Death penalty question

[Ender]

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

No, absolutely not…but that’s not what I was commenting on. I was explaining the church’s understanding of retribution, and showing that it was before and remains now the primary objective of all punishment. I think a lot of the contention comes from a simple misunderstanding of what it means, which is nothing more than treating people as they deserve based on their own actions. It is at its core a matter of justice: reward for good and punishment for evil.*We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. *(Aquinas)
Ender

 

[Rau]

No, absolutely not…but that’s not what I was commenting on. I was explaining the church’s understanding of retribution, and showing that it was before and remains now the primary objective of all punishment. I think a lot of the contention comes from a simple misunderstanding of what it means, which is nothing more than treating people as they deserve based on their own actions. It is at its core a matter of justice: reward for good and punishment for evil.*We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. *(Aquinas)
Ender

Yes, I realise your post had that intent, and not to be an advocate for the use of CP in the criminal justice system today. Many in this debate confuse the theology / teaching with the different question of whether CP is a good thing nowadays.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, absolutely not…but that’s not what I was commenting on. I was explaining the church’s understanding of retribution, and showing that it was before and remains now the primary objective of all punishment.Ender

The point in this thread is that CP cannot be justified purely by retrib justice principles alone (ie vengeance for past misdeeds). If in the past it looked like it was…the CCC seems to make clear this was an illusion…it was allowed only on the basis of containing present/future evil…(ie social self defence) which could not be easily guaranteed due to primitive rehab and imprisonment possibilities.

In fact Pope Francis has recently clarified this theology even further than previous Popes in a personal address recently. An interesting paragraph bearing on your views below Ender is the following:

“However, the presuppositions of personal legitimate defense do not apply at the social level, without risk of misinterpretation,” he continued, explaining that the death penalty is applied not for a current act of aggression, but for one committed in the past.

Here he is not saying that self-defence principles do not apply.
He is saying that some wrongly justify CP for past aggression on the basis of misinterpreted self-defence principles. … for they are really trying to justify CP as vengeance (for past aggression).

Clearly Ender, your view below that CP may be used to “redress” past lethal aggression (without attention to the true CP justifying principles of state self-defence for present or future aggression) … is a misinterpretation of the CCC according to Pope Francis.

Link here.

 

[Ender]

The point in this thread is that CP cannot be justified purely by retrib justice principles alone (ie vengeance for past misdeeds).

I understand that this is the position most people seem to have taken - and believe the church has taken - it is my position that this is based on a misunderstanding of what the church actually teaches, especially about the nature of punishment.

If in the past it looked like it was…the CCC seems to make clear this was an illusion…

No, it was no illusion, it was what the church clearly and unambiguously taught for her entire existence.

it was allowed only on the basis of containing present/future evil…

There is literally nothing in the documents of previous popes, councils, catechisms, or the writings of the doctors and fathers of the church to support this assertion. If you dispute this then I challenge you to find something to disprove me.

(ie social self defence) which could not be easily guaranteed due to primitive rehab and imprisonment possibilities.

Life sentences existed before Christ; this capability is not new.

“However, the presuppositions of personal legitimate defense do not apply at the social level, without risk of misinterpretation,” he continued, explaining that the death penalty is applied not for a current act of aggression, but for one committed in the past.

Here he is not saying that self-defence principles do not apply.

What? He just said: *“presuppositions of personal legitimate defense do not apply at the social level”. *Self defense principles do not apply to the imposition of capital punishment.

He is saying that some wrongly justify CP for past aggression on the basis of misinterpreted self-defence principles. … for they are really trying to justify CP as vengeance (for past aggression).

No punishment is just *except *as retribution for sin. It is retribution (retributive justice) that is the primary objective of all punishment.Nothing but sin deserves punishment (Aquinas)

Clearly Ender, your view below that CP may be used to “redress” past lethal aggression (without attention to the true CP justifying principles of state self-defence for present or future aggression) … is a misinterpretation of the CCC according to Pope Francis.

I don’t really understand how you come to your interpretation of the citation you provided, which seems the exact opposite of what was actually said. In any event, the catechism states that: *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *(2266) On what basis should we reject that explanation?*It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. *(Pope St. Innocent I)
Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understand that this is the position most people seem to have taken - and believe the church has taken - it is my position that this is based on a misunderstanding of what the church actually teaches, especially about the nature of punishment.

Then there is nothing more to say Ender…

If you believe that you better understand, interpret and evolve past Church Teaching than the Popes/Magisterium since the 20th century then go for it.

Don’t expect anyone to follow you though.
Its not the Catholic way.

Unlike Muslims we are not purely a “People of the Book” (whether that be Scripture or past Canon Law, the Summa or past Council Documents written in different circumstances)…God’s word is also living.

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t see how John Paul II’s position on the death penalty is more in line with the “gospel of life”. If we shouldn’t kill murderers because we have good prisons nowadays, than the reason for killing them at any time is just because we don’t have a place to put them. What a terrible reason to kill them! The only way, in my opinion, it is ok to kill a criminal in line with the gospel of life is because it is just, not for an accidental reason. Do you see my point? Its like “well, we don’t have a place to put them so NOW we can kill them”. That’s not a principle

 

[Ender]

If you believe that you better understand, interpret and evolve past Church Teaching than the Popes/Magisterium since the 20th century then go for it.

I’m saying you have misunderstood church teaching. This is why I support my comments by citing church documents that support my claims. If I was simply giving you my personal opinions it would be reasonable to dismiss them, but I don’t do that. Your problems are with what the church teaches, not with me.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The only way, in my opinion, it is ok to kill a criminal in line with the gospel of life is because it is just…

Exactly so. Either execution is a just punishment or it isn’t, and the justness of a punishment is determined by the severity of the crime. This is because the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. There may be practical objections to the imposition of a particular punishment, but that doesn’t change the nature of the crime or of what would be a naturally just punishment.

As for whether death is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder, we know that it is because the church has throughout her entire history recognized that States have a moral right to impose it for serious crimes. We may oppose capital punishment for other reasons, but not because it is unjust. It is also justice that restricts the imposition of capital punishment to a limited set of crimes. Regardless of much a society might benefit from the execution of a particular person, that penalty cannot be imposed unless he has committed a crime for which that is a just punishment.

One of the ironies of how 2267 is written is that it allows for the execution of a person who is a threat but does not allow for the execution of the person who actually carries out the threat.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m saying you have misunderstood church teaching. This is why I support my comments by citing church documents that support my claims. If I was simply giving you my personal opinions it would be reasonable to dismiss them, but I don’t do that. Your problems are with what the church teaches, not with me.

Ender

Yet it is clear below your own primary interpretation is contradicted by the CCC. namely:

Originally Posted by Ender View Post
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 killing 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 the Death Penalty anymore either apriori (pure principle) or aposteriori (prudentially).

 

[Ignatius]

With what dogmatic degree of certainty does the church teach that the death penalty is wrong?

None, The Church does not teach that capital punishment is wrong.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Do you see my point?

Its like “well, we don’t have a place to put them so NOW we can kill them”. That’s not a principle

Yes, that is exactly how it is.
It has often been justly applied with prisoners of war at the front - even in modern times.

Just like personal self-defence…I don’t want to kill my attacker but if there is no other way to protect the lives of myself or my family then lethal protective force is a just option.

His death may not be directly willed though - what is willed is the protection of the innocent.

 

[Ender]

Yet it is clear below your own primary interpretation is contradicted by the CCC.

No, I contend that you misunderstand what the catechism says. “My” position is neither more nor less than that taken by Cardinal Dulles: that 2267 represents the prudential judgment of the Magisterium and that the doctrine on capital punishment remains unchanged from what it has been throughout the entire history of the church.
In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.
Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, I contend that you misunderstand what the catechism says. “My” position is neither more nor less than that taken by Cardinal Dulles: that 2267 represents the prudential judgment of the Magisterium and that the doctrine on capital punishment remains unchanged from what it has been throughout the entire history of the church.
In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.
Ender

What part of CCC 2267 **"… if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor" **do you and Cardinal Dulles not understand? … to say nothing of the statements of the last three Popes.

Talk about trying to make white black .

 

[Rau]

No, I contend that you misunderstand what the catechism says. “My” position is neither more nor less than that taken by Cardinal Dulles: that 2267 represents the prudential judgment of the Magisterium and that the doctrine on capital punishment remains unchanged from what it has been throughout the entire history of the church.
In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.
Ender

The Dulles statement simply says that in at least some circumstances, it is ok to use CP, ie. CP is not intrinsically evil. I assume all sides of the argument concur on this point.

 

[LongingSoul]

No, I contend that you misunderstand what the catechism says. “My” position is neither more nor less than that taken by Cardinal Dulles: that 2267 represents the prudential judgment of the Magisterium and that the doctrine on capital punishment remains unchanged from what it has been throughout the entire history of the church.
In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.
Ender

Your position does differ markedly from Cardinal Dulles and you are again victim of your practice of prooftexting. You state that there are no conditions under which the death penalty could be abolished from general law. Cardinal Dulles says he agrees with the Church that it should be abolished.

*The United States bishops, for their part, had already declared in their majority statement of 1980 that “in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.” Since that time they have repeatedly intervened to ask for clemency in particular cases. Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today.

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.

The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.- Card. Dulles Catholicism and Capital Punishmen*

You say the current teaching of the Popes has the status of mere opinion. Card. Dulles says…

Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition.

Where your constant error is, is in prooftexting and cobbling together snippets of essays, treatises and the Catechism to build a version of doctrine unrecognisable as Catholic. You need to learn to take these writings as a whole to fully comprehend the position of the author and the position of the Church.

 

[thinkandmull]

As for as I can see, the Church hasn’t taught infallibly on this subject at all. So we should go to the Bible. If its not contrary to human dignity for the Jews to euthanize evil doers children and send them to God (by the authority of a God who actually came to them in a cloud or fife), than it can’t be wrong to punish a person with death. The Catechism says the authority “will limit itself to” non-lethal means, which sounds like an order, not a “should for sure”. I am glad it used that language, because saying this is more “in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” is wrong. I am sure of it not.** It would be contrary to dignity to kill a person whom you think you shouldn’t kill ]unless the situation make it expedient**

 

[Ender]

Your position does differ markedly from Cardinal Dulles and you are again victim of your practice of prooftexting. You state that there are no conditions under which the death penalty could be abolished from general law.

Again with the insults and distortions? You are clearly losing the arguments when you have to stoop to this.

Cite where I’ve said “there are no conditions under which the death penalty could be abolished from general law.” Perhaps you respond to things I haven’t said because you are unable to rebut those things I have. One of us is simply making this stuff up. Here’s your opportunity to demonstrate it isn’t you. Good luck.

Cardinal Dulles says he agrees with the Church that it should be abolished.

Yes he did. After calling it a prudential judgment he stated that he held the same opinion.

You say the current teaching of the Popes has the status of mere opinion.

Don’t you have any qualms at all about just making stuff up? I offer the same challenge I made above: show us where I’ve said this, and if you can’t demonstrate that what you’re alleging is actually true, have the good grace not to repeat it.

Card. Dulles says…Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops.

Do you understand that “should be attentive to” is not the same thing as “must be assented to”? Do you understand what Dulles meant by this passage?Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.

Where your constant error is, is in prooftexting and cobbling together snippets of essays, treatises and the Catechism to build a version of doctrine unrecognisable as Catholic.

You dismiss my citations from dozens of popes, catechisms, councils, Doctors, and Fathers of the church, and modern theologians as “snippets of essays, treatises and the catechism”. When you cite Aquinas it is to (supposedly) prove your point; when I do it you characterize it as prooftexting. Classy.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Again with the insults and distortions? You are clearly losing the arguments when you have to stoop to this.

Cite where I’ve said “there are no conditions under which the death penalty could be abolished from general law.” Perhaps you respond to things I haven’t said because you are unable to rebut those things I have. One of us is simply making this stuff up. Here’s your opportunity to demonstrate it isn’t you. Good luck.

So lets make this your clear statement that I can go to to remind myself of your position. Do you believe that the death penalty can be abolished from general law when it is not serving the common good and that justice can be equally served by non lethal punishments in its place?

If you say yes… I’ll forever hold my tongue on that count.

You say the current teaching of the Popes has the status of mere opinion.

Don’t you have any qualms at all about just making stuff up? I offer the same challenge I made above: show us where I’ve said this, and if you can’t demonstrate that what you’re alleging is actually true, have the good grace not to repeat it.

Again, lets make this your definitive yes no go to statement. Do you believe that the teachings on the death penalty from Evangelium Guardium and the Catechism and the homilies of the Popes, faithfully represent Catholic doctrine behoving Catholics to align themselves to it with the ordinary assent of faith? Yes or no.

 

[Mousey]

So lets make this your clear statement that I can go to to remind myself of your position. Do you believe that the death penalty can be abolished from general law when it is not serving the common good and that justice can be equally served by non lethal punishments in its place?

If you say yes… I’ll forever hold my tongue on that count.

Again, lets make this your definitive yes no go to statement. Do you believe that the teachings on the death penalty from Evangelium Guardium and the Catechism and the homilies of the Popes, faithfully represent Catholic doctrine behoving Catholics to align themselves to it with the ordinary assent of faith? Yes or no.

There is a difference, that you don’t seem to grasp, of Capitol Punishment not being used or as you state banished from the law and the right to use it. The position of the Catechism is not that it cannot be used but that it should not be used.
Are you sure you meant Evangelium Guardium ? I can find nothing in it that refers to the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

Do you believe that the death penalty can be abolished from general law when it is not serving the common good and that justice can be equally served by non lethal punishments in its place?

Pretty much anything can be done; I’ll address what I think should be done. First, I would not accept the assertion that capital punishment does not serve the common good, but that is clearly a practical conclusion about which we are all free to form our own opinions. Second, I do not believe that justice is fully served when some crimes - murder especially - is punished solely with incarceration. We lose the understanding that the severity of the punishment is supposed to mirror the severity of the crime when murderers are punished no more severely than three time losers. More significantly, we lose an appreciation for the severity with which murder ought to be perceived when we treat murderers no more severely than the perpetrators of lesser crimes.

Again, lets make this your definitive yes no go to statement. Do you believe that the teachings on the death penalty from Evangelium Guardium and the Catechism and the homilies of the Popes, faithfully represent Catholic doctrine behoving Catholics to align themselves to it with the ordinary assent of faith? Yes or no.

I’ve said before that on this question my position is that of Cardinal Dulles. He (and I) believe the statements in the catechism et al are not doctrinal but prudential, therefore there can be no question of whether they faithfully represent Catholic doctrine. They are not doctrinal and Catholics are not obligated to assent to them.

Ender