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

[njlisa]

One point that seems generally forgotten is that church teaching on this matter did not originate in 1995, that in fact it goes back to the beginning of the church and to “follow church teaching” means just that: following all the church does and has taught.
There is no argument that the church has banned capital punishment. She cannot ban it absolutely without declaring it an intrinsic evil and that she will never do.*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. 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)
Ender

You are quite right that I was not addressing the entire history of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. I was offering examples in support of CCC 2267 to contradict the current USCCB abolitionist view on the death penalty.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

Because I am not a scholar or theologian, I present this article by Justice Antonin Scalia. He gets at the complexities far better than I could.

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/gods-justice-and-ours-32

 

[DavidLukenbill]

But the church’s understanding of sin is completely at odds with the modern perception of crime not as sin but as a social failure.

Exactly, and it is this change—wrongly thinking that crime is the result of social structures failures (primarily capitalistic social structures) rather than individual decisions—that was deepened and globalized by the Marxist analysis of Russian Communism, entering the Catholic Church most dangerously during Vatican II, and lives on among many Catholics as Liberation Theology.

This sparked the Lampstand Foundation’s research in Communism, Fatima, and Vatican II, which forms the heart of our new book out in December, the book being a greatly expanded version of our policy paper for Lampstand members released on St. Dismas’ feast day, Catholicism, Communism, & Criminal Reformation.

 

[LongingSoul]

There is nothing in this section that relates to the principle of double effect. I’m sure Aquinas addresses this principle somewhere, but he doesn’t do it here. There are four criteria that must be satisfied for the principle to justify an action and none of the four are identified in this section. When and if you find Aquinas’ explanation of the principle of double effect you will likely find that it does not apply to capital punishment.*The personal self-defender needs to be forced into performing the lethal action; the soldier, the minister of the judge, and the executioner do not. Since the latter three figures do not necessarily act on the spur of the moment and since, when not so acting, they have various means at their disposal, force (in the sense we have been discussing) cannot be the morally decisive factor. *In other words, given their shared context as officers of the law, the principle of double effect as set out by Aquinas cannot apply to them. (Kevin L. Flannery, S.J.)
Ender

Fr Flannery outright says Pope John Paul is in error and wrong. He does not consider that there are deeper layers to be delved here and I don’t feel it’d be productive to the debate to consider his perspective. My own opinion is that he is a bit ‘feenyish’ on the matter.

 

[LongingSoul]

I disagree with Koritansky; he has misinterpreted what Aquinas said. First of all we cannot accept that punishment is “primarily designed to restore criminals back to willfully law abiding citizens …, protecting society and deterring other potential criminals” as this would directly contradict what the catechism says, which is that "The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense."

What Koritansky lists are the three secondary objectives of punishment: rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence. What the catechism names as the primary objective is … retribution. It should be unmistakably clear that of these four objectives the only one directed at past actions is retribution. Protection and deterrence are directed at preventing future crimes and rehabilitation is directed at repairing the criminal but even perfect rehabilitation on his part does nothing to repair the disorder caused by his crimes.

Regardless of how you are interpreting “redressing the disorder” we know for certain that it is not charged with exacting Gods retribution. Human retribution is limited by human concern for the common good as we know it. Cardinal Dulles 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.”

Cardinal Dulles himself treats of retribution last on his list of 4 ends, in itself, contradicting its place as the primary objective of human punishments.

Thomas Aquinas says…

“All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution which is in accordance with the truth of divine judgement. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character…”

Whichever way you interpret ‘medicinal’, it is clearly not divine retribution. Human retribution is the ‘symbolic anticipation’ of divine retribution.

I’m not sure what Koritansky means by this. Aquinas surely accepted that the final retribution would be God’s, not man’s - and this punishment by the way would not be medicinal. Man nonetheless has his responsibility to impose punishment in this life as justly as he can.
I think Koritansky fails to appreciate the connection between retribution and the order of society inasmuch as he sees these as separate rather than dependent. The order of society is restored by retributive punishment which is an obligation of justice

What he is doing as Aquinas himself was doing in the above statement, is distinguish what it means to be God and what is means to be man. God, all powerful and all knowing, seeing into the most hidden corners of a person’s heart, knows what absolute perfect justice for him would be. Man, ignorant and biased by his very nature can’t possibly judge like that. His judgements have to be accountable to a discernible type of order that we refer to as the ‘common good’. Not one single one of our judgements could ever be the perfect punishment for a person. We can’t feel confident with that ability. We just don’t have it. All humans can hope for is to redress a disorder in society based on many parties expertise and the experience of justice through the years. Man’s administration of justice cannot be primarily unconditional in the way Gods justice is. We have to acknowledge our inability to redress the divine order as God does.

It is not a singular passage; it is a part of the whole. It is not possible to believe Aquinas felt retribution was to be left to God when he explicitly says otherwise:* … in every community, he who governs the community, cares, first of all, for the common good; wherefore it is his business to award retribution* for such things as are done well or ill in the community. (ST I-II 21,4) It is true that punishments in this life are medicinal. It is also true that retribution (in this life) is medicinal.

I agree that retribution in this life is medicinal and as I posed to you before, immunisation is also ‘medicinal’. But while the primary scope of immunisation is disease control, it’s main objective is protecting the community. If the community is already sick with the disease, we withhold immunisation because the primary scope of it, is served better by other solutions when the community is already sick. Holy Communion is ‘medicinal’. “The Holy Eucharist is not merely a food, but a medicine as well.”… newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

… but when the body is sick with mortal sin, to go to Holy Communion is gravely sacrilegious having the opposite effect to that of its ‘primary scope’.

When we talk ‘medicinal’, we are talking temporal and punishment is medicinal, but when something is being practiced in the name of justice, (and we are talking the death penalty; not the entire concept of punishment)… that has a counter effect to its primary scope, then as with all medicines that are fighting ‘fire with fire’ so to speak… you withhold it and treat the condition a different way.

The state of humankind is always the conditional factor. We can’t fall into the Calvinist error that conceives of eternal assurances without any need for co-operation from people. (once saved, always saved) We have to constantly be attentive to our temporal state. Jesus told us that by attending to the temporal welfare of our fellow man, we were attending to our obligation to God. ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Matt 25:40

 

[LongingSoul]

You keep implying things about which you are unwilling to be explicit. If you believe that man’s life is inviolable - meaning that it may never be taken under any circumstance - then say so. It is inappropriate and misleading to use a term while intentionally leaving its meaning ambiguous.

I’m quoting Pope John Pauls summary of Gen 9:5 when I say that. As we know by the rest of Evangelium Vitae, human life is inviolable but we are not in violation of the fifth commandment if a life is lost at our hand in legitimate defense of self or others.

 

[Ender]

Regardless of how you are interpreting “redressing the disorder” we know for certain that it is not charged with exacting Gods retribution.

I have no definition of that phrase other than the church’s. This is the church’s definition, not mine.*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, 1980)

*The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” (USCCB, 1980) *(Joseph L. Falvey, Ave Maria Law School)

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)

Human retribution is limited by human concern for the common good as we know it. Cardinal Dulles says…

Yes, this is why the punishment normally due is sometimes not applied but this says nothing whatever about what ought to be done absent extenuating circumstances. Exceptions to the rule do not change the rule.

Cardinal Dulles himself treats of retribution last on his list of 4 ends, in itself, contradicting its place as the primary objective of human punishments.

No, Dulles’ list is not ordered; it is merely a list. The same is true of the USCCB’s list where they speak of *“the third justifying purpose.” *Dulles was too familiar with this subject to have contradicted the traditional teaching of the church.

Whichever way you interpret ‘medicinal’, it is clearly not divine retribution. Human retribution is the ‘symbolic anticipation’ of divine retribution.

That divine retribution is different than human retribution does not change the nature of human retribution or lessen its significance in the function of punishment.

What he is doing as Aquinas himself was doing in the above statement, is distinguish what it means to be God and what is means to be man…

This is a practical argument, not a moral one.

All humans can hope for is to redress a disorder in society based on many parties expertise and the experience of justice through the years.

Don’t conflate practical arguments with moral ones. Redressing the disorder means retributive punishment

I agree that retribution in this life is medicinal and as I posed to you before, immunisation is also ‘medicinal’.

Retribution is not the same as immunization even if there are some similarities and arguments about the one are not relevant in a discussion of the other.

The state of humankind is always the conditional factor.

Circumstances are always relevant. They are also always practical rather than moral.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The current opposition to the use of capital punishment is apparently because of the perception that modern societies fail to recognize the true nature of punishment. 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. (Dulles)
I think the church has reinforced this error by not opposing it.* Now if the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth and is placed in the world as mother and teacher, how could she neglect the task of teaching the truth which constitutes a path of life?* (JPII)

Yet Aquinas teaches that in some circumstances, Our Lord ‘commanded them to forbear’ from use of the death penalty…

Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death. - Summa Theologica

Again stressing that when the good incur no danger, but rather are **protected and saved **by the slaying of the wicked, then the death penalty is lawful.

Why isn’t it conceivable that the culture of death that infects the society of today, with State sanctioned abortion, euthanasia, the tolerated drug culture and endemic despair, is not the very environment that Aquinas meant. This ungodly environment renders the death penalty an ungodly practice and to insist that there are no valid conditions in which we should forbear from using it, makes Aquinas teaching wrong.

 

[Ender]

I’m quoting Pope John Pauls summary of Gen 9:5 when I say that.

You should explain how you understand the phrase.

As we know by the rest of Evangelium Vitae, human life is inviolable but we are not in violation of the fifth commandment if a life is lost at our hand in legitimate defense of self or others.

Do you not recognize the problem with saying “human life is inviolable” as well as giving an example of when human life may legitimately be taken? If life is absolutely inviolable then there can be no cases where it is legitimate to take it, but since we know of at least three different situations when life can be taken the word “inviolable” does not mean what is being implied.

Life is not absolutely inviolable. Innocent life may be inviolable, but all human life is not.*Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
*A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

• 1. In self-defense…*
     2. In a just war …
     *3. By the lawful execution of a criminal … *(Baltimore Catechism)
     Ender

 

[Ender]

Yet Aquinas teaches that in some circumstances, Our Lord ‘commanded them to forbear’ from use of the death penalty…

I have frequently noted that there are times when capital punishment is not appropriate which is neither more nor less than what Aquinas has said.

Again stressing that when the good incur no danger, but rather are **protected and saved **by the slaying of the wicked, then the death penalty is lawful.

Yes, see above.

Why isn’t it conceivable that the culture of death that infects the society of today, with State sanctioned abortion, euthanasia, the tolerated drug culture and endemic despair, is not the very environment that Aquinas meant.

I don’t think he could have imagined a society like ours, nonetheless it is quite reasonable to believe this is exactly what JPII had in mind.

This ungodly environment renders the death penalty an ungodly practice …

No, I reject this conclusion. The ungodly environment might make the death penalty unwise but it cannot render it ungodly. It might be a mistake to employ it but it is not immoral to. Circumstances cannot affect God’s eternal moral order.

…and to insist that there are no valid conditions in which we should forbear from using it, makes Aquinas teaching wrong.

I have never insisted on this. I have said time and again that there are valid conditions *“in which we should forbear”.*The issue is not whether the death penalty is an obligation in every instance but whether the church considered it the appropriate penalty for (at least) murder. That is, not whether it must be imposed but whether it should be, which leaves room for circumstances to effect the sentence. (#37)
What I have consistently maintained is that there are no moral objections to its use, only practical ones.

Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

In the discussion about capital punishment and the traditional method of teaching it, versus the new method evolving out of Vatican II, it is important to keep in mind the state of the popular mind; which resonates much more deeply with softly spoken admonitions than harsh ones, even when both are saying essentially the same thing.

This is how I see capital punishment. The Church today is saying the same thing as it has always said—that it supports capital punishment—though it says it softer and much more aligned with the popular mind to whom the harsh words of an eye for an eye grate, though the truth of an eye for an eye still resonate with the popular mind, which is why capital punishment continues to win popular support in the United States.

Today’s article in *The Catholic Thing *is an excellent reflection praising popular Catholicism.

thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/in-praise-of-popular-catholicism.html

 

[LongingSoul]

You should explain how you understand the phrase.

EV explains it really clearly…

1. The sacredness of life gives rise to its inviolability, written from the beginning in man’s heart, in his conscience… in the depths of his conscience, man is always reminded of the inviolability of life-his own life and that of others-as something which does not belong to him, because it is the property and gift of God the Creator and Father…. Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty. But the overall message, which the New Testament will bring to perfection, is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person. It culminates in the positive commandment which obliges us to be responsible for our neighbour as for ourselves: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18).

1. … The problem (of the death penalty)must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society…. If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".

1. Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church’s Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defence of the sacredness and inviolability of human life.

Do you not recognize the problem with saying “human life is inviolable” as well as giving an example of when human life may legitimately be taken? If life is absolutely inviolable then there can be no cases where it is legitimate to take it, but since we know of at least three different situations when life can be taken the word “inviolable” does not mean what is being implied.

Life is not absolutely inviolable. Innocent life may be inviolable, but all human life is not.*Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
*A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

• 1. In self-defense…*
     2. In a just war …
     *3. By the lawful execution of a criminal … *(Baltimore Catechism)

Again, by the principle of double effect, the fatal outcome is not attributable to the defender but to the aggressors actions.

1. “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

 

[Ender]

EV explains it really clearly…

This is evasive and disappointing. You want to imply that human life is inviolable in all cases without having to admit the simple fact that it is not.

Again, by the principle of double effect, the fatal outcome is not attributable to the defender but to the aggressors actions.

The aggressor’s death may in fact be attributable to his own actions but this is in no way different than the case of the death of a criminal. He too is responsible for his loss of life because of his own actions.“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” (Pius XII)
In any event, the eternal teaching of the church is that there are three cases where human life may be taken, clearly showing that all life in all circumstances is not inviolable.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

From the point of view of our faith, no one ought to slay a person who in the course of nature still would have time for repentance up to the very moment of his death. A guilty man provided a premature punishment had not deprived him of life could well procure forgiveness by redeeming himself by an act of repentance, however belated. - St. Ambrose

Other than the case of necessary defense, of which more below, no one except public authority may lawfully do so, and then only if the order of the law has been observed, as is made clear in Exodus 22 and Romans 13. - St. Alphonsus Liguori

We still do not want the sufferings of the servants of God to be avenged by punishments equal to those sufferings, as by the law requiring an eye for an eye. It is not that we would prevent criminals from losing the freedom to commit crimes, but we want it rather to be sufficient either that, alive and with no part of the body mutilated, they be taken from their restlessness and steered to the peace of good health by the restraints of law or that they be assigned to some useful work away from their evil works. This is, of course, called condemnation, but who does not understand that it should be called a benefit rather than a punishment when their bold fierceness is restrained and the remedy of repentance is not withdrawn? - St. Augustine

 

[LongingSoul]

This ungodly environment renders the death penalty an ungodly practice …

The death penalty exists *in service to *the moral order though.

Aquinas answer the following objection which gives a further clue to the nature of the death penalty …

Objection 3. Further, judgment seems to be an act of justice, according to Psalm 93:15: “Until justice be turned into judgment.” But acts of justice, like the acts of other virtues, belong to the moral precepts. Therefore the moral precepts include the judicial precepts, and consequently should not be held as distinct from them.

Reply to Objection 3. The act of justice, in general, belongs to the moral precepts; but its determination to some special kind of act belongs to the judicial precepts.

newadvent.org/summa/2099.htm

But in a way, this is the point that distinguishes us as Christians or really as Catholics (since the Protestant experience of faith doesn’t fully accept Christs ‘real’ presence with us today) By Christs life, death and resurrection, our relationship with God became personal. Through Christ with us today, we are loved children by adoption. We are no longer orphans. Through Christ, we know our Father. That makes us personally accountable to the Father for our sins. The pre resurrection people didn’t know God in the very personal way we do. The judicial precepts of the old law did have the quality which you mistakenly ascribe to the legitimate authority under the new law, because that is where the divine accountings took place pre Christ. It was possibly less obvious in Aquinas’s time with the whole theocracy model of civil authority as well as the general theistic nature of people back then. Now that general theistic awareness is suppressed in many people and civil authorities appeal to natural law for moral basics. So just as a body whose condition forbids reception of the Eucharist…“For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” 1 Cor 11:29… the condition of the society can also render a punishment like the death penalty, a source of condemnation for us.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is evasive and disappointing. You want to imply that human life is inviolable in all cases without having to admit the simple fact that it is not.

The aggressor’s death may in fact be attributable to his own actions but this is in no way different than the case of the death of a criminal. He too is responsible for his loss of life because of his own actions.“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” (Pius XII)
In any event, the eternal teaching of the church is that there are three cases where human life may be taken, clearly showing that all life in all circumstances is not inviolable.

Ender

I don’t really know why it is so hard to accept the inviolable nature of man. Unlike other animals, he is marked with this special nature as a child in the likeness of his Father and Creator. Other animals whose lives are purposed to the service of man, don’t have that same inviolable nature. Even they though, are required to account to God for taking a human life. “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal” – Gen 9:5 So not even culpability is the primary reason for this reckoning of Gods. (But we know that since Jesus died for our sins once and for all time with not even a speck of culpability through original sin.) The human person is irreplaceable and not even death will destroy him. Unlike other animals he will live on into eternity in heaven (or hell).

 

[Ender]

I don’t really know why it is so hard to accept the inviolable nature of man.

It is only the innocent man who’s life is inviolable.*“as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable … God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty.” *(Pius XII)
Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Regarding the definition of terms, one thing to point out in, the term retribution, as the *Oxford Thesaurus *notes, has, as its closest synonym, the term punishment.

So, when the Catechism says “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict *punishment *proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” It is also saying “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict *retribution *proportionate to the gravity of the offense.”

 

[LongingSoul]

Regarding the definition of terms, one thing to point out in, the term retribution, as the *Oxford Thesaurus *notes, has, as its closest synonym, the term punishment.

So, when the Catechism says “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict *punishment *proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” It is also saying “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict *retribution *proportionate to the gravity of the offense.”

But we have to be aware of this distinction as made by Cardinal Dulles…

" 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."

The Church Fathers could not anticipate the types of culture that we now live in. Abortion and euthanasia were never even mentioned in their writings, as the gravest threats to the dignity of man that they have become. With technology and medicine, artificial contraception and surgical abortion, people experience for themselves a power over their own bodies not envisaged then. That power has created a new phenomenon of rights. The right to choose. The right to die. People, through science, experience authority over their own bodies and the bodies of the children they carry. With this ‘authority’ that they are experiencing and with the vote, they have the power to elevate representatives of their own interests to the State level to strengthen and further the basis of their ‘rights’. To take the sense of human ‘authority’ that serves the order of nature and life, (divine law presupposes natural law afterall) and distort it through sin, pride, lust and greed etc. transforms judgements into distorted weapons of distorted authority. This is the time to forbear from ‘uprooting the cockles’ because by its basic philosopy, it is legitimises civilly, a distorted authority. In the wrong hands, a judicial authority that determins some lives violable makes that determination condemnatory to us as a society.

The right of authority to punish according to wefare of the common good has existed prior to Christianity and outside of Judaism. It is established by natural law and can be seen at work in pagan and primitive cultures. In Australian aboriginal culture, the sentence consisted of the witch doctor pointing a bone at the accused and the sense of justice was so culturally established that the accused would then go off and die quickly of ‘natural’ causes without any further action on his own or others part. That couldn’t happen now as very few aboriginal people share that pure inculturated obedience to the natural order of justice reflected by the sentences. Without that sense, any sentence of death has no relationship to the ‘gods’ of the natural law and no longer possesses that unique appreciation of the divine. But people can still be true to the natural order of justice by being attentive to the relationship they have with each other as a society. The Golden Rule is born from societies need for justice. That’s the ‘common good’. It gets its mandate to judge and punish from the welfare of the relationships between the members of the group. It is different to the divine mandate to punish which was given directly by God to a ‘good’ person worthy of the duty to judge according to the laws of God. The ‘divine’ mandate given to Noah is not now handed to the state, it is handed to the ‘common good’ which the state is in service too. The ‘common good’ has it’s own qualities different to those of Noah whose authority came from his relationship with God. The authority of the ‘common good’ comes from peoples relationship to each other which is symbolic of our relationship with God but only a mirror image. ‘Retribution’ as we concieve of it is also only a mirror image of Gods retribution, not having the force of authority with which it was put into Noahs good and holy hands.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

But we have to be aware of this distinction as made by Cardinal Dulles…

I know we all like to bring in the interpretations of others, but at this point in the discussion, it might be a good idea to stick to the authoritative interpretative sources, and that has to be the two universal Catechisms, Trent, (The McHugh/Callan Translation) & Vatican II (the version online at the Vatican).

Both are clear, capital punishment is the teaching of the Church and regardless of the sensitivity of the language of the Catechism of Vatican II versus the clearer of Trent; the essential element has not changed.

The Church supports capital punishment.

 

[LongingSoul]

I know we all like to bring in the interpretations of others, but at this point in the discussion, it might be a good idea to stick to the authoritative interpretative sources, and that has to be the two universal Catechisms, Trent, (The McHugh/Callan Translation) & Vatican II (the version online at the Vatican).

Both are clear, capital punishment is the teaching of the Church and regardless of the sensitivity of the language of the Catechism of Vatican II versus the clearer of Trent; the essential element has not changed.

The Church supports capital punishment.

The Church is apolitical. She can’t ‘support’ capital punishment. She does not does not exclude recourse to its application but she ‘supports’ spiritual virtues such as justness, which is why she is calling for strict limitations to its use. It is undermining justness/justice. Augustine did the same thing.