It is not a question of manners but of space. Your post was lengthy; not separating out each quote significantly shortened the size my reply.
Your quote was from Aquinas’ discussion of murder and it is a mistake to assume that his comments there apply equally to all other crimes. That assumption is clearly incorrect given this comment on theft and robbery (II/II 66,6):
Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm, or again for such as contain some horrible deformity.
On the contrary
, Aquinas was not talking about when killing is murder (i.e. a sin) and when killing is lawful (and thus not sinful). Here he was ultimately arguing that it is perfectly just for the state to level the penalty of death on a person for unrepented mortal sin because their sin removed their dignity as a human person.
And if we are going to get into a game of throwing Aquinas Quotes at each other, I think it is only fair that we take those quotes in full context. In your case, Aquinas is answering a specific objection and that objection is that stealing must not be a mortal sin because if it were a mortal sin, then surely it would have brought the penalty of death in the Mosaic law. Further, you ommitted the first two sentances of the answer: “The punishments of this life are medicinal rather than retributive. For retribution is reserved to the Divine judgment which is pronounced against sinners ‘according to the truth’”
As a result, at least as far as Aquinas is arguing here, the point of punishment cannot be based on the notion that certain sins require penalties by their nature. Rather, I think, when taken into the context of the whole of the Church’s teaching, that we must accept that the punishments are leveled either for the good of society (i.e. to restore to society some measure of that which was lost by society or to protect society from future harm) or for the good of the sinner (i.e. to bring about repentence.).
Now in reference to my statement that we can make a distinction between which mortal sins are more serious…
Whatchu mean “we”? Most people have no such difficulty.
Yes you are right, what I should say is that we should not make such distinctions. Certainly society can and does make distinctions as to which crimes require a certain punishment. However, from a theological perspective, if one dies without repenting mortal sin, the result is the same regardless of how serious human society judges the sin.
" If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person." (You-know-who II/II 58,12)
There is definitely a contradiction, which is why I think 2267 is wrong. I don’t know what you mean by “punishment is the primary objective.” The primary objective of punishment is the redress of the disorder caused by the sin, not the protection of society nor the rehabilitation of the sinner. Given that 2267 ignores the primary objective and bases the ban on executions on a secondary objective it puts the catechism in conflict with itself.
Unless you have another quote you want to try I think this issue has been pretty well resolved.
I would be very interested in seeing what you mean by “redress the disorder caused by the sin”. Ultimately the death penalty is in no way restorative to the victem of a crime. At best, the death penalty can force the perpetrator of the crime to repent their sins. Other positive goods that come from it are removing the corrupting influence of the sinner from society.
I also think it is very problematic to argue that since your interpretation of past arguments for the Death Penalty disagrees with the Catechism that it therefore stands to reason that it is the Catechism that is inncorrect. My efforts here are to reconcile the Catechism with the past teachings. In other words to understand how the whole can be consistent.
Who are you quoting here? I’ve never seen this claim.
Regarding the notion that “Mercy must be tempered by the needs of society”, I am not quoting anyone directly. Rather, I am recognizing a concept implicit in notions Justice. If we don’t balance mercy with the needs of society, then criminals would not be incarcerated or when needed executed and society as a whole would suffer.
–
Bill
