Death penalty question

[thinkandmull]

The death penalty existed in civil justice prior to Catholic teaching. It has always served a practical purpose in protecting communities. The Church affirmed that it was not intrinsically evil when it was necessary for that purpose. The Church now affirms that it can be dispensed with unconditionally now that justice can be served without going to the length of killing the offender.

The people of the world rightly rejoice in our capacity to punish and redress without having to kill the offender. Preserving human life has to be the default in human justice.

Punishment must fit the crime. John Paul II is saying that mercy is deserved to the criminal through his dignity, but that dignity can be not taken notice of if the SITUATION requires his execution. How is that the Gospel of Life?

 

[Rau]

Punishment must fit the crime. John Paul II is saying that mercy is deserved to the criminal through his dignity, but that dignity can be not taken notice of if the SITUATION requires his execution. How is that the Gospel of Life?

Human Life, per se, is not inviolable. All taking of life is not murder.

 

[Ender]

I think he is just describing Jewish practices.

That was from the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, ch 41. Here is ch 40: CHAP. XL.—LET US PRESERVE IN THE CHURCH THE ORDER APPOINTED BY GOD.
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times…

CHAP. XLI.—CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT.
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered etc…

He’s not a Pope.

He was a Father of the Church.

All that says is that is that God could command the death penalty, not that it was still in force against the Arians, or from natural law. And neither is he a Pope

Athenasias was a Doctor of the Church and the words he was citing were uttered by Christ himself.*In the Catholic Church, this title [Doctor of the Church] is given to a saint from whose writings the whole Church is held to have derived great advantage *(New Advent)

I would have to see the context to know what in the world he is referring to.

In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. 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.

The only other catechism from the magisterium that I know of is the Roman Catechism, Does it speak on this?

Trent addresses this rather extensively; here is an example.*Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. *
This point is also addressed in the Catechism of St. Thomas (c. 1250), Trent of course (1566), the Catechism of Robert Bellarmine (1598), the Douay Catechism (1649), the Baltimore Catechism (1891), the Catechism of Pius X (1905), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1st edition, 1992). In none of these is there any support for what is claimed in section 2267 of the 2cd edition (1997).

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

Human Life, per se, is not inviolable. All taking of life is not murder.

I agree with but John Paul II’s principle disagrees

 

[thinkandmull]

That was from the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, ch 41. Here is ch 40: CHAP. XL.—LET US PRESERVE IN THE CHURCH THE ORDER APPOINTED BY GOD.
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times…

CHAP. XLI.—CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT.
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered etc…
He was a Father of the Church.
Athenasias was a Doctor of the Church and the words he was citing were uttered by Christ himself.*In the Catholic Church, this title [Doctor of the Church] is given to a saint from whose writings the whole Church is held to have derived great advantage *(New Advent)
In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. 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.
Trent addresses this rather extensively; here is an example.*Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. *
This point is also addressed in the Catechism of St. Thomas (c. 1250), Trent of course (1566), the Catechism of Robert Bellarmine (1598), the Douay Catechism (1649), the Baltimore Catechism (1891), the Catechism of Pius X (1905), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1st edition, 1992). In none of these is there any support for what is claimed in section 2267 of the 2cd edition (1997).

Ender

So that’s from the Catechism, not Trent itself? Anyway, where did Christ say ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which thy fathers placed.’?

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin- offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the **high priest **and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death.
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, ch 41

So Mass is only offered in the temple in Jerusalem? This is all very strange.

In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. 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, 405

First, is this an Epistle of Pope Innocent?

By the sword can just mean that it the are captured by the sword, but cannot be killed if they do not try to escape. That is not different then self-protection in war. I suppose THAT is what John Paul II is teaching than. He must have been against killing EVER for deterrence. It must be just if they person is most likely to escape and kill again. I don’t see where the Church has taught differently. Even Trent’s Catechism can be interpreted in line with John Paul II

 

[thinkandmull]

Now I’m having mixed feelings about JPII’s teaching…

 

[Ender]

So that’s from the Catechism, not Trent itself?

The citation was from the Catechism of Trent.

Anyway, where did Christ say ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which thy fathers placed.’?

What he said was this: "For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ " (Mk 7:10, Mt 15:3-4)

First, is this an Epistle of Pope Innocent?

Yes. Epist. 6, c. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, (20 Feb. 405**)**

By the sword can just mean that it the are captured by the sword, but cannot be killed if they do not try to escape. That is not different then self-protection in war. I suppose THAT is what John Paul II is teaching than. He must have been against killing EVER for deterrence. It must be just if they person is most likely to escape and kill again. I don’t see where the Church has taught differently. Even Trent’s Catechism can be interpreted in line with John Paul II

It seems more likely Innocent’s comment that God had granted the magistrate the right “*to **avenge **crime by the sword” *means that executions are a legitimate right of the state. What is not in doubt is that the church has always taught that states have the right to employ capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Now I’m having mixed feelings about JPII’s teaching…

If it is understood as a prudential objection and not a doctrinal change then there is no problem. Well, at least the problems are less. The arguments are still problematic but there is no doctrinal concern.

Ender

 

[Rau]

I agree with but John Paul II’s principle disagrees

It does not. Taking of life is always regrettable, not always sinful. War, self defence and CP may all be permissible life taking.

 

[thinkandmull]

This is a doctrinal concern, because the Catechism says the death penalty is less is keeping with the dignity of the criminal. So we can have them put to death if they are dangerous because their mob can let them out and they will most likely kill again.

This killing is self-defense pure and simple.

To put to death for any other reason is to contradict JPII’s statement that it is less in keeping with their dignity

 

[Rau]

This is a doctrinal concern, because the Catechism says the death penalty is less is keeping with the dignity of the criminal. So we can have them put to death if they are dangerous because their mob can let them out and they will most likely kill again.

This killing is self-defense pure and simple.

To put to death for any other reason is to contradict JPII’s statement that it is less in keeping with their dignity

I don’t see the problem. Just Punishment is good. Non-lethal punishment is arguably better if the common good can be served by it.

 

[thinkandmull]

What do you mean by “common good”? Protected from another killing? That seems to be the only one reason John Paul II allows for capital punishment

 

[LongingSoul]

What do you mean by “common good”? Protected from another killing? That seems to be the only one reason John Paul II allows for capital punishment

The Popes have identified an important state that society must address is the ‘culture of death’. That isn’t to say that the culture of death didn’t exist before now… but we are much more aware nowadays of the natural equality and human rights that make the human person valuable and his life inviolable.

What the ‘common good’ encompasses now, is naturally different to what it encompassed in times where people thought of class and race distinctions as natural. They believed that some people were more favourably looked upon by God and nature and so the common good in that environment, tended to to be naturally discriminatory. In treating of history though we don’t look back and think they were inferior or wrong. In fact we celebrate Gods choosing of the Jews as His chosen people.

It’s much harder to justify capital punishment in the current environment where we value each and every person as equally deserving in our concept of justice. We’re able to factor in culpability for crime in a much more just way and recognise our failings as a society as far as distributing wealth and recognising rights. It’s never just a matter of this crime deserves that punishment we always factor in personal culpability and mitigating circumstances. In doing that we reflect Gods merciful love for us even at our worst times.

The Compendium of The Social Doctrine of the Church gives an indepth explanation of the ‘common good’ from #164 to #170…

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

 

[Ender]

This is a doctrinal concern, because the Catechism says the death penalty is less is keeping with the dignity of the criminal. So we can have them put to death if they are dangerous because their mob can let them out and they will most likely kill again.

What makes the death penalty less in keeping with a murderer’s dignity? Understand too this argument implies that even if it offends a man’s dignity that’s OK if we obtain some positive good. Since there is also no reason to believe the only good a society can receive from an execution is personal protection it would appear to be justifiable whenever society is perceived to benefit.

This killing is self-defense pure and simple.

The problem with this argument is that while killing in self defense is acceptable it is acceptable *only *if it is not intended, and it is impossible to suggest that the execution of a prisoner is anything other than an intentional killing. Therefore an execution cannot be justified as an act of self defense.

To put to death for any other reason is to contradict JPII’s statement that it is less in keeping with their dignity

Protection is only a secondary objective of punishment, so how is it that a secondary objective can justify capital punishment but the primary objective cannot? Does that seem reasonable?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Protection is only a secondary objective of punishment, so how is it that a secondary objective can justify capital punishment but the primary objective cannot? Does that seem reasonable?

Ender

Show us exactly where the Church says retribution is the ‘primary objective’ and the others are ‘secondary objectives’.

 

[Ender]

Show us exactly where the Church says retribution is the ‘primary objective’ and the others are ‘secondary objectives’.

• The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles)

*The **primary **scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)
So, what does “redress the disorder” mean? It is clearly not possible to redress the disorder of past crimes by preventing future ones so whatever else is true we know that the protection of society is not the primary objective. It is at best secondary.

The same argument holds for deterrence: prevention is not redress. As for rehabilitation, that may be considered redressing the disorder in the individual but it does nothing whatever to redress the disorder the crime has caused to society.

That leaves retribution, and that is exactly what is meant by the term.*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.)
Q.E.D.

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

I think the first edition of the catechism came out, than the encyclical 25 March, 1995. THEN the new edition the Catechism. Am I right?

I think the answer to your clever argument Ender is that the John Paul II taught that killing in strict self-defense is not execution. Execution for him is strictly speaking always wrong.

the encyclical says:
*It is **clear *that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity

This has to do with the dignity retained by the criminal in societies eyes

 

[LongingSoul]

• The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles)

This does not put retribution first. In fact it is last in the sequence.

*The **primary ***scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (CCC 2266)
So, what does “redress the disorder” mean? It is clearly not possible to redress the disorder of past crimes by preventing future ones so whatever else is true we know that the protection of society is not the primary objective. It is at best secondary.

‘Redressing the disorder’ means fixing the mess caused to the relationship between men by the crime. That’s the primary scope. That’s the same as saying that the primary scope of medicine is the healing of the body. The practical ends are of a different nature and those could alternate through time. In the middle ages the cure for a staph infection might constitute amputation of a limb. Today it constitutes a course of antibiotics which saves the limb. The scope of medicine is the same… the healing of the body. The practical objectives are always going to change over time but always with the goal of maximising the wholeness of the body.

In fact it is highly unethical to use amputation as a cure if cures are available that are more in keeping with the wholeness of the body. The culture of life puts the person first… not any other agenda especially the claims to a divine right.

The same argument holds for deterrence: prevention is not redress. As for rehabilitation, that may be considered redressing the disorder in the individual but it does nothing whatever to redress the disorder the crime has caused to society.

That leaves retribution, and that is exactly what is meant by the term.*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.)
Q.E.D.

Ender

As you know, later in Cardinal Dulles essay he says…

*Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice…

The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance…

Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt.*

Retribution as we know it has limited meaning in human justice. It has a more symbolic significance that is manifest through how effectively the other practical ends serve the common good according to the conditions of the time.

So it is clear that ‘redressing the disorder’ far from meaning retribution, is the scope attained by the collective aims rehabilitation, defense, deterrence, the conditions of the time and the symbolic principal of retribution. That’s how CCC2266 reads and that’s how Card. Dulles explains it.

 

[Ender]

This does not put retribution first. In fact it is last in the sequence.

If you actually believed his order meant anything at all you would have to accept that rehabilitation was the primary objective since Dulles listed it first. In fact his list was unranked; the order of appearance is meaningless, just as with the list the USCCB referenced (below).

‘Redressing the disorder’ means fixing the mess caused to the relationship between men by the crime.

You could with no less justification assert that redressing the disorder means turning down the radio.There is nothing you can cite to support this claim beyond your personal, creative interpretations.

As you know, later in Cardinal Dulles essay he says…

You keep citing this passage as if it had a particular meaning when in fact, except for the use of the word retribution, it has no direct relevance to the topic being discussed.

So it is clear that ‘redressing the disorder’ far from meaning retribution, is the scope attained by the collective aims rehabilitation, defense, deterrence, the conditions of the time and the symbolic principal of retribution. That’s how CCC2266 reads and that’s how Card. Dulles explains it.

Here are what appear to be more reasonable explanations.*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. (USCCB) “Third” in this case in being the third objective in their unordered list]

*The USCCB correctly defined **retribution **as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” * (Joseph L. Falvey)

***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.)

***Retribution *of damaged juridic order. Punishment aims to redress the disorder introduced by the offense…(Fr. Jim Achacoso)

***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. *(Fr. John J. Conley)

Retribution, in John Paul’s view,* is still the “primary” aim of punishment**—primary in the sense that it is the necessary condition for all just punishments. *(Christopher Kaczor)
Your understanding of retribution bears little resemblance to what the term actually means.

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

There seems to be a contradiction in saying that the primary purpose is retribution and yet the death penalty for murder is ok only conditionally.** Does a murderer deserve death or not??** I don’t believe John Paul II taught that he does. First I argued that one cannot be put to death because of the situation. Then I realized that the “situation” was self-defense. Than I saw how Ender argued that it seems wrong to say someone can be put to death for a lesser reason than the primary aim of punishment. Than I realized again that John Paul II defines just execution as self defense. Basically this means if a nomad people captured someone who has just murdered one of their people and he is claiming angrily that he is going to do it again, you can kill him. But John Paul II’s position, which is doctrinal but no way infallible, doesn’t seem to allow you to kill him if he says he is sorry, even though their only other option is to let him go. The encyclical and the CCC were meant for all societies in the world, not just our society