Is hope of reform the only justification for punishment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wesrock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wesrock

Guest
This topic is targeted at Catholics and presumes some Catholic beliefs, first and foremost being our understanding of God and Catholic dogma, but (name removed by moderator)ut from any is welcome (though it’d be appreciated if, within this topic, Christian beliefs are taken as a given so we don’t get sidetracked). The goal is not to convince non-Christians of God or hell, but to determine whether it’s consistent with Catholic doctrine to cite “hope of reform” as being the only justification for punishment.

(1) Suppose that punishment is only ever justified in the hope of reforming a wrongdoer.

(2) According to Catholic dogma, the punishments of Hell are eternal, the sinner obstinately persisting in sin after making an irrevocable choice (on the side of the one making the choice)

(3) If (1) and (2) are both true, then the punishments of those in Hell are in vain.

(4) But nothing God does is in vain (if a Catholic disagrees, I’d be curious)

(5) As Catholic dogma, the eternity of Hell cannot be false.

(6) Therefore, hope of reform is not the only justification for punishment, and (1) is false.

(7) Furthermore, since there is no hope of reform, the punishment must be for some other good so as not to be in vain.

I’m not great at drafting syllogisms, so I’d be interested in people’s thoughts. I have in mind more than just God, though, but of just punishments administered by men and women in positions of just authority.
 
I don’t think it is fruitful to compare eternal punishment with the judicial prerogatives of the civil state.

In eternity, as you said, reform is impossible. But those who become subject to a judicial process are human beings, not eternal beings, and so can be reformed.

ICXC NIKA
 
Of course reform should be considered the first priority when reasonable, but Catholic moral theologians have also traditionally taught that deterrence and retributive justice are goods that also justify punishment of wrongdoers (and not just by the state). I am not speaking either/or, nor am I ruling out prudential decision making.

If we reserve ourselves only to the divine, though, it seems we must admit that God does not allow the punishments of hell in hope of reform and so the punishments must be directed at some other good so as not to be in vain.
 
I think it is Scott Hahn who said to the effect
that hell only makes sense if it is the Lord God
we are playing the cheater on as our Lover.
the Song of Songs, the book about earthly and
also Divine Love says in chapter 8:6 “Love is as
strong as death, and jealousy as severe as
hell”. It makes sense that God, who reached
out in Love to redeem us, has the right as a jilted
Lover to impose eternal banishment.
 
I offer the OP and everyone reading this post, the following thought. Is the word punishment correct?
Our God is a God of perfect justice. Perfect!!. Is the definition of perfect justice, simply giving one what one asks for? Does God say to the repentant sinner who seeks union with God, come and live with Me for all time as you have chosen by your will and demonstrated by your life on earth. By the same token, will God say to the unrepentant sinner, he/she who chooses to live apart from the law and the love of God on earth, “You have lived your life denying and rebelling against my existence, my light, my love, and my law, so I now give you what you have asked for by the life that you have led; a place where I do not exist.” That isn’t punishment or reward; it is actually granting to the soul, that which he/she has asked for.
A perfect just God gives man and woman what they have merited by their choices and actions here and now.
I think reward and punishment is a term used in a rather immature understanding of the nature of God’s justice.

My :twocents:
 
joeybaggz said:
I offer the OP and everyone reading this post, the following thought. Is the word punishment correct?
Our God is a God of perfect justice. Perfect!!. Is the definition of perfect justice, simply giving one what one asks for? Does God say to the repentant sinner who seeks union with God, come and live with Me for all time as you have chosen by your will and demonstrated by your life on earth. By the same token, will God say to the unrepentant sinner, he/she who chooses to live apart from the law and the love of God on earth, “You have lived your life denying and rebelling against my existence, my light, my love, and my law, so I now give you what you have asked for by the life that you have led; a place where I do not exist.” That isn’t punishment or reward; it is actually granting to the soul, that which he/she has asked for.
A perfect just God gives man and woman what they have merited by their choices and actions here and now.
I think reward and punishment is a term used in a rather immature understanding of the nature of God’s justice.

My :twocents:
Click to expand...
I must be honest: I think this whitewashes the picture to better fit with modern sensibilities, and the inconsistencies it creates with our faith will create more confusion than understanding, not to mention it’s out of line with 1900+ years of near unanimous Church literature and the ECFs.

Polemics aside, we can’t ignore that hell is painful, that the unrighteous will be thrown into the “unquenchable fire,” that it would “be better if they had never been born,” that “there will be gnashing of teeth,” yadda yadda. Hyperbole and metaphorical part of it may be, but we can’t sweep such descriptions entirely under the rug. To say God is indifferent to it or has no role in it undermines His sovereignty. It contradicts scripture, which attributes such judgment to God and the Son of Man. Everything is within His providence. He created knowing that those in Hell would feel pains of some degree for all eternity. This isn’t a circumstance God just happened to stumble on; it’s His will.

Rather than shy away from this, we need to be able to speak clearly and consistently on the topic, about what goods punishment aims for, that punishment can be just, that punishment for injustices is a good thing, etc… Because if it’s NOT those things, the idea of Hell with a good God doesn’t make sense, and we lose people to poor catechesis.
 
Wesrock said:
Rather than shy away from this, we need to be able to speak clearly and consistently on the topic, about what goods punishment aims for, that punishment can be just, that punishment for injustices is a good thing, etc… Because if it’s NOT those things, the idea of Hell with a good God doesn’t make sense, and we lose people to poor catechesis.
Click to expand...
Taking the five goods which society uses to justify punishment :

Restitution, incapacitation and rehabilitation don’t apply. Once someone is dead, they cannot recompense the living, there’s no need to protect the living from them, and there’s no point in correcting behavior since unlike purgatory they have nowhere to go.

Retribution is only applicable where there are living victims. It may stop them thinking of vengeance, although Christians are not taught to seek revenge anyway, but even then it could have the opposite effect and cause them to dwell on what punishments they want to see inflicted.

There may be a deterrence effect, but the morality is utilitarian - it uses the dead as objects to frighten the living.

Interesting little project you have here. 🙂
 
Wesrock said:
This topic is targeted at Catholics and presumes some Catholic beliefs, first and foremost being our understanding of God and Catholic dogma, but (name removed by moderator)ut from any is welcome (though it’d be appreciated if, within this topic, Christian beliefs are taken as a given so we don’t get sidetracked). The goal is not to convince non-Christians of God or hell, but to determine whether it’s consistent with Catholic doctrine to cite “hope of reform” as being the only justification for punishment.

(1) Suppose that punishment is only ever justified in the hope of reforming a wrongdoer.

(2) According to Catholic dogma, the punishments of Hell are eternal, the sinner obstinately persisting in sin after making an irrevocable choice (on the side of the one making the choice)

(3) If (1) and (2) are both true, then the punishments of those in Hell are in vain.

(4) But nothing God does is in vain (if a Catholic disagrees, I’d be curious)

(5) As Catholic dogma, the eternity of Hell cannot be false.

(6) Therefore, hope of reform is not the only justification for punishment, and (1) is false.

(7) Furthermore, since there is no hope of reform, the punishment must be for some other good so as not to be in vain.

I’m not great at drafting syllogisms, so I’d be interested in people’s thoughts. I have in mind more than just God, though, but of just punishments administered by men and women in positions of just authority.
Click to expand...
Is purgatory punishment? Is taking a bath a punishment?

Is hell punishment? Is giving one what they want a punishment?
 
Wesrock said:
I must be honest: I think this whitewashes the picture to better fit with modern sensibilities, and the inconsistencies it creates with our faith will create more confusion than understanding, not to mention it’s out of line with 1900+ years of near unanimous Church literature and the ECFs.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we are not living 1000 years ago. We lose untold thousands, maybe millions, by creating a picture of an angry, vengeful God who throws who we considered unrighteous into a pit of fire and then turns up the pain-o-meter till he’s satisfied. The average person of the 21st century cannot and will not buy that vision of the Almighty. Unless you only want to catechize children.

That being said, I think you and I are on different tracks, somewhat parallel heading in the same direction. I do not softsoap or “whitewash” the concept of a God who demands obedience and that the penalty for disobedience is a terrible punishment. I just believe that the concept of “merit” rather than reward or punish lends itself to a better understanding of the RCC concept of the necessity of living in God’s law and His love, rather than outside of it. Your point is valid, I just think it has to be better presented and teaching on this subject has to offer a better vision of something to be embraced and lived up to, rather than a rudimentary childlike understanding of reward and punishment for being good or bad.

It’s a tricky topic. What works for one pupil doesn’t always work for another. I learned that as a teaching golf profession. You often have to say the same thing ten different ways because a one size fits all doesn’t work for a golf swing. And I really don’t think it works in spreading the word of God.

Shalom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top