Well what if we say entire society chooses to forgive? That is indeed what is implicitly asked by Bl. JP II I feel in his condemnation of the Death Penalty.Perhaps if you gave an example I would be better able to grasp the point you’re making. I remember a case several years ago when a man went into a (I believe) an Amish school and killed perhaps half a dozen children. One thing that was so unique about that case is that the parents all forgave the killer so the question is: how should he have been punished? (Let’s assume he was not mentally unstable.)
According to Aquinas crime impacts not just the families directly involved but all of society and retribution is owed society as a whole regardless of the position taken by the families. His punishment therefore is not lessened by the compassion of the parents.
Ender
But what of the duty of the Ministers of God? If they fail in their duty are they liable to judgement?Well what if we say entire society chooses to forgive? That is indeed what is implicitly asked by Bl. JP II I feel in his condemnation of the Death Penalty.
I see the Church as saying let us forgive this criminal as a society and at that point the retribution aspect just becomes an upper limit of punishment. Then the State and Society worries about the remedial punishment instead.
(Bellarmine)*Notwithstanding we see that Princes and Governors put thieves and other malefactors to death, who nevertheless are men, and it is not holden that they do evil herein, but well. Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as** ministers of God **
Aah yes. I think this is also a confusing item.But what of the duty of the Ministers of God? If they fail in their duty are they liable to judgement?
**
Of course, in the event of a murder, the victim cannot choose not to press charges, for he is dead. In the course of a blunt force trauma that leaves the victim in a coma, similar idea.Aah yes. I think this is also a confusing item.
I see the word “Duty” in this context to mean that the State must satisfy Justice when a party comes to it. This includes retribution.
So what I mean to say is that if John had murdered David’s son, David will go to the State and he will expect the State to carry out retribution. The State has a duty to do so and not hesitate or turn David away and let John go free.
But if David were to forgive John and not press charges, then the State has no DUTY to satisfy retribution. The State only has a DUTY to satisfy the remedial punishment.
So I see the word DUTY in a different context than how you see it. You see DUTY in the same context as I see it with respect to remedial punishment. That I feel is incorrect. I cannot see how a State will have a DUTY for retribution if the Society does not want to push forward a request to do so. I see the DUTY with respect to retribution as one that occurs as a result of a request by the Society. Even the remedial punishment is a DUTY that occurs as a request of society to some extent to preserve the sense of “crime does not pay” and also rehabilitate the individual.
I think you skipped the question we were discussing now. I think its important to concentrate on that question because we were at the root of our misunderstanding (mine or yours)Of course, in the event of a murder, the victim cannot choose not to press charges, for he is dead. In the course of a blunt force trauma that leaves the victim in a coma, similar idea.
Not all cases call for capital punishment, that is a prudential judgement, but if there is a crime, there should be a consequence, if justice is to be served.
Very well put. My understanding also.I think you skipped the question we were discussing now. I think its important to concentrate on that question because we were at the root of our misunderstanding (mine or yours)
The issue here is with the term DUTY. After thinking more about it, I see this DUTY for punishment for both remedial as well as retribution being requested by the Society.
So while the Authority is given by God, the society can choose to not ask the State to exercise it. The Society will not be doing anything immoral in forgiving the criminal. It will only be doing something immoral if they forget the remedial punishment to rehabilitate him and also instill the notion in society that crime does not pay.
That is my understanding of Church doctrine which I think makes more sense in terms of what a State actually is i.e. a body in service of the Society it governs.
But that decision to abolish capital punishment comes about through the will of the people essentially. The State has no independent conscience or hotline to the heavens. It’s comprised of the collective will of the people. The Church has not come out of the blue with this position. They are affirming that this move to abolish, really is a Christian movement of the spirit, whilst protecting capital punishment as a valid tool of natural law when the common good dictates its use. The entire Christian world apart from the US have abolished it and that’s been happening since the mid-1800s.
These are strange responses. I just said that this view of the state’s act of punishment is not the Church’s, and outlined the Church’s understanding of it, which Ender then backed up with citations – and your response is to again re-assert that rejected view?I argue that the act of the state is more in the remedial sense and not in the retributive sense for the crime. The State cannot engage in retribution on behalf of everyone else as a whole when the harm was done to a person alone.
No. All I am saying is that Ender hasn’t showed evidence regarding a very subtle but important point.These are strange responses. I just said that this view of the state’s act of punishment is not the Church’s, and outlined the Church’s understanding of it, which Ender then backed up with citations – and your response is to again re-assert that rejected view?
And how is the State to determine that Society has decided to forgo retribution? Obviously, we cannot do it in a democratic method, for that would disenfranchise the weak and powerless, those the State must protect. We can never get a unanimous agreement that would last through time, as new cases will arise where a new situation occurs and only the judge and jury would possibly know the relevant facts.No. All I am saying is that Ender hasn’t showed evidence regarding a very subtle but important point.
That is of “DUTY” as being something that exists independent of the Society. We agree that the State has AUTHORITY given by GOD. What we disagree on is the nature of the DUTY/OBLIGATION of the State with respect to punishment (both remedial and retribution).
I see the DUTY/OBLIGATION as been taught by the Church as command to respond to a demand from Society. So society becomes the place where the demand for retribution as well as remedial punishment will originate from.
In this sense, the society can decide to forgo retribution and only concentrate on the remedial aspect. This we already know to be true as Ender himself accepts that the individual can forgo retribution according to Church teaching. So if a society does decide to forgo (Society is made of individuals), then the State has no need to exercise it’s AUTHORITY because it’s services have not been INVOKED.
I see this as the consistent way of interpreting the words DUTY/OBLIGATION of the State. To say that the State directly receives a invocation by God to act is dubious because the State itself consists of individuals. If an individual can forgo retribution, therefore so can a State. So I believe the notion of DUTY promoted by Ender is most likely incorrect.
The “Common Good” in this context falls under remedial punishment. That is why I originally hesitated to say that the remedial punishment was also invoked by Society.And how is the State to determine that Society has decided to forgo retribution? Obviously, we cannot do it in a democratic method, for that would disenfranchise the weak and powerless, those the State must protect. We can never get a unanimous agreement that would last through time, as new cases will arise where a new situation occurs and only the judge and jury would possibly know the relevant facts.
Even if all of Society in a unanimous decision decides to forego retribution, in a case where the State should act in order to achieve the common good (the purpose of the State according to Catholic Teaching), there the State must act as its God given DUTY/OBLIGATION.
For example: As a father, I have a duty/obligation to change a dirty diaper. I don’t want to, neither does the child, but… for the common good… I do it. Even though there is a universal consent to forgo this activity. The duty remains, for I must look to the long term effect. Not the short term desires.
This is the point where we diverge; we have opposite understandings of punishment. You appear to view it as at best a necessary evil for which a modern, enlightened society has little need. I see it as an obligation of justice and view a society that doesn’t employ it to be unjust.Well what if we say entire society chooses to forgive? That is indeed what is implicitly asked by Bl. JP II I feel in his condemnation of the Death Penalty.
I see the Church as saying let us forgive this criminal as a society and at that point the retribution aspect just becomes an upper limit of punishment. Then the State and Society worries about the remedial punishment instead.
Your opinion here is not supported by anything the church appears to have said. From “the state has a duty to punish” you have added “… but only if requested to do so by society.” There are any number of citations that make that position doubtful.the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)I see the DUTY/OBLIGATION as been taught by the Church as command to respond to a demand from Society. So society becomes the place where the demand for retribution as well as remedial punishment will originate from.
This is not accurate. What I said is that the individual is forbidden to exact retribution … just as the state is obligated to impose it.In this sense, the society can decide to forgo retribution and only concentrate on the remedial aspect. This we already know to be true as Ender himself accepts that the individual can forgo retribution according to Church teaching.
It may be dubious but it is nonetheless church doctrine, as shown by the comment of Cardinal Dulles (post #61).To say that the State directly receives a invocation by God to act is dubious because the State itself consists of individuals.
*it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. *(Aquinas)If an individual can forgo retribution, therefore so can a State. So I believe the notion of DUTY promoted by Ender is most likely incorrect.
What society is being impelled by is the growing sense of the human dignity of every person… even sinners. John Paul writes on this point in Evangelium Vitae…Your opinion here is not supported by anything the church appears to have said. From “the state has a duty to punish” you have added “… but only if requested to do so by society.” There are any number of citations that make that position doubtful.the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)
If a sin is a transgression against the order of Divine justice how can anyone argue that retribution is not owed to God, and how is it beneficial to the individual to exempt him from the punishment that would “restore him to the equality of justice”?
Nor does forgiveness remove the necessity of punishment. Even when a person is forgiven, his debt is not paid and punishment is still required.Therefore a man is punished by God even after his sin is forgiven: and so the debt of punishment remains, when the sin has been removed. (Aquinas)
Again, how is a man better off if his debt of punishment is unpaid?It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,(3) or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments (Paul VI)
Where is the argument that by letting a person escape his just punishment in this life we have done something good for him?Some men are punished here only; others suffer here no ill, but receive the whole punishment hereafter; others are punished both here and hereafter. Which, then, of these three classes do you esteem fortunate? Without doubt, the first; those who are punished and purged from their sins here. Do you see how the punishment inflicted here frees from the punishment hereafter? (St. Chrysostom)
This is not accurate. What I said is that the individual is forbidden to exact retribution … just as the state is obligated to impose it.
It may be dubious but it is nonetheless church doctrine, as shown by the comment of Cardinal Dulles (post #61).
it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. (Aquinas)
*‘A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’ *(Augustine)
The individual cannot forgo something he is forbidden to do and the state cannot forgo something it is required to do.
Ender
This is a very rich post my friend but I must again raise the main reason to doubt that you have shown me any proof. Why? Because you have proved too much.Your opinion here is not supported by anything the church appears to have said. From “the state has a duty to punish” you have added “… but only if requested to do so by society.” There are any number of citations that make that position doubtful.the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas)
If a sin is a transgression against the order of Divine justice how can anyone argue that retribution is not owed to God, and how is it beneficial to the individual to exempt him from the punishment that would “restore him to the equality of justice”?
Nor does forgiveness remove the necessity of punishment. Even when a person is forgiven, his debt is not paid and punishment is still required.Therefore a man is punished by God even after his sin is forgiven: and so the debt of punishment remains, when the sin has been removed. (Aquinas)
Again, how is a man better off if his debt of punishment is unpaid?It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,(3) or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments (Paul VI)
Where is the argument that by letting a person escape his just punishment in this life we have done something good for him?Some men are punished here only; others suffer here no ill, but receive the whole punishment hereafter; others are punished both here and hereafter. Which, then, of these three classes do you esteem fortunate? Without doubt, the first; those who are punished and purged from their sins here. Do you see how the punishment inflicted here frees from the punishment hereafter? (St. Chrysostom)
This is not accurate. What I said is that the individual is forbidden to exact retribution … just as the state is obligated to impose it.
It may be dubious but it is nonetheless church doctrine, as shown by the comment of Cardinal Dulles (post #61).
it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. (Aquinas)
*‘A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’ *(Augustine)
The individual cannot forgo something he is forbidden to do and the state cannot forgo something it is required to do.
Ender
Accepting this requires us to accept that the church had an inadequate understanding of human dignity for nearly 2000 years.What society is being impelled by is the growing sense of the human dignity of every person…
I have several times recognized that special circumstances can make exceptions to the general rule; this appears to be one of those times. The church in her documents on the topic of capital punishment does not cite Gn 4:15. She cites Gn 9:6. How can you argue that we should construct the general rule on capital punishment from a particular incident in one passage when God himself provides us with the general rule in another?*"And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). *JPII
It seems what is being condemned here is not punishment but its being applied without “patience and moderation.”If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. (Ambrose)
You have again reached a conclusion that exceeds the meaning of the text. Aquinas gives **a **reason for why sinners should be executed and you extend that to mean this is the **only **reason. You also appear to assume that “great wickedness” goes up in severity of crime to include murder rather than down in severity to include things like robbery. Aquinas’ argument here expands rather than contracts those crimes that would be punishable by execution. Murder has its own justification. This citation provides justification for executing people for lesser crimes.Aquinas also affirms the duty to this merciful charity and makes the allowance of capital punishment dependent on the incurability of the sinner only.
The individual is required to forgive but he can no more properly forgo retribution than he can forgo torturing his neighbor. He has no right to do either.Your quotes try to create an inability for the individual to forgive and forgo retribution (although you seem to not understand it due to the type of distinction you have made in your mind between the two).
The right and duty to punish exists separate from the will of that society since it is not granted by society but by God.You have to prove specifically that this requirement exists without any dependence on the individuals of society.
The church says nothing about maximum punishments; she speaks only about just punishments, and unjust punishments can be too lenient as well as too severe.Moral law as taught by the Church makes it clear that a State can inflict a maximum punishment of Capital Punishment in the case of another life being killed by that individual. So the upper-bound is set. But there is by no means a requirement to inflict that very maximum punishment. The State may indeed legitimately choose to inflict a lesser punishment.
Not at all. Again, you need to distinguish between the rule and exceptions to the rule. The popes’ opposition was prudentially based on their perception of its application being more harmful than beneficial. That is an exception to the rule that has no effect on the rule itself. Nor was the pope speaking about what society might choose. I think it should be very clear that church doctrine is not determined by public opinion.To understand how you have proved too much above, you only have to realize how you come in to conflict with the Pope. If the State has a DUTY in the sense of a REQUIREMENT, then there is no room for prudential ideas by even the Pope to suggest otherwise. The very fact that the Pope spoke about it makes it clear that the DUTY is only a requirement if the society chooses to invoke it to the fullest punishment => Capital Punishment.
You keep saying this but you provide no evidence to support your position. Where is the document that suggests that remediation (whatever you mean by that) has become the primary objective of punishment?But society can choose to forgot the maximum punishment for a lesser one to satisfy just the remedial punishment.
No it doesn’t. Contemporary issues cut deep into the flesh of mankind and that blood on our hands demands of us deeper commitment to mans dignity. John Paul wrote in EV…Originally Posted by LongingSoul
What society is being impelled by is the growing sense of the human dignity of every person…
“Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and defenceless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are emerging on an alarmingly vast scale.”
The general rule is the fifth Commandment, ‘Thou shall not kill’ after which the Church describes allowances to more fully serve the common good and dignity of human beings. The example of Gods dealing with Cain is as relevant to the sacralisation of mans blood as Gen 9:6 because, that man know the dignity with which he is gifted… is the end of the fifth Commandment and all its parts. Even the 500 year old Catechism of Trent makes this point.I have several times recognized that special circumstances can make exceptions to the general rule; this appears to be one of those times. The church in her documents on the topic of capital punishment does not cite Gn 4:15. She cites Gn 9:6. How can you argue that we should construct the general rule on capital punishment from a particular incident in one passage when God himself provides us with the general rule in another?
“The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.”
…meaning exactly the same thing as…
CCC2267…”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.”
You have again reached a conclusion that exceeds the meaning of the text. Aquinas gives **a **reason for why sinners should be executed and you extend that to mean this is the **only **reason. You also appear to assume that “great wickedness” goes up in severity of crime to include murder rather than down in severity to include things like robbery. Aquinas’ argument here expands rather than contracts those crimes that would be punishable by execution. Murder has its own justification. This citation provides justification for executing people for lesser crimes.Aquinas is addressing a specific question: whether we ought to love sinners out of charity, and here he is responding to the particular objection that, since good people execute the bad - which “would appear to be works of hate” - this means charity does not oblige us to love them. In his explanation Aquinas holds that sinners deserve our friendship “so long as there is hope of their mending their ways”, but that “When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness.”At this point, when they are incurably evil and a threat to society, society is justified in executing them, although even then the magistrate does it “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”. This passage extends the application of capital punishment to crimes of lesser severity; it does not restrict it as you believe.Where your point consistently fails, is in establishing the fact that the death penalty is not an extreme and auxiliary measure, called for in defense of the common good… but a divine command whose primary end is to redress the divine order. I’ve posted numerous references to capital punishment in Aquinas writings, and every single one without fail, has it qualified by the safety of people and the dictates of the common good. None qualify it by an immutable and unconditional demand of divine justice. Even the orthodox Jews don’t behold Gen 6:9 in the way you behold it.Ender
If a thing is subject to prudential judgement, then by its very nature, it is auxiliary rather than fundamental. We human beings don’t have the capacity to affect divine justice because we are not God. In the past where capital punishment has been a writ of law, we can understand it as an auxiliary measure in the light of today’s options and with a retrospective treatment of the Churchs teachings. The Church wasn’t wrong or evil back then just like the cavemen were not wrong for lighting fires in caves to cook meals. We don’t do this today as it’s not in keeping with the health of human beings, but until a better option comes along, at the time it is in keeping with the common good as man knew it.
We have to be realistic about the nature of the State, the symbolic nature of its representation of the divine order and its concrete ends in serving the common good.
At the end of the world there will be no ‘state’ standing before God being accountable, there will only be human beings called to account for their civil conscience.
You keep claiming that I am over reaching concerning the meaning of texts, but if we accept the teachings of the Magisterium as being true, at some point you will have to admit that it is your position that is continually over reaching with regard to the traditional teachings of the Church.
Everything you have written my friend comes down to how you understand the above.He has no right to do either.
The right and duty to punish exists separate from the will of that society since it is not granted by society but by God.
The topic is actually the nature of punishment. The fifth commandment is relevant to that but it is not itself the issue.The general rule is the fifth Commandment, ‘Thou shall not kill’ after which the Church describes allowances to more fully serve the common good and dignity of human beings.
The story of Cain is not relevant to the topic of capital punishment because the church has never considered it relevant. In the past, when this topic was addressed it was in the context of Gn 9:6. The story of Cain was not brought up.The example of Gods dealing with Cain is as relevant to the sacralisation of mans blood as Gen 9:6 because, that man know the dignity with which he is gifted… is the end of the fifth Commandment and all its parts.
True, just not the point you think. As I said, the church refers to Gn 9:6, not to Cain.*So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.*1 …1 Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)Even the 500 year old Catechism of Trent makes this point.
The end of the commandment may be the preservation of human life but that is not the primary end of punishment and we are debating punishment, not the fifth commandment.“The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.”
…meaning exactly the same thing as…
These two comments are quite different. Trent notes that punishment, especially capital punishment, brings security to society, which satisfies the objective of the fifth commandment. The new catechism states that defending the public is the only justification for capital punishment, which is an entirely different assertion.CCC2267…”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.”
On the contrary*,** These punishments are fixed by divine law *(Aquinas ST II-II 108 3 ad 3)Where your point consistently fails, is in establishing the fact that the death penalty is not an extreme and auxiliary measure, called for in defense of the common good… but a divine command whose primary end is to redress the divine order. I’ve posted numerous references to capital punishment in Aquinas writings, and every single one without fail, has it qualified by the safety of people and the dictates of the common good.** None qualify it by an immutable and unconditional demand of divine justice.**
No, if a thing is subject to prudential judgment then it is not intrinsically evil. Sunday mass is obligatory unless one is too sick to attend. The determination of whether one is “too sick” is prudential but this in no way changes the fixed nature of the obligation.If a thing is subject to prudential judgement, then by its very nature, it is auxiliary rather than fundamental.
This is an argument that man needn’t worry whether or not his punishments are just. Either we care about justice or we don’t, but if we do care then we need to understand what punishments are just for different types of crime. The church has always taught that execution is a just punishment for murder. This is what she teaches today.We human beings don’t have the capacity to affect divine justice because we are not God.
“My” position is nothing more than the traditional teaching, as opposed to the new teaching in the 1997 version of the catechism. It is true that I disagree with the judgments of the last three popes and the Magisterium, but as Cardinal Dulles pointed out in speaking about this topic:To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.You keep claiming that I am over reaching concerning the meaning of texts, but if we accept the teachings of the Magisterium as being true, at some point you will have to admit that it is your position that is continually over reaching with regard to the traditional teachings of the Church.