Did the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty change?

[LongingSoul]

About Matt 5: 38-42, Augustine taught in the Catena Aurea: “For that retribution which tends to correction is not here forbidden, for such is indeed a part of mercy; nor does such intention hinder that he, who seeks to correct another, is not at the same time ready himself to take more at his hands. But it is required that he should inflict the punishment to whom the power is given by the course of things, and with such a mind as the father has to a child in correcting him whom it is impossible he should hate. And holy men have punished some sins with death, in order that a wholesome fear might be struck into the living, and so that not his death, but the likelihood of increase of his sin had he lived, was the hurt of the criminal.”

And Aquinas, following Augustine taught: “When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 25, A. 6, Obj. 2)

Both these passages of Augustine and Aquinas, reiterate that the death penalty is invoked to serve the common good, not to atone for sin primarily. Aquinas specifically says… Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. … not by reason of which he is exacting retribution as God would.

Augustine is saying that we aren’t forbidden from inflicting a punishment in the way a father corrects a child, just that we don’t legislate poking the eye our of someone who has taken anothers eye. Or knocking out the tooth of someone who’s knocked out another tooth. That’s a sure sign of ungodly vengeance. He says some were put to death to serve as a deterrence or to prevent further sinning, not to exact blood for blood vengeance.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Both these passages of Augustine and Aquinas, reiterate that the death penalty is invoked to serve the common good, not to atone for sin primarily. QUOTE]

Agree. When you say ‘eye for an eye’, it comes off as harsh, but it is the source of the doctrine, alongside the sacredness of human life, and it is through Christ, and the great Fathers of the Church, like Augustine & Aquinas, that the charity and mercy implicit in the Catholic interpretation of an eye for an eye is so well expressed.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Here is an extended excerpt from my book on capital punishment that will help, I hope, clarify many of the issues related to capital punishment we have bee discussing:

Matthew 18:6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Is perhaps the clearest expression of support for capital punishment spoken by Christ, as Amerio (1996) notes: “In the Gospel, Christ indirectly sanctions capital punishment when he says it would be better for a man to be condemned to death by drowning than to commit the sin of scandal.” Amerio, R. (1996). Iota Unum: A study of changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century. Kansas City; Sarto House (p. 432)

The Catholic & Protestant commentaries about this verse and the teaching of the entire chapter reveal the vigorous sanctions—capital punishment and banishment—Christ taught as applying to the members of the Church community who violate its teachings. Matthew 18 has long been acknowledged as a Discourse on the Church, but not enough Catholic attention has been devoted to its support for capital punishment.

The necessary horizon and knowledge for understanding capital punishment as expressed in Matthew 18:6 is eternity and hell respectively.

Christ teaches his disciples that the eternal torment of hell awaits the tempter who, through scandal, cause the converted believers in him to sin, and the Holy See (1997) notes: “he may even draw his brother into spiritual death” (Catechism #2284), and it is better for the tempter that he be put to death, in the hope that facing temporal death, he will seek redemption and mercy from God and perhaps be saved from eternal torment.

The importance of examining Matthew 18:6 in relation to capital punishment is twofold; Matthew 18’s status as a discourse on the Church and its support for capital punishment in Christ’s own words—a powerful affirmation of the responsibility of the community to protect the innocent and save the sinner…

The Old Testament spoke at length about capital punishment and many sinful activities were determined to justify bringing the sanction down upon the individual. The New Testament has not been as rich in instruction around this harshest of punishments, and modern Catholic commentaries connecting Matthew 18:6 to a supportive position for capital punishment are rare, so we now must look to those from tradition for support.

Commentary

This is helpful commentary by Haydock (1859) of Matthew 18:6: “Ver. 6. By these strong expressions of our Lord, we may judge of the enormity and malice of scandal. Rather than be the cause of scandal to any of the faithful, and occasion the loss of his soul, we must be ready to undergo every torment, yes, and suffer death itself. (Denis the Carthusian) — The ancient punishment among the Greeks for sacrilege was drowning, with a mill-stone fastened about the neck, according to Diodorus Siculus.” (n.p.) Haydock, G. L. (1859). Haydock’s Catholic bible commentary, 1859 edition. Retrieved March 22, 2008 from haydock1859.tripod.com/id36.html

Christ thus clearly states in Matthew 18:6 the justified fate of those tempters who would kill the souls of those new to Christ.

The Protestant Matthew Henry (1706) comments on Matthew 18:6: “The punishment of this crime; intimated in that word, Better for him that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. The sin is so heinous, and the ruin proportionally so great, that he had better undergo the sorest punishments inflicted on the worst of malefactors, which can only kill the body. Hell is worse than the depth of the sea; for it is a bottomless pit, and it is a burning lake. The depth of the sea is only killing, but hell is tormenting. (n.p.) Henry, M. (1706). Complete commentary on the whole bible.” Retrieved May 6, 2008 from bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=mt&chapter=018

Lukenbill, D. H. (2009) *Capital Punishment & Catholic Social Teaching:
A Tradition of Support. *Sacramento: Chulu Press, The Lampstand Foundation. (pp. 23-27)

 

[LongingSoul]

Here is an extended excerpt from my book on capital punishment that will help, I hope, clarify many of the issues related to capital punishment we have bee discussing:

Matthew 18:6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Is perhaps the clearest expression of support for capital punishment spoken by Christ, as Amerio (1996) notes: “In the Gospel, Christ indirectly sanctions capital punishment when he says it would be better for a man to be condemned to death by drowning than to commit the sin of scandal.” Amerio, R. (1996). Iota Unum: A study of changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century. Kansas City; Sarto House (p. 432)

The Catholic & Protestant commentaries about this verse and the teaching of the entire chapter reveal the vigorous sanctions—capital punishment and banishment—Christ taught as applying to the members of the Church community who violate its teachings. Matthew 18 has long been acknowledged as a Discourse on the Church, but not enough Catholic attention has been devoted to its support for capital punishment.

)

The Church is saying that [CCC 2267] *“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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 the unjust aggressor.” *

This statement is clearly saying that 1.) The death penalty serves a purpose in the administration of human justice, and 2.) It is primarily justified by concern for the safety and wellbeing of the community should the offender keep his life.

By this we can confidently accept that the State does not have an open mandate to decide on the death penalty according the the crime. To truly be ‘retributive’ the State would need to be as perfect as God. Jesus demonstrates this through the legal stoning of the adulterous woman. The ‘stoning committee’ ask Jesus what their mandate to stone the woman is and Jesus replies “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone”. Jesus knew what lurked in their hearts was a sense of self righteous vengeance that is absolutely forbidden in carrying out the death penalty.

Cardinal Dulles writes on the current times…

Retribution. In principle, guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions. Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins. 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.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.

To defend the death penalty as legitimate under any condition of State authority, is to misuse it and to be co operative in the culture of death that defines modern ideologies. To defend it as a last resort in protecting the community demonstrates the genuine Christian regard for the commonwealth which then renders the death penalty a legitimate defense.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

To defend the death penalty as legitimate under any condition of State authority, is to misuse it and to be co operative in the culture of death that defines modern ideologies. To defend it as a last resort in protecting the community demonstrates the genuine Christian regard for the commonwealth which then renders the death penalty a legitimate defense.

Of course, and that is what Catholics conversant with the traditional teaching understand, capital punishment should always be a last resort.

 

[Ender]

I think the ‘changes’ here serve to highlight the fact that the practice of capital punishment is not a doctrinal institution in and of itself.

The moral legitimacy of states to employ capital punishment is doctrinal and the rejection of this doctrine is heresy.

It has served the doctrine by serving the common good and the safety of society.

What doctrine are you referring to as being served? It cannot be merely the safety of society as that is not the primary function of punishment.

The fact that all Christian countries bar one, have gradually abandoned its use since the 1800’s as not in keeping with the dignity of humanity, indicates that this development is not sudden.

You are inventing facts to fit your theory. Opposition to capital punishment was not led by Christians.*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Dulles)

Contraception is clearly a deception of the devil and is intrinsically evil. It is the most jarring departure from natural law imaginable. It has the spiritual nature of a contagious disease similar to ant-Semitism and racism that have marred the Christian mindset at different times of its history. So apples and oranges.

There was nothing in your presentation of sensus fidei that indicated that we got to pick and choose how we would apply it. If the devil can deceive at least two-thirds of all Catholics on something that is intrinsically evil then how is it possible to claim that “the entire body of the faithful cannot err in matters of belief”? That claim is demonstrably false on this point.

Wilton Gregory is a US Bishop so his Catholic experience of capital punishment is similar to yours.

He is an archbishop in the Catholic church and was speaking about the church itself, not the church in America or even about the clergy in America. Still less was he addressing the application of capital punishment in this country. If anything his time line is too long. The US clergy may have opposed capital punishment for 40 years but there is no indication of opposition within the church until Evangelium Vitae in 1995.

The new wording that the Church is using to address the death penalty will mean a big change to the US judicial norm and Christian mindset, but to all other Christian countries, the norm is undisturbed, unchanged. The theology has been developing through the arteries of Catholicism prior to the explicit acknowledgments which have been manifesting since Vatican 2.

There is no theology that supports the rejection of capital punishment and there never will be.*Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput)

Genesis 9: 5-6 was a revelation concerning the sanctity of life and is the passage from which we derive the Judeo-Christian concept of the sanctity of human life.

1 - Man is made in the image of God.
2 - The life of a murderer is forfeit, because man is made in the image of God.

Which of these sentences is a revelation and which is an explanation? How can you deny the obvious meaning of (2) and reach the opposite conclusion that the life of a murderer is secured because man is made in God’s image?

The justification of avenging spilt blood to atone that was primary to the Old Laws effect, is now satisfied by Christs death on the Cross for us.

Again you create a theology out of whole cloth. There is no Old Law - New Law split in the Catholic interpretation of scripture on this subject…* In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die”
*

• The Letter to the Hebrews makes an argument from the fact that “a man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses” … No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty. *(Cardinal Dulles)
  Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

You are inventing facts to fit your theory. Opposition to capital punishment was not led by Christians.

*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Dulles)
​

So true, as noted in my book about capital punishment:

There is also historical constancy among many of those who have opposed the Church most fervently about its support for capital punishment, such as the Waldenses, from the 12th century, noted by Weber (1912): “They denounced all lying as a grievous sin, refused to take oaths and considered the shedding of human blood unlawful. They consequently condemned war and the infliction of the death penalty.” Weber, N. (1912). Waldenses. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm

And the Albigenses from the 12th century, noted by Weber (1907): “The dualism of the Albigenses was also the basis of their moral teaching…War and capital punishment were absolutely condemned.” Weber, N. (1907). Albigenses. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

And in modern times, the communist countries of the Soviet Bloc, noted by Glendon (2001) in her book about Eleanor Roosevelt, writing of the negotiations at the United Nations around the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “The Commission decided to retain the general statement “Everyone has the right to life, to liberty and security of person” rather than try to reach agreement on specific issues such as euthanasia, abortion, or the death penalty. This was a defeat for the representatives of Chile and Lebanon, who had pushed for express protection of the lives of the unborn, and for the Soviet-bloc delegates, who had argued for a ban on capital punishment.” (p. 92) Glendon, M.A. (2001). A world made new: Eleanor Roosevelt and the universal declaration of human rights. New York: Random House.

Lukenbill, D. H. (2009). Capital Punishment & Catholic Social Teaching: A Tradition of Support. Sacramento, California: Chulu Press, The Lampstand Foundation. amazon.com/Capital-Punishment-Catholic-Social-Teaching/dp/0979167078/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374242746&sr=8-1&keywords=Capital+Punishment+%26+Catholic+Social+Teaching%2C+Lukenbill​

 

[Ender]

This statement is clearly saying that 1.) The death penalty serves a purpose in the administration of human justice, and 2.) It is primarily justified by concern for the safety and wellbeing of the community should the offender keep his life.

This is what you infer from 2267 but in fact the primary objective of punishment is not the safety of the community, a point that was just made in 2266.

By this we can confidently accept that the State does not have an open mandate to decide on the death penalty according the the crime. To truly be ‘retributive’ the State would need to be as perfect as God.

This is not a position the church has ever taken. She has in fact recognized the legitimacy even of evil governments.

Jesus demonstrates this through the legal stoning of the adulterous woman. The ‘stoning committee’ ask Jesus what their mandate to stone the woman is and Jesus replies “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone”. Jesus knew what lurked in their hearts was a sense of self righteous vengeance that is absolutely forbidden in carrying out the death penalty.

This story has nothing to do with the applicability of capital punishment, it was simply an attempt to trap Jesus into rejecting either Jewish law which mandated stoning or Roman law which forbade it. Jesus in fact recognizes the legitimacy of Jewish law when he says they can stone the woman so long as the person who throws the first one is himself without sin. The church has never referenced this passage in regard to capital punishment.

Cardinal Dulles writes on the current times…

What he wrote was not that there was anything wrong with capital punishment itself but only with the way it is perceived by modern states who misconstrue it *“as a self-assertive act of vengeance”, *which is contrary to the way it ought to be seen: *“In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions.” *As I have said before, you may oppose capital punishment on prudential grounds but there is no moral argument against its use.

To defend the death penalty as legitimate under any condition of State authority, is to misuse it and to be co operative in the culture of death that defines modern ideologies.

To my knowledge absolutely no one has* “defend(ed) the death penalty as legitimate under any condition.”*

To defend it as a last resort in protecting the community demonstrates the genuine Christian regard for the commonwealth which then renders the death penalty a legitimate defense.

Executing someone is not legitimate solely under the concept of self defense.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So true, as noted in my book about capital punishment:

I’ll have to see about getting a copy - the topic obviously interests me greatly.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

No.

 

[Ender]

Of course, and that is what Catholics conversant with the traditional teaching understand, capital punishment should always be a last resort.

If capital punishment is the appropriate punishment for the crime then why should it be used only as a last resort? The Catechism of Trent observed that:Of these remedies {for the disease of murder}* the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *
but “*How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live?” *(J. Budziszewski) If God himself has commanded that murderers are to die then why should we be reluctant to follow his command?*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. *(Innocent I)
I think practical objections to capital punishment have been transformed into theological opposition to what should in fact be seen as “*a decree and a precept.” *(Bellarmine)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Both these passages of Augustine and Aquinas, reiterate that the death penalty is invoked to serve the common good, not to atone for sin primarily.
DavidLukenbill;10993000:

Agree.

Whatever Aquinas meant by a particular passage it is clear that he did not view capital punishment as appropriate merely to “serve the common good.” (I could also point out that “the common good” is viewed much too narrowly if it is understood to mean solely the physical protection of the community. Aquinas never meant it that way.)

Aquinas accepted capital punishment because “*These punishments are fixed by divine law …” *(ST II-II 108,3)

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Whatever Aquinas meant by a particular passage it is clear that he did not view capital punishment as appropriate merely to “serve the common good.” (I could also point out that “the common good” is viewed much too narrowly if it is understood to mean solely the physical protection of the community. Aquinas never meant it that way.)

Aquinas accepted capital punishment because “*These punishments are fixed by divine law …” *(ST II-II 108,3)

Ender

And he follows with

"Reply to Objection 2. All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others. "

The death penalty is medicinal as far as we are to be concerned.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

If capital punishment is the appropriate punishment for the crime then why should it be used only as a last resort?

I was using the term “last resort” in the same sense that 2267 uses “the only possible way” and “an absolute necessity.”

 

[DavidLukenbill]

If capital punishment is the appropriate punishment for the crime then why should it be used only as a last resort? The Catechism of Trent observed that:Of these remedies {for the disease of murder}* the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *

I agree that the Council of Trent should have been more represented in the current Catechism and it actually was in the first edition of 1992, but then the change, which I wrote about in my book:

From the first edition of 1992 to the second edition of 1997—five short years—the Catechism, the magisterial heart of the Church, moves from clear support by affirmation to muddy support by deprecation.

This is a significant movement and one wonders what led to this change.

We know that the new and more restrictive language on the use of capital punishment in the second edition originated from the encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, of March 25, 1995, and for an explanation of the change in language, we have the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) who presided over the Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, responsible for overseeing the publication of the Second Edition of the Catechism, reported by Neuhaus (1995): “Clearly, the Holy Father [John Paul II] has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear.” (n.p.)

Neuhaus, R.J. (October 1995). The Public Square; First Things: A Journal of Religion, Culture & Public Life. (Retrieved May 20, 2008 from
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=4086

While the change in language in the Catechism emanating from Evangelium Vitae may be beneficial for modern ears, it is not necessarily so for those reductionists assuming it signifies a true doctrinal change in the traditional support of capital punishment, a notion challenged by Long (1999): “The Magisterial judgment of Evangelium vitae concerning the legitimacy of capital punishment constitutes—as emphasized anew by its insertion within The Catechism of the Catholic Church—the most important modern locus for understanding the Church’s teaching on this topic. The position presented in this encyclical has figured prominently in more recent papal and episcopal statements dealing with the death penalty. The question that has created some confusion is what kind of teaching is being presented. A common interpretation is that Evangelium vitae marks a doctrinal development: the encyclical is said to restrict use of the death penalty to cases where it is absolutely necessary for the physical protection of society in a sense comparable to the use of lethal force in self-defense.

“Yet such a reading neglects numerous and substantial contributions from the tradition that argue for a different understanding of the penalty’s legitimacy. It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation)”

Long, S. A. (1999). Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the death penalty. The Thomist, 63:511-552. (p. 511)

Lukenbill, D. H. (2009). Capital Punishment & Catholic Social Teaching: A Tradition of Support, Sacramento, California: Chulu Press, The Lampstand Foundation. (pp. 34-36)

 

[Ender]

"Reply to Objection 2. All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others. " (Aquinas)
And he follows with The death penalty is medicinal as far as we are to be concerned.

You misconstrue the objection. Aquinas was responding to a particular point:*Objection 2: Further, all who sin mortally seem to be deserving of the same punishment. Therefore if some who sin mortally are punished with death, it seems that all such persons should be punished with death: and this is evidently false. *
He is addressing only the assertion that all mortal sins should be punished with death and explaining why this is not so. What I was citing was his response to Objection 3, not Objection 2 and he is unambiguous on his position.Objection 3: … Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin. **

On the contrary,** These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, 105, 2).
If you look at (I-II, 105,2) you will find this:*(2 ad 9) … *But if anyone, citizen or alien, is guilty of an offence through pride, and in a spirit of rebellion against the Lord, he is lost to his people. Would he despise the Lord’s word, annul his commandment? That fault deserves death, and he will be held to account for it.
Some crimes deserve death, the penalty is set by divine law, and the question of whether this is needed to physically protect society is simply not pertinent.

Ender

 

[Ender]

From the first edition of 1992 to the second edition of 1997—five short years—the Catechism, the magisterial heart of the Church, moves from clear support by affirmation to muddy support by deprecation.

Muddy is an accurate term.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. … The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L)
This is precisely what I have problems with: 2266 has just identified retribution (redressing the disorder) as the primary objective of punishment yet 2267 ignores this point and limits capital punishment to whether it is needed to satisfy a secondary objective (the physical protection of individuals). How can the need to meet the primary obligation be dependent on whether there is a need to satisfy a secondary one?

we have the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger … "Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear.”

“May be permitted to disappear” is hardly the same as “It is almost never moral to use it.”

While the change in language in the Catechism emanating from Evangelium Vitae may be beneficial for modern ears, it is not necessarily so for those reductionists assuming it signifies a true doctrinal change in the traditional support of capital punishment, a notion challenged by Long (1999)

Long also made this observation:So long as Catholics do not become contract theorists or Hobbesians, they must conceive the state as executing an order of justice that transcends it in origin, majesty, and truth. Only on such a ground does punishment as a righting of moral imbalance make sense. This is, implicitly, the trouble faced by largely secular societies that aren’t themselves any longer sure why they should punish if society may be otherwise physically protected.
It is not merely capital punishment that is misunderstood but the nature of punishment itself and I think Long gets this point exactly right: secular societies are no longer sure why they should punish or why they have a right to.

Ender

 

[Portrait]

Muddy is an accurate term.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. … The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L)
This is precisely what I have problems with: 2266 has just identified retribution (redressing the disorder) as the primary objective of punishment yet 2267 ignores this point and limits capital punishment to whether it is needed to satisfy a secondary objective (the physical protection of individuals). How can the need to meet the primary obligation be dependent on whether it is needed to satisfy a secondary one?
“May be permitted to disappear” is hardly the same as “It is almost never moral to use it.”
Long also made this observation:So long as Catholics do not become contract theorists or Hobbesians, they must conceive the state as executing an order of justice that transcends it in origin, majesty, and truth. Only on such a ground does punishment as a righting of moral imbalance make sense. This is, implicitly, the trouble faced by largely secular societies that aren’t themselves any longer sure why they should punish if society may be otherwise physically protected.
It is not merely capital punishment that is misunderstood but the nature of punishment itself and I think Long gets this point exactly right: secular societies are no longer sure why they should punish or why they have a right to.
Ender

Dear Ender,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Long is bang on target. The whole concept of punishment for wrongdoing has fallen out of favour and men look at you askance nowadays if you raise the topic in polite society. If you dare to speak about retributive justice then you will most probably be dismissed as a relic from a bygone era - one of the old ‘hang em and flog em brigade’. Such is the phenomenal impact of the poison of humanism, which has directed sympathy to the felon instead of to the victim. Moreover, our post-Christian society has come equate just punishment with revenge and thus it is hardly surprising that it has huge issues with it.

Nothing shows, dear friend, the moral bankruptcy of a people or a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life. Indeed, it is this same atrophy of moral fibre that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty. It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the heinous crime of murder (Gen. 9: 6).

God bless and keep on keeping on with your excellent posts, dear brother.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
"Reply to Objection 2. All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others. " (Aquinas)
And he follows with The death penalty is medicinal as far as we are to be concerned.

In addressing the assertion that ‘if some mortal sins should be punished with death, that all should be’, Aquinas stressed that the punishments of God accord with divine reckoning… but the punishment of this life are more medicinal in character and death can only be justified by concerns for others grave undoing. Ender, I challenge you to read this without bias. In saying that “These punishments are fixed by the divine law”, Aquinas is countering the assertion of this section that the death penalty is never justified for sin and by Objection 3, that it could publish the sin making it a temptation to others.

The whole gist of the rest of his reply, is addressing why the sentence of death is in practice justifiable for some mortal sin, but clearly delineated from the unconditional eternal punishment we will experience in the next life, by saying that the punishments of this life are more medicinal and concerned with the public good.

If you look at (I-II, 105,2) you will find this:*(2 ad 9) … *But if anyone, citizen or alien, is guilty of an offence through pride, and in a spirit of rebellion against the Lord, he is lost to his people. Would he despise the Lord’s word, annul his commandment? That fault deserves death, and he will be held to account for it.
Some crimes deserve death, the penalty is set by divine law, and the question of whether this is needed to physically protect society is simply not pertinent.

I couldn’t find in Summa Theologica where this passage is quoted to know the context but it is Numbers 15 30-31 and is addressing the Old Law ceremonial precepts. Surely you are not suggesting that people who miss Mass or reject doctrine should be put to death by the State. Augustine and Aquinas warned that “the letter of law killeth”. Aquinas has clearly explained why we can’t just arbitrarily kill as the Lord would. Our punishments are medicinal and concerned primarily for public good.

 

[Ender]

Such is the phenomenal impact of the poison of humanism, which has directed sympathy to the felon instead of to the victim.

Thank you for your comments. I don’t know its cause but it is clear that it is neither concern for the victim nor for the law itself that motivates modern thinking on punishment. There can be little doubt, however, that the meaning of Gn 9:6 has been reversed from “The murderer shall die because the life of his victim was sacred” to “The murderer shall live because his life is sacred.” This represents a complete failure to understand the purpose and meaning of punishment.*Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall. *(John Stuart Mill)

Moreover, our post-Christian society has come equate just punishment with revenge and thus it is hardly surprising that it has huge issues with it.

Aquinas said: “punishment is not due save for sin”, but what justifies punishment in a society that has lost its belief in sin?

Ender