Death penalty question

[Blue_Horizon]

The Church always had a recognition that, at times, God DEMANDED that the faithful kill.

This may be a heavy wheelbarrow to push.
And it were true I don’t think your quote from Trent below is the one I would go for.

Besides, the Commandments are made for man, not for God.
God can justly kill whomsoever he pleases.

Whether any man can truly claim God personally inspired him to kill is another story.
Doesn’t seem to work in Court and prob for good reason.

 

[Mousey]

BTW I hope you aren’t stalking me of late Mousey, there are Forum rules against that sort of jejeune behaviour .

You really are conceited and arrogant. You won’t stop me from answering your questionable statements. The experts are the ones I learned that it was a mistranslation of the commandment of thy shall not murder. You couldn’t counter the Greek so you attack me that is called ad hominem and you seem to do a lot of that very uncharitable.

 

[Rau]

The Church always had a recognition that, at times, God DEMANDED that the faithful kill.

Here is the Catechism of Trent on the 5th Commandment, specifically in regards to the Death Penalty. Note the bolded.

The Church’s teaching in that the just use of Captial Punishment is actually a FULFILLMENT of the 5th Commandment.

And the same time the Council of Trent referred to an instance in which David was called to kill, specifically in Divinely Inspired Scripture ( Psalm 101)

The just application of CP may satisfy the criteria you set out. This does not provide confidence that all application of CP is just or moral, not even that CP absent corrupt influence is always just and moral.

 

[Mousey]

Why not let the Church answer your own question: since it doesn’t exclude recourse to the death penalty, then she teaches that the death penalty is NOT wrong.

Perhaps today, she recommends against its use, restricting it to a certain set of restrictions, but that does not speak against the morality of capital punishment as a principle.

The premise is flawed because the Church does not teach that the death penalty is wrong. The answer therefore (i.e. dogmatic certainty), is none, because this is not Church teaching.

I have seen this debate over and over again. What it boils down to is as you say the Church recommends against the use of cp but there are those who wants to stretch this to it is intrinsically evil. As you say, the Church does not say that it is wrong, that is immoral. I would prefer to see it used rarely but not done away with it. I do believe there might be cases where it would be appropriate.

 

[porthos11]

I have seen this debate over and over again. What it boils down to is as you say the Church recommends against the use of cp but there are those who wants to stretch this to it is intrinsically evil. As you say, the Church does not say that it is wrong, that is immoral. I would prefer to see it used rarely but not done away with it. I do believe there might be cases where it would be appropriate.

As would I. I live in Canada, where there is no death penalty, and I’m all the way fine with that. I would even have no trouble if it were abolished worldwide.

But you’re right; there are Catholics who think that for some reason, the death penalty is intrinsically evil and therefore lump it together with euthanasia and abortion. This is where I insist on holding on to proper Catholic teaching: the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil and can be morally used, unlike the latter two which can never be performed under any circumstances without being gravely evil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You really are conceited and arrogant. You won’t stop me from answering your questionable statements. The experts are the ones I learned that it was a mistranslation of the commandment of thy shall not murder. You couldn’t counter the Greek so you attack me that is called ad hominem and you seem to do a lot of that very uncharitable.

Mousey, after I accidentally missed your comment on the Garabandal thread 2 days ago you have posted 7 times including here.

In those 7 posts you engaged but one topic I was not already on.
When you contributed on the three topics I was already on you seemed to only take issue with my contributions - and in an increasingly petulant manner.

I am sharing with you a friendly observation suggesting that you might review your behaviour as it may get you into trouble eventually. To assist in that I will not be responding to any of your future comments on my posts. Don’t take it personally.

 

[john330]

I would like to enter this question:

In a state that gives the death penalty for the crime of murder, has the murderer chosen the death penalty when he chose to murder?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would like to enter this question:

In a state that gives the death penalty for the crime of murder, has the murderer chosen the death penalty when he chose to murder?

It seems the latest CCC largely views CapPunishment as morally parallel to personal self defence.

So if someone attacks you in a subway with a 12 inch carving knife … has that person chosen to be killed when you pull out your pistol from your handbag?

 

[john330]

It seems the latest CCC largely views CapPunishment as morally parallel to personal self defence.

So if someone attacks you in a subway with a 12 inch carving knife … has that person chosen to be killed when you pull out your pistol from your handbag?

Maybe. With the death penalty, in a state that sanctions it, all prospective murderers know that they may receive the death penalty as a punishment for their crime. When we make decisions, we accept all reasonable possible outcomes. An “rational attacker” in a subway will realize that in order to rob you of your wallet with a knife, that you may pull a gun. This is one possible ramification for his action. And robbers and murderers are more rational than we like to think.

 

[Ender]

Ender I am not going to re-debate the discussion myself and others had with you last month.
Suffice it to say you were unable to vindicate your view against other sources and interpretations presented to you there.

Refusing to accept my argument is nothing like rebutting it.

Its a bit sad that you attempt to trump the latest CCC with Augustine as if there has been no deeper Magisterial reflection on “killing” in the intervening 1500 years.

Well, here’s the point: it hasn’t. Opposition to the use of capital punishment is a very recent phenomenon within the church, arising only in the last 40 years or so.

Ender

 

[Mousey]

I found this site interesting concerning the history of the death penalty.

Nov. 21, 1974 - National Conference of Catholic Bishops Publicly Opposes Death Penalty

“The National Conference of Catholic Bishops speaks out against capital punishment in a reversal of the traditional Roman Catholic Church position supporting the death penalty as a legitimate means of self-protection for the state.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Refusing to accept my argument is nothing like rebutting it.

Well, here’s the point: it hasn’t. Opposition to the use of capital punishment is a very recent phenomenon within the church, arising only in the last 40 years or so.

Ender

Noone here is talking of a recent Theology that denies the a priori justification of CP. It’s about a Theology well articulated in the CCC that reveals more about CP than mere punishment principles of the past. It shows that self defence is even more fundamental… which explains why a posterior it cannot easily be justified in these modern times.

 

[Ender]

Noone here is talking of a recent Theology that denies the a priori justification of CP. It’s about a Theology well articulated in the CCC that reveals more about CP than mere punishment principles of the past. It shows that self defence is even more fundamental… which explains why a posterior it cannot easily be justified in these modern times.

What does the catechism say is the primary objective of punishment? Does it say it is self defense? It addresses that point directly when it states "The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense." (2266) Is it possible to read that and argue that preventing new crimes does anything to redress the disorder caused by those already committed? Self defense is a valid objective of punishment, but is not primary.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What does the catechism say is the primary objective of punishment?

Well, the CCC goes on to further elucidate what is meant by the somewhat generic/general opening phrase “redress the disorder” in the next sentence that you left out:*
“Punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons…”*
This would suggest to most people that the “primary scope of the penalty” is to preserve the safety of the Commonwealth by limiting the disorder that the criminal is causing.

And your blinkered quote left out the introductory sentence to 2266 which is clearly setting the tone for this paragraph:
*“The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviours injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.” *

Sounds like the same objective as personal self-defence to me.

Further, even this punishment by the State must be proportional to achieving that objective (protecting the common good):
“…inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”
And in 2267:
"…recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. "

This is exactly the same requirement in self-defence where my aggression must only be the min required to limit my attacker from hurting me or my family:
“If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”

Does it say it is self defense?

Effectively Yes.
The above scope and its enunciated principles are of course exactly the same as those immediately enunciated previously in 2263-2265 for self-defence:
"legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against …intentional killing…the killing of the aggressor is not [intended].”

Likewise the State, even when punishes a criminal, may not directly intend to harm them, it is for their own good, namely it should be about rehabilitation as well as limiting their ongoing threat to society:
"…punishment, in addition to preserving public order…has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender. "
I accept this medicinal aspect of Capital Punishment is secondary in scope to the more primary objective of preserving public order.

 

[Ender]

Well, the CCC goes on to further elucidate what is meant by the somewhat generic/general opening phrase “redress the disorder” in the next sentence that you left out:*
“Punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons…”*
This would suggest to most people that the “primary scope of the penalty” is to preserve the safety of the Commonwealth by limiting the disorder that the criminal is causing.

The section discusses several aspects of punishment but it does not address what is meant by “redressing the disorder.” “Redress” means to fix, to put to right, to repair what was damaged. There is no sense in which the prevention of future disorders redresses disorders of the past. There is not much I agree with the USCCB on but even they got the meaning of “redress the disorder” right.
*“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.”

• That is, redress means retribution.

And your blinkered quote left out the introductory sentence to 2266 which is clearly setting the tone for this paragraph…

I think the simple declarative statement that begins: “The primary scope of the penalty is…” is a better indicator of the primary scope of the penalty than the “tone” intuited from other comments.

Sounds like the same objective as personal self-defence to me.

That an execution is not a legitimate act of self defense is seen from the fact that it fails the primary restriction that the death not be intended. That the death be unintended is a requirement of self defense; it is also the primary objective of an execution, therefore an execution cannot be considered an act of self defense because it fails that requirement.

Further, even this punishment by the State must be proportional to achieving that objective (protecting the common good):
“…inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

A punishment commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime is an obligation of justice, and since justice is clearly a significant aspect of the common good this is an obligation that must be fulfilled.

The above scope and its enunciated principles are of course exactly the same as those immediately enunciated previously in 2263-2265 for self-defence:
"legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against …intentional killing…the killing of the aggressor is not [intended].”

Except that in an execution the killing of the victim is the entire purpose of the action. It is a death sentence, not a “protect society” sentence.

Likewise the State, even when punishes a criminal, may not directly intend to harm them, it is for their own good, namely it should be about rehabilitation as well as limiting their ongoing threat to society…

Rehabilitation is a valid objective, but like protection and deterrence, it is only secondary.

I accept this medicinal aspect of Capital Punishment is secondary in scope to the more primary objective of preserving public order.

Public order cannot be reduced simply to physical protection.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The section discusses several aspects of punishment but it does not address what is meant by “redressing the disorder.” “Redress” means to fix, to put to right, to repair what was damaged. There is no sense in which the prevention of future disorders redresses disorders of the past. There is not much I agree with the USCCB on but even they got the meaning of “redress the disorder” right.
*“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.”

• That is, redress means retribution.

I think the simple declarative statement that begins: “The primary scope of the penalty is…” is a better indicator of the primary scope of the penalty than the “tone” intuited from other comments.

That an execution is not a legitimate act of self defense is seen from the fact that it fails the primary restriction that the death not be intended. That the death be unintended is a requirement of self defense; it is also the primary objective of an execution, therefore an execution cannot be considered an act of self defense because it fails that requirement.

A punishment commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime is an obligation of justice, and since justice is clearly a significant aspect of the common good this is an obligation that must be fulfilled.

Except that in an execution the killing of the victim is the entire purpose of the action. It is a death sentence, not a “protect society” sentence.

Rehabilitation is a valid objective, but like protection and deterrence, it is only secondary.

Public order cannot be reduced simply to physical protection.

Ender

Its unfortunate that retributive justice theory of older times is not well supported in the CCC as the justification of CP Ender.

We all accept that CP by the state is able to be justified…unfortunately the CCC no longer emphasises that this justification is purely on the basis of proportional retribution (an eye for an eye), i.e. pure **punishment of the guilty **.

Instead it appears to emphasise that **protection of the innocent **(ie self defence of the State) is the main justification instead.

“2267…the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the **only possible way **of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor.” That doesn’t sound like retrib justice principles (purely punishing the guilty) to me.

Sure, you can see your own view in the CCC if you look at particular phrases and ignore the context. But your effort is so tortured. Its a bit like those comedy videos where you can make President Kennedy say anything you like by cutting out words from different speeches and stitching them together.

Nothing more to be said.

 

[Ender]

Its unfortunate that retributive justice theory of older times is not well supported in the CCC as the justification of CP Ender.

Capital punishment is simply a particular form of punishment, and everything that applies to punishment in general applies to capital punishment in particular. 2266 is speaking of punishment in general when it states that the primary objective is retribution. This is true of all punishment and it is not an ancient, discarded theory but the way the church understands it today.

We all accept that CP by the state is able to be justified…unfortunately the CCC no longer emphasises that this justification is purely on the basis of proportional retribution (an eye for an eye), i.e. pure **punishment of the guilty **.

True, the current catechism includes prudential considerations as well.

Instead it appears to emphasise that **protection of the innocent **(ie self defence of the State) is the main justification instead.

We have just been told in 2266 that retribution is the primary objective of all punishment; that understanding cannot now be discarded in 2267 in favor of protection.

Sure, you can see your own view in the CCC if you look at particular phrases and ignore the context. But your effort is so tortured.

My “tortured” effort is nothing less that the traditional church doctrine on punishment as it has been developed and understood for her entire history. Your approach requires the abandonment of everything she has taught on the subject and a reliance solely on 2267. Her teaching on punishment - and particularly capital punishment - has developed unchanged for nearly 2000 years. I am unwilling to simply disregard it.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We have just been told in 2266 that retribution is the primary objective of all punishment; that understanding cannot now be discarded in 2267 in favor of protection.

No we haven’t - that is your tortured interpretation.

Which blinkered interpretation cannot be true if 2267 is taken at face value:
*2267 “…the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor.” *

Your alleged Traditional Retrib justice principles allowed CP of murders by the State full stop, no prudential considerations needed re protecting the innocent? Eye for eye.

So 2267 is NOT reconciliable with the old retrib justice theory and practice.
Which reinforces my claim that your 2266 interpretation is deeply tortured and in fact doesn’t fit. Retrib justice simply is no longer the sole (or even primary) basis for justifying CP anymore either apriori (pure principle) or aposteriori (prudentially).

 

[Ender]

NSo 2267 is NOT reconciliable with the old retrib justice theory and practice. Which reinforces my claim that your 2266 interpretation is deeply tortured and in fact doesn’t fit. Retrib justice simply is no longer the sole (or even primary) basis for justifying CP anymore either apriori (pure principle) or aposteriori (prudentially).

“My” interpretation is nothing other than what the church herself teaches.**The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. The section on punishment in general reaffirms the traditional formulation of the triple purpose of punishment, and it describes retribution as the first of these purposes. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)

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). *(Dulles)

*“And God indeed, as He is also the ancient Word, possessing the beginning, the end, and the mean of all existing things, does everything rightly, moving round about them according to their nature; but retributive justice always follows Him against those who depart from the divine law.” *(St. Irenaeus of Lyons)

Retribution: A penalty or reward that a person deserves for moral conduct. Its basis is the divine justice that repays each person according to his or her works.(Modern Catholic Dictionary)

*Retribution is civil society’s imposition of a just penalty upon an offender who has violated the order of justice. The purpose of the punishment is to restore the order of justice so violated. *(John J. Conley, S.J.)

*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. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment *(USCCB)
I could provide another half dozen citations about the nature of retribution but if the ones I’ve provided above don’t matter it isn’t likely any number of others would be useful. Nonetheless, the primary objective of punishment - as taught by the church - is retribution.

Ender

 

[Rau]

“My” interpretation is nothing other than what the church herself teaches.**The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. The section on punishment in general reaffirms the traditional formulation of the triple purpose of punishment, and it describes retribution as the first of these purposes. **(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)

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). (Dulles)

*“And God indeed, as He is also the ancient Word, possessing the beginning, the end, and the mean of all existing things, does everything rightly, moving round about them according to their nature; but retributive justice always follows Him against those who depart from the divine law.” *(St. Irenaeus of Lyons)

Retribution: A penalty or reward that a person deserves for moral conduct. Its basis is the divine justice that repays each person according to his or her works.(Modern Catholic Dictionary)

*Retribution is civil society’s imposition of a just penalty upon an offender who has violated the order of justice. The purpose of the punishment is to restore the order of justice so violated. *(John J. Conley, S.J.)

*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. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment *(USCCB)
I could provide another half dozen citations about the nature of retribution but if the ones I’ve provided above don’t matter it isn’t likely any number of others would be useful. Nonetheless, the primary objective of punishment - as taught by the church - is retribution.

Ender

None of which obligates CP. None of which contradicts an assessment that CP may in this era do more harm than good.