Death penalty question

[LongingSoul]

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).

If there is no order at all why are you claiming that retribution is the primary and the others are secondary in an order? What you are doing is called gaslighting. You first claimed there is an order with retribution being primary. I then point out that retribution is last in that sequence. You in turn say the order doesn’t exist in either the essay or USCCB documents. This is twilight zone stuff but I’m used to it.

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.

Back to primary school.

Redress - remedy or set right (an undesirable or unfair situation).

the - (the determiner.)

order - a condition in which each thing is properly disposed with reference to other things and to its purpose; methodical or harmonious arrangement.

So what do you have? The act of setting right the harmonious arrangement of a thing… in this case, the common good. That is the primary purpose of punishment for crime.

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.

You simply don’t want to hear a truth that doesn’t fit with your argument and demonstrate that with answers that are effectively sticks fingers in ears… la, la, la, la, la.

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)

Where would we be without you to explain to us that the order doesn’t mean the order except when you nominate retribution as the official first in the order that isn’t really an order? Don’t forget the most important American justice expert in your list.

“Kwimes by wascally wabbits pwimawily deserve wetwibution… boom!!!” - Elmer Fudd.

Your understanding of retribution bears little resemblance to what the term actually means.

Ender

Step away from the mirror.

 

[LongingSoul]

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

The CCC is directed to people of the age, so while it is doctrinally sound it takes into account the conditions of the time and the needs of the society it is teaching. There was a time where say, contraception did not need to be treated of in such a detailed way because it was a primitive concept with crude means. Today, contraception is as easy as swallowing a daily pill which takes not a lot of thought or planning. The times will always dictate the detail and way in which doctrines are explained.

 

[Ender]

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.

The primary objective of all punishment is retribution; that is an obligation of justice. The death penalty is a just punishment for murder. Murder is the worst of all crimes, and since the church acknowledges the right of a State to employ capital punishment it must also be true that she acknowledges the justness of this penalty for at least the crime of murder.

That said, there can be other circumstances that determine whether it is prudent or not to actually apply the death penalty in particular cases, thus there is no contradiction.

** Does a murderer deserve death or not??**

Yes, according to God he does.Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Gn 9:6)

The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man, since God declares that He created all things for man’s sake. Nay,* as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness**, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself! *(Catechism of Trent)

I don’t believe John Paul II taught that he does.

I don’t see where JPII even addressed this point. This is a major oversight in the catechism.

Than I realized again that John Paul II defines just execution as self defense.

Again, I don’t think this is correct. Self defense, which involves the principle of double effect, does not apply to an execution as it does not satisfy the criteria which justify the act.

But John Paul II’s position, which is doctrinal but no way infallible…

It is prudential, not doctrinal.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.
Ender

 

[Ender]

If there is no order at all why are you claiming that retribution is the primary and the others are secondary in an order?

I said the list Cardinal Dulles provided was unordered, not that there was no order at all. Given that the catechism plainly states that there is one primary objective of punishment it is clear that all other objectives must be secondary. That is what the word means. I cited Dulles because he gave the clearest explanation of what the church teaches about the objectives of punishment. That he didn’t rank his list doesn’t make it any less complete.

The list the USCCB compiled was unordered as well; neither they nor Dulles addressed the question of priority, but if you’re so taken with these lists I’ll point out that the one the USCCB crafted has only three objectives. They didn’t include protection, which is given in 2267 as the only justification for capital punishment.

I assert that retribution is primary because this is what the church teaches. It has nothing to do with me.

Where would we be without you to explain to us that the order doesn’t mean the order except when you nominate retribution as the official first in the order that isn’t really an order?

I provided six different citations all saying the same thing: that the phrase “redressing the disorder” as it is used in 2266 means retribution. Perhaps you should reread them.

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

The Catechism gives a doctrinal **reason **for the prudence: that BECAUSE OF HUMAN DIGNITY man can only be put to death to protect the public, that is, self-defense. I think my analysis earlier was correct. Old Testament rules were direct from God. Based on natural law alone, the Church now teaches that man does not deserve death for any crime, his dignity being so great, but that we can execute a murderer whom we can’t contain and who claims he will kill again

 

[LongingSoul]

I said the list Cardinal Dulles provided was unordered, not that there was no order at all. Given that the catechism plainly states that there is one primary objective of punishment it is clear that all other objectives must be secondary. That is what the word means. I cited Dulles because he gave the clearest explanation of what the church teaches about the objectives of punishment. That he didn’t rank his list doesn’t make it any less complete.

The list the USCCB compiled was unordered as well; neither they nor Dulles addressed the question of priority, but if you’re so taken with these lists I’ll point out that the one the USCCB crafted has only three objectives. They didn’t include protection, which is given in 2267 as the only justification for capital punishment.

I assert that retribution is primary because this is what the church teaches. It has nothing to do with me.

The question I asked you was where does the Church teach that ‘retribution’ is the primary objective of punishment. Your convoluted follow up didn’t answer that question at all. From the Latin retribution translates from ‘re’; back, backwards, again… and ‘tribuere’; to pay. Retribution means pay back. Pay back does not automatically imply ‘redressing the order’ since someones version of pay back might be based on things other than the common good of all. At best you could assert that just retribution equals redressing the order but the basic concept of retribution is a principal that must necessarily consider many other factors that are involved in arriving at the common good. Each of the objectives are dependent on each other to find the mean which truly redresses the order. One can’t trump the other. The only concession to that principle is where legitimate defence is involved. The CCC doesn’t put protection ‘first’… it merely concedes an allowance for the legitimate defense of society in this era.

I provided six different citations all saying the same thing: that the phrase “redressing the disorder” as it is used in 2266 means retribution. Perhaps you should reread them.

Ender

I read them. They amount to the official USCCB statement which says retribution is the third justifying purpose for punishment and a collection of American pro death penalty advocates who just like the death penalty… with the exception of Chrispher Kaczor who writes this by way of explanation…

First, it is important to remember that traditional Catholic teaching never claimed that the state must impose the death penalty. In this, the Catholic view differs from, for example, the view of Immanuel Kant. Kant held that it was a strict duty, a duty that must be discharged, to execute those guilty of capital crimes.

By contrast, St. Thomas held that the government has the responsibility to protect the common good by means of just punishments, but he does not specify that one particular crime (e.g. murder) must always and in every case be punished in one particular way (capital punishment).

Although crime and punishment must be proportionate, they can almost never be perfectly proportionate, save perhaps in financial matters. Obviously, we could not put Timothy McVeigh to death 168 times. We cannot sexually abuse the adult child molester in his youth. Even death for death for someone who has taken a single human life is not exactly proportionate, since all the details of the original killing could never be perfectly reproduced. The truth of the biblical adage “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” rests in its affirmation of the need for retributive justice, but not for a justice understood as a geometrical correspondence. Indeed, an “eye for an eye” is best understood as a principle limiting violence, as an alternative to the more severe punishment prompted by vengeance, acting violently simply as a release of emotion. Traditional Catholic teaching does not demand the death penalty for every single case of murder.

John Paul, for his part, does not deny that the state has the right to impose the death penalty. The state retains this right, even though he thinks that the state ought not to make use of this right. In a similar way, the state retains the right to draft young men into military service or to impose much higher taxes on us, but perhaps it ought not make use of these rights in contemporary circumstances.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

I wonder how many folks, mostly from backgrounds that could not supply fancy lawyers, got topped in the last, say, two hundred years or so, who were either completely innocent of the crime(s), or who had substantial claim to mitigation or mercy?

Oops, sorry guys. God you compensate you for ‘our’ injustice.

 

[Ender]

The question I asked you was where does the Church teach that ‘retribution’ is the primary objective of punishment. Your convoluted follow up didn’t answer that question at all.

It seems our primary disagreement here is over the meaning of the phrase “redress the disorder.” We should at least be able to agree that this is the primary objective of punishment since the catechism explicitly states this.

You have argued that “‘Redressing the disorder’ means fixing the mess caused to the relationship between men by the crime.” (Post #118) Dulles stated that punishment has four objectives. Is it your position that “redressing the disorder” includes all four separate objectives and does not refer to any one of them in particular?

Here is my position: “redressing the disorder” means retribution and the objectives of punishment are properly listed as having the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people’s safety, and contributing to the correction of the guilty party.

Ender

 

[Rau]

It seems our primary disagreement here is over the meaning of the phrase “redress the disorder.” We should at least be able to agree that this is the primary objective of punishment since the catechism explicitly states this.

You have argued that “‘Redressing the disorder’ means fixing the mess caused to the relationship between men by the crime.” (Post #118) Dulles stated that punishment has four objectives. Is it your position that “redressing the disorder” includes all four separate objectives and does not refer to any one of them in particular?

Here is my position: “redressing the disorder” means retribution and the objectives of punishment are properly listed as having the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people’s safety, and contributing to the correction of the guilty party.

Ender

I suspect some work is required to understand the word “retribution” too. Vengeance or ‘pay-back’ (as my 7 year-old likes to talk about) just don’t sit well.

 

[Ender]

The Catechism gives a doctrinal **reason **for the prudence…

The application of doctrine in specific instances involves prudential judgments, but that does not make the judgments any less prudential in nature.

BECAUSE OF HUMAN DIGNITY man can only be put to death to protect the public, that is, self-defense.

Another way to phrase this is that while a man may not be put to death because he deserves it he may be put to death if we desire it. That is, if we have convinced ourselves that our safety requires your death we are justified in executing you, and whether you have done anything to deserve such treatment is irrelevant. Do you not recognize that your criterion completely removes a man from the sphere of justice and puts him at the mercy of “perceived necessity”?

Old Testament rules were direct from God. Based on natural law alone…

Has God changed? Did he recant? If you accept that we have received laws directly from God himself, how can you contend that we are no longer bound by them?

the Church now teaches that man does not deserve death for any crime, his dignity being so great, but that we can execute a murderer whom we can’t contain and who claims he will kill again

God stated (Gn 9:6) that man deserves to die for the crime of murder, and he explained that this was because the person who was killed was made in God’s image. The death of the murderer is necessary because the crime is so heinous. It is the “human dignity” of the victim that requires it. You have reversed this to mean the human dignity of the murderer protects his life. The church does not teach this; she has not abrogated God’s covenant with Noah.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I suspect some work is required to understand the word “retribution” too. Vengeance or ‘pay-back’ (as my 7 year-old likes to talk about) just don’t sit well.

• 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. It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society… When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society.* (Aquinas, ST I-II 21,3)

*Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Ibid II-II 108,1)

He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” *(Ibid II-II 108,1 ad 1)
I will certainly grant that the understanding of retribution, and vengeance especially, are skewed. This misunderstanding has unfortunately been enhanced by the wording of 2267. Retribution is an obligation; it is required by justice.

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

The application of doctrine in specific instances involves prudential judgments, but that does not make the judgments any less prudential in nature.
Another way to phrase this is that while a man may not be put to death because he deserves it he may be put to death if we desire it. That is, if we have convinced ourselves that our safety requires your death we are justified in executing you, and whether you have done anything to deserve such treatment is irrelevant. Do you not recognize that your criterion completely removes a man from the sphere of justice and puts him at the mercy of “perceived necessity”?
Has God changed? Did he recant? If you accept that we have received laws directly from God himself, how can you contend that we are no longer bound by them?
God stated (Gn 9:6) that man deserves to die for the crime of murder, and he explained that this was because the person who was killed was made in God’s image. The death of the murderer is necessary because the crime is so heinous. It is the “human dignity” of the victim that requires it. You have reversed this to mean the human dignity of the murderer protects his life. The church does not teach this; she has not abrogated God’s covenant with Noah.

Ender

John Paul II specifically doctrinally teaches that a man is surrounded with a certain dignity that it is wrong to kill him even if he is a murderer unless it is in strict self-defense. The man would still deserve death before God but man can’t kill him for justice alone. I don’t see how you can interpret JPII otherwise. God in the Old Testament gave his vengeance to men, but that was direct command. The Pope is saying that is not from natural law contract

 

[Ender]

John Paul II specifically doctrinally teaches that a man is surrounded with a certain dignity that it is wrong to kill him even if he is a murderer unless it is in strict self-defense. The man would still deserve death before God but man can’t kill him for justice alone. I don’t see how you can interpret JPII otherwise.

Cardinal Avery Dulles was one of the premier Catholic theologians of the 20th century, and while this doesn’t necessarily mean his understanding of what JPII said is accurate it does mean it is a reasonable and thoughtful interpretation. “My” interpretation is nothing other than to agree with Dulles.*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. *

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. 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
Beyond this, I don’t think you realize that popes do not have the authority to create doctrine. They don’t get to invent this stuff.*It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. *(Christopher Ferrera)

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (First Vatican Council)

God in the Old Testament gave his vengeance to men, but that was direct command. The Pope is saying that is not from natural law contract

What are you saying here - that the pope has repudiated God’s direct command? Is the “God of the Old Testament” different than the “God of the New Testament”, and are we free to ignore the former?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

• 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. It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society… When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. (Aquinas, ST I-II 21,3)

*Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Ibid II-II 108,1)

He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” *(Ibid II-II 108,1 ad 1)
I will certainly grant that the understanding of retribution, and vengeance especially, are skewed. This misunderstanding has unfortunately been enhanced by the wording of 2267. Retribution is an obligation; it is required by justice.

Ender

“Retribution is an obligation; it is required by justice.”

However, retribution is not an invention of the Church or religion. It is a word with human origins that people understood before the Church came along. The Latin meaning as I said is ‘re’- back… and ‘tribuere’ which means to pay. It literally means payment in kind. It doesn’t inherently reference religious ideals. It references human communal ideals and since we primarily know God through the relationship of one man to another, the good of the community that the principal serves is the most important justification.

While we understand the principal of tit for tat as being necessary to justice we are also obliged to factor in the value of human life and the importance of charity and brotherhood. Otherwise we would have to say that policies like state welfare and state sponsored charity, were an ‘injustice’ also since they don’t meet with the tit for tat principal of remuneration.

No one is saying that crime shouldn’t be punished. Only that it is recognised that tit for tat punishment is not always just.

 

[LongingSoul]

God in the Old Testament gave his vengeance to men, but that was direct command. The Pope is saying that is not from natural law contract

Are you saying that we should be adhering to all the instructions that God gave people during Old Testament times?

 

[Ender]

Are you saying that we should be adhering to all the instructions that God gave people during Old Testament times?

We should certainly adhere to the ones He gave Noah as that covenant is still in force. And how about addressing the points I raised in post #128?

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

The commands of the Old Testament no longer apply. Neither have I seen where the Church has ever taught clearly that people can be put to death who are not at immediate risk of killing someone. Surely there is no infallible definition, although Chris Ferrera thinks everying from the past is infallible. John Paul II said that it is because of the criminals dignity that he cannot be put to death unless the common good requires it. Now the only way this makes sense is in cases when a person is at very high risk of going and killing again. You can’t say that public demand for the death penalty to make them feel satisfied would overule this dignity that John Paul taught about doctrinally. I am not saying I agree with the Pope. I am just saying that is were the teaching of Rome stands right now it very much seems. If we Catholics get it changed, well, that something we need to talk about.

 

[thinkandmull]

I totally don’t buy the idea that only a person with a theological decree can disagree with a fallible teaching of a Pope. Lay people shouldn’t be rash, but they have minds and souls as well

 

[Ender]

The commands of the Old Testament no longer apply.

This is incorrect. It is true that not all of the Mosaic Code is relevant to us today, but Gn 9:5-6 is part of God’s covenant with Noah, and that will be applicable forever.The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel. (CCC 58)

Neither have I seen where the Church has ever taught clearly that people can be put to death who are not at immediate risk of killing someone.

The caveat that prisoners could not be executed unless they were still dangerous was quite simply never a part of the doctrine. It was never explicitly stated that way because it was never considered relevant, just as the church never taught that a person had to be at least 18 to be executed. Neither restriction has ever been expressed (before 1995).

Surely there is no infallible definition, although Chris Ferrera thinks everying from the past is infallible.

Your jibe at Ferrera is unwarranted; you have no idea what he believes, but surely it is not something as silly as you suggest. On this issue, however, he would have the stronger position.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)

John Paul II said that it is because of the criminals dignity that he cannot be put to death unless the common good requires it.

And God said it is because of the victim’s dignity that the criminal should be put to death. Furthermore, the common good cannot be reduced solely to physical protection, nor is protection the most important concern.*‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. *(Pius XII)

Now the only way this makes sense is in cases when a person is at very high risk of going and killing again.

Protection is not a higher good than justice.

You can’t say that public demand for the death penalty to make them feel satisfied…

Insulting those who agree with the traditional teaching of the church is not much of an argument.

… would overule this dignity that John Paul taught about doctrinally.

His teaching is almost surely prudential, not doctrinal.

I am not saying I agree with the Pope. I am just saying that is where the teaching of Rome stands right now it very much seems. If we Catholics get it changed, well, that something we need to talk about.

Get it changed? Are the doctrines of the church so tenuous that swinging from yes to no and back again would be acceptable? You can see (especially) with the Anglican church the effect of abandoning their doctrines and changing with the times. A church that behaves that way is an irrelevancy.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I totally don’t buy the idea that only a person with a theological degree can disagree with a fallible teaching of a Pope.

I don’t either.

Lay people shouldn’t be rash, but they have minds and souls as well

We are obligated to assent to the doctrines of the church, both infallible and ordinary. We are not obligated to assent to the prudential judgments of anyone, even of popes, although we must give them serious consideration. It is a mistake to believe that everything a pope says is necessarily true. The charism of infallibility is actually quite limited and certainly doesn’t apply to their everyday pronouncements. Nor is it true that popes get to create or change doctrines as they choose; that is not the authority that has been given them.

Ender