives the convicted a lot of time to contemplate his crime and what the rest of his life would be because of his crime. I see such a sentence as adequate retribution for the ordinary murderer, and if there were reasons enough to justify executing him or her, then I could accept that as well. (what comes to mind is a lifer who kills while in prison. A life sentence would not be meaningful as adequate punishment. - I believe that such a case occurred in California within the last several years, and the man was executed - appropriately.)