Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[Fred_E]

You countered my statement that “redressing the disorder” referred to redressing the disorder to the common good in human justice by posting a statement by the USCCB to prove that punishment in this life were in fact redressing the divine order… when in fact the statement by the USCCB was actually stressing that “redressing the disorder” was not an act of retribution…

Within the context of the USCCB statement:

Retribution = vengeance.

Redress = justice.

Morally every punishment must address justice.

Nothing the USCCB says can contradict the Church’s constant teaching.

 

[Fred_E]

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. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment. For the practice of punishment both presupposes a previous transgression against the law and involves the involuntary deprivation of certain goods. But we maintain that this need does not require nor does it justify taking the life of the criminal, even in cases of murder.

They can “maintain” such a position, but it directly contradicts the constant teaching of the Church.

Thus we would regard it as barbarous and inhumane for a criminal who had tortured or maimed a victim to be tortured or maimed in return.

But not because it is unjust but because it is barbarous.

We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.

That belief has no teaching authority whatsoever. It is a prudential judgment.

In the context of civil society, that judgment belongs to the State and to the people who are both expert in the administration of justice and knowledgeable as to the conditions within a society.

 

[Fred_E]

Cardinal Dulles reiterates this in saying “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’ comments deal with a different topic than Aquinas’.

To continually evoke the spirit of the Old Testament in order to negate the teachings of the New… is to effectively deny Christ.

Had Christ banned the death penalty, as He banned divorce, your point would be well taken.

He did not.

 

[Fred_E]

Other teachings have changed such as for example, the teaching on torture. If the teaching on torture has changed, then I don’t see why the teaching on capital punishment could not change. You have cited the 1992 and the 1997 CCC and said that there were differences in the presentation on the morality of capital punishment.

No “teaching on torture” changed.

.

 

[Tomdstone]

No “teaching on torture” changed.

.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=914060&page=65
see post #966

 

[Fred_E]

John Paul 2 says otherwise

He did not.

Every teaching must be taken in context since the Church cannot contradict itself.

What he said was that regarding protection of society, only one of the four reasons for which a punishment may be levied, he was of the opinion that the death penalty was no required in today’s conditions.

That’s a prudential judgment. St John Paul II was not an expert in criminal rehabilitation, nor familiar with each and every circumstance and condition in every country and locale, nor is is the papal role to usurp the proper role of the laity, to which making this prudential judgment properly belongs.

Were he right, that does not mean that conditions would remain as they were when he wrote, and that circumstances might arise in which his judgment were no longer sound.

 

[Fred_E]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=914060&page=65
see post #966

That’s not a teaching, it’s legislation.

The Holy Father’s each and every opinion, action, statement, and inaction does not constitute a teaching.

 

[LongingSoul]

Within the context of the USCCB statement:

Retribution = vengeance.

Redress = justice.

Morally every punishment must address justice.

Nothing the USCCB says can contradict the Church’s constant teaching.

And human justice ultimately conforms to the common good. Aquinas Summa Theologica…

“Justice, as stated above (Article 2) directs man in his relations with other men. Now this may happen in two ways: first as regards his relation with individuals, secondly as regards his relations with others in general, in so far as a man who serves a community, serves all those who are included in that community. Accordingly justice in its proper acceptation can be directed to another in both these senses. Now it is evident that all who are included in a community, stand in relation to that community as parts to a whole; while a part, as such, belongs to a whole, so that whatever is the good of a part can be directed to the good of the whole. It follows therefore that the good of any virtue, whether such virtue direct man in relation to himself, or in relation to certain other individual persons, is referable to the common good, to which justice directs: so that all acts of virtue can pertain to justice, in so far as it directs man to the common good. It is in this sense that justice is called a general virtue. And since it belongs to the law to direct to the common good, as stated above (I-II, 90, 2), it follows that the justice which is in this way styled general, is called “legal justice,” because thereby man is in harmony with the law which directs the acts of all the virtues to the common good.”

The State: the civil authorities are beholden to the common good. The statements of the Church that express when divine law permits the death penalty in certain circumstances or when divine law forbids it in others are all doctrinal statements relevant to the circumstances of the age it pertains to.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
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. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment. For the practice of punishment both presupposes a previous transgression against the law and involves the involuntary deprivation of certain goods. But we maintain that this need does not require nor does it justify taking the life of the criminal, even in cases of murder.

That seems like a very odd and untenable position for a Catholic to hold.

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Thus we would regard it as barbarous and inhumane for a criminal who had tortured or maimed a victim to be tortured or maimed in return.

But not because it is unjust but because it is barbarous.

If the community through civil authority determines that a behaviour is barbarous, then that means that it is unjust since the law is directed the the common good and not to the divine order in which God will smite the wicked and banish them into eternal punishment according to the state of their souls. Legal justice regards how a mans crime impacts on the good of all the community. Not what the state of his soul is in according to divine justice.

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty

That belief has no teaching authority whatsoever. It is a prudential judgment.

In the context of civil society, that judgment belongs to the State and to the people who are both expert in the administration of justice and knowledgeable as to the conditions within a society.

The Church has moral authority in regards to the matters of civil society and always has.

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s not a teaching, it’s legislation.

The Holy Father’s each and every opinion, action, statement, and inaction does not constitute a teaching.

I thought a papal bull was a teaching.

 

[CrossofChrist]

the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment is accurately defined only in the 1992 version, not the 1997 version.

Are you saying the death penalty (or rather, any public punishment or action) can be used when it doesn’t help the common good? Considering the social orientation of the Fathers of the Church–not specifically on this issue, which they didn’t touch compared to numerous others, but just in general–it seems that would be a tough position to hold.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I thought a papal bull was a teaching.

Papal bulls can explain a teaching, but it need not be so. They can also describe a discipline or a suggestion, etc.

Here’s the Catechism:

*Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[Tomdstone]

No “teaching on torture” changed.
.

Can you tell us what has been the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church on torture?

 

[Ender]

I didn’t say that redressing the disorder was “the mere maintenance of law and order in the streets”. I said that redressing the disorder equated with “the common good”

Section 2267 deals almost exclusively with the concept of protecting the public. It’s use of the term common good is in that context. Beyond that, redressing the disorder does not equate to the common good; the term is much more specific than that. It means satisfying the demands of justice.

Reply to Objection 3. Just as nothing stands firm with regard to the speculative reason except that which is traced back to the first indemonstrable principles, so nothing stands firm with regard to the practical reason, unless it be directed to the last end which is the common good: and whatever stands to reason in this sense, has the nature of a law."

This is what redressing the disorder means to human justice.

**This **is where you go off the rails. Redressing the disorder relates directly to justice, which is a subset of the common good but is not synonymous with it any more than dog is synonymous with pet.

First, one can as easily argue for or against the use of capital punishment on the basis that it is beneficial to the common good. You feel it harms the common good, I feel it reinforces it; the arguments are logically equivalent and morally indistinguishable. Second, this objective alone (the common good) places few restrictions on what one can do. So long as I believe it is for the common good, what am I not allowed to do?

If an argument can be made that it benefits the common good to execute mobsters for exceeding the speed limit, what’s to stop that practice? It is justice, not the common good, which would disallow it. Justice is a separate, more specific concept. Mercy, like justice, is a virtue but it is different and has its own criteria, although clearly it is also included under the umbrella concept of the common good. Just as mercy and justice are different, so too are justice and the common good, and the specific demands of justice are not addressed by focusing on the general concept of the common good.

You’ve made any number of citations about the (related but different) concepts of the law and the common good - which I have addressed - while at the same time ignoring the citations I provided which specifically defined redressing the disorder as meaning justice.

You disparage me for manipulating the context of my citations when in fact all I am doing is citing only those things directly concerning the specif point under discussion. The fact that your citations are voluminous doesn’t make them any less irrelevant.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Other teachings have changed such as for example, the teaching on torture. If the teaching on torture has changed, then I don’t see why the teaching on capital punishment could not change.

Some things can indeed change, but one thing that cannot change is what was done or said in the past. If one historian says Columbus discovered America in 1492 and another says he discovered it in 1482, at least one of them must be wrong. They have different explanations for a historic fact. The same is true when there are two different explanations of the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment. One of the descriptions must be wrong since what is being discussed is a historic fact.

You have cited the 1992 and the 1997 CCC and said that there were differences in the presentation on the morality of capital punishment.

What I said was that those two versions have different definitions of the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment. Please, understand this sentence to mean only what it says, neither more nor less. I’m not addressing any other point.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Are you saying the death penalty (or rather, any public punishment or action) can be used when it doesn’t help the common good?

Of course not. In fact I believe JPII et al disapproved of the use of capital punishment specifically because they thought it harmful to the common good in today’s societies. That is a prudential judgment and a valid reason to oppose the death penalty. Your response, however, didn’t address the comment you cited, which was about the discrepancy between the 1992 and 1997 definitions of the traditional teaching of the church.

I have made a number of specific assertions about capital punishment in general and 2267 is particular and it is helpful to address them individually without using a comment made in one context as a response to a different issue. Let me say again: I believe the general rule is that capital punishment is the just penalty for the crime of murder. That said, I recognize exceptions to the rule where there are circumstances where its use would be unwise or inappropriate. I do not believe there is any argument that its use in general circumstances is immoral.

Ender

 

[Vouthon]

I think this is an interesting case to consider…I WARN EVERYONE in advance, IT IS THE MOST HORRENDOUS THING I HAVE EVER READ:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825258/PICTURED-Victim-Hannibal-Lecter-killer-ate-face-high-cocaine-just-two-weeks-released-prison-attacking-ex-partner.html

How could anyone let a monster like this out of prison?

Cases like this would make me question my opposition even to the death penalty, let alone life imprisonment.

Individual rights must be balanced against the common good.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think this is an interesting case to consider…I WARN EVERYONE in advance, IT IS THE MOST HORRENDOUS THING I HAVE EVER READ:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825258/PICTURED-Victim-Hannibal-Lecter-killer-ate-face-high-cocaine-just-two-weeks-released-prison-attacking-ex-partner.html

How could anyone let a monster like this out of prison?

Cases like this would make me question my opposition even to the death penalty, let alone life imprisonment.

Individual rights must be balanced against the common good.

You are right. The problem in California is that there are too many people in jail and the jails do not have the capacity to hold that many people.

 

[livingwordunity]

This is not new. There was a point in the gospels when St. Peter the Apostle voiced his opposition to the death penalty.

 

[Vouthon]

There was a point in the gospels when Peter the Apostle voiced his opposition to the death penalty.

I would say that many of us oppose the death penalty, however life imprisonment is a different ballgame. It is sometimes the only way to protect the public from dangerous psychopaths.