Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[Fred_E]

And human justice ultimately conforms to the common good.

Insofar as it comports with God’s justice, it is a source of the common good.

The State: the civil authorities are beholden to the common good.

As you phrase it, no. There are many things needed for the common good in which the State has no role at all. Since the common good ultimately is God Himself, it is correct to say that the State’s authority is from God, and in that sense the State is “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.

Any statement conditioned on a particular age or circumstance is not doctrinal per se but a prudential judgment.

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

Only because it fails to comport with your perception of what is and is not “Catholic”, which appears to be driven solely by defining “Catholic” as opposing the death penalty.

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.

An act’s justice is not contingent on the community per se. Whether an act is “barbarous” (in American jurisprudence the term used is “cruel”) is considered independently. God’s perfect justice which can include eternal punishment (although a minority of Christians, including an increasing number of Catholics who use arguments not at all unlike yours against the death penalty, claim God condemns no one eternally) is an argument for, not against, the use of the death penalty.

Legal justice regards how a mans crime impacts on the good of all the community.

No, legal justice considers the evil done as it detriments justice and attempts to right the injustice by a proportionate amount. Conceptually it is a balancing of the cosmic scales. The attempt to make “the good of all the community” equal justice has no basis at all in the teaching of the Church in its long theological history dealing with crimes and punishments.

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

The Church cannot impose or substitute its judgments to the detriment of those who are competent authorities under the Natural Law to exercise prudential judgments. Prudential judgments are not the product of “moral authority” but are the application of the moral law through expertise in civil disciplines such as jurisprudence, penology, psychology, medicine, and so on. Generally Popes lack these expertise and render to God what is God’s, while civilians render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Catholics do not have the equivalent of a mullah or ayatollah.

 

[Fred_E]

I thought a papal bull was a teaching.

A papal bull is a particular type of letters patent or charter issued by a Pope. It is named after the lead seal (bulla) that was appended to the end in order to authenticate it.

Most bulls now in existence are confirmations of property or charters of protection accorded to monasteries and religious institutions.

As far as content, a bull is simply the format in which a decree of the Pope appears. Any subject may be treated in a bull including statutory decrees, episcopal appointments, dispensations, excommunications, apostolic constitutions, canonizations and convocations.

 

[Fred_E]

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

Observing the moral law always works for the common good, which ultimately is God Himself.

Trying to construct a utilitarian version of the common good which nullifies the right, and sometimes the duty, of the State to impose the death penalty is akin to the reasoning behind justifying abortion in cases of rape and incest. It is an example of using ends to justify the means.

The issue of the death penalty has to be considered within the confines of the Church’s constant teaching: the primary purpose of a punishment is justice.

 

[Fred_E]

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

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

There is no body of teaching on torture per se.

 

[Ender]

Any statement conditioned on a particular age or circumstance is not doctrinal per se but a prudential judgment.

This is a good observation that speaks directly to the contents of CCC 2267 and applies specifically to the sentence that starts with “Today…”

No, legal justice considers the evil done as it detriments justice and attempts to right the injustice by a proportionate amount. Conceptually it is a balancing of the cosmic scales.

This is why the church teaches that the punishment *must *be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

The ‘demands of justice’ aren’t just about punishing crime. They about the equitable distribution of wealth and striving for social equality and equal freedoms and determining individuals rights and a wide range of humanistic concerns in society. They all feed into and impact on each other to achieve the common good.

Aquinas reports “Tully says (De Officiis i, 7) that “the object of justice is to keep men together in society and mutual intercourse.””

CCC2267 is a reflection of the overall scope of justice to determine that the death penalty is not a fair reflection of just punishments today. Of course its important to state that the Church does not hold that the death penalty is intrinsically evil because natural law requires that an diseased limb that can’t be treated is likely to infect the whole body and should be amuputated to that end.

**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.

I meant to say justice ‘relates’ to the common good as in human justice directly involves the relationship of one man to another. That is why we refer to it as a ‘crime’ rather than a ‘sin’. Many things men do are immoral and illicit in the eyes of God, but it is only those things that cause harm in the relationship of one person and another that human justice is concerned with. We don’t have the ‘qualities’ to say that regardless of how the death penalty affects the common good, it is just. If society is such that its harder to distinguish the good from the evil for whatever reason, we are forbidden to use the death penalty. It doesn’t reflect justice. It is immoral… apart from the cases where non lethal punishments are insufficient to protect society. That is the one legitimate use of the death penalty under those conditions. That is exactly what 2267 says.

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?

Let me find a common ground for discussing this point further. Give me an example of what sort of conditions would prevail that made the death penalty an immoral law requiring abolition.

 

[Ender]

The ‘demands of justice’ aren’t just about punishing crime.

True, but in the context of this discussion we are not concerned about its other aspects.

Aquinas reports “Tully says (De Officiis i, 7) that “the object of justice is to keep men together in society and mutual intercourse.””

This is a generic aspect of justice; it is not specific to the topic of punishment, as is this comment by Pius XII.For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order…

CCC2267 is a reflection of the overall scope of justice to determine that the death penalty is not a fair reflection of just punishments today.

If capital punishment was ever a just penalty then it is equally just today. Since the nature of crime does not change with the times neither does the punishment that is commensurate with it.

We don’t have the ‘qualities’ to say that regardless of how the death penalty affects the common good, it is just.

No one has ever made such a suggestion

If society is such that its harder to distinguish the good from the evil for whatever reason, we are forbidden to use the death penalty.

We are not forbidden to use the death penalty. Something does not become doctrine because a pope expresses an opinion on it.

It doesn’t reflect justice. It is immoral…

The church has always recognized the legitimacy of its use precisely because it is the just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder, and if it is just it is surely moral. Your (and the clergy’s) prudential opposition to it does not render it immoral. Unwise perhaps, but not immoral.

…apart from the cases where non lethal punishments are insufficient to protect society. That is the one legitimate use of the death penalty under those conditions. That is exactly what 2267 says.

Perhaps, but 2267 is a prudential objection, it is not a doctrinal ban.

Let me find a common ground for discussing this point further. Give me an example of what sort of conditions would prevail that made the death penalty an immoral law requiring abolition.

I can come up with examples of individual cases where capital punishment ought not be used but I can think of no realistic conditions that would render it immoral in all cases.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

That’s what (the first part of) 2267 is saying! Assuming the party in question is guilty (here is where justice is covered so not any crime will merit capital punishment. IOW, “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined”), then the death penalty can be applied (the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty) if it promotes/defends the common good (IOW, “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”).

I do not believe there is any argument that its use in general circumstances is immoral.

One could argue that these “general circumstances” may only rarely exist. But this is really beside the point since I’m in this discussion only for the first part of CCC 2267.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no body of teaching on torture per se.

USCCB:
The use of torture must be rejected as fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism (No. 88).

 

[CrossofChrist]

Trying to construct a utilitarian version of the common good

How is this relevant? I’m not arguing that. All I’m saying is that the Catechism accurately presents Church teaching.

 

[Ender]

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined"), then the death penalty can be applied (the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty) if it promotes/defends the common good (IOW, “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”).

What you’ve written is not what 2267 says, and I think the fact that you felt the need to rephrase that section indicates that you too see its inadequacies. I will also point out that you are defining the common good as “defending human lives” when in fact it is a good deal more than that. This is what LongingSoul got so upset about when I suggested that “redressing the disorder” meant a lot more than simply maintaining law and order in the streets, but this is just how you have interpreted it.

The phrase “common good” is used in 2267 in such a way as to be virtually meaningless as there is no context to help understand it. It is vague to the point of irrelevancy. We can be sure, however, that the common good is much more than mere protection. Justice, for example, is necessary for the common good but that entire concept is not even addressed by 2267; it is not even raised as an afterthought. The problem with that is we have just been told in 2266 that retribution - retributive justice - is the primary objective of punishment, so how can it justifiably be ignored in 2267?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Rather than thinking the Catechism is so schizophrenic as to ignore each point from paragraph to paragraph, I would rather think that the synthesis between the two is no understood. Both 2266 and 2267 are equally true and do not contradict. The catechism is not a cafeteria line. Catholics are given no line item veto.

 

[Ender]

Rather than thinking the Catechism is so schizophrenic as to ignore each point from paragraph to paragraph…

Really? Then how do you balance both 2260, which cites Gn 9:6 - God’s instruction that murderers should be executed (and declares it a teaching that is “necessary for all time”) - with 2267 which says they should not? If both are understood as doctrine then they directly conflict with one another.

Both 2266 and 2267 are equally true and do not contradict.

2266 defines retribution as the primary objective of punishment. 2267 ignores that objective and bases the use of capital punishment on whether it is necessary to achieve a secondary objective. The only reason they don’t contradict one another is that 2266 is a doctrine and 2267 is a prudential judgment.

The catechism is not a cafeteria line. Catholics are given no line item veto.

And name calling is not debating. Hold yourself to a higher standard.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The catechism is not a cafeteria line. Catholics are given no line item veto.

Responses like that which you often give, make it obvious that a big part of your confusion is due to a language and concepts issues. You are obviously a strongly concrete thinker but seem to be unaware of the value and importance in abstractions in understanding the scope of the topic here.

pnewton wasn’t insulting you in any way. He was making an observation about the nature of the Catechism with regards to this issue. Abstract thinking recognises ‘phenomenon’ that link facts and ideas together in a sythesis as he mentioned.

Really? Then how do you balance both 2260, which cites Gn 9:6 - God’s instruction that murderers should be executed (and declares it a teaching that is “necessary for all time”) - with 2267 which says they should not? If both are understood as doctrine then they directly conflict with one another.

You’ve started with your own biased interpretation of 2260 and Gn 9:6 which essentials describes Gn 9 as the ‘institution of the death penalty’ and then calling this the doctrine, when a general reading of the section reveals an emphasis on the high value of man as made in the image of God. God says He will demand accounting for the lifeblood of man. He also says “I will demand an accounting from every animal.”… by that we know this is not a specific instruction in regards to human justice/civil law since the law does not apply to animals in that way. It is a comment on how highly God values human beings and can’t abide the spilling of their blood.

From that, human law can elicit a permission to apply death penalties in the administration of human law if necessary to human good. The verse can not stand as a divine command because unlike Noah the recipient of the Words, our relationship to the Father in through Jesus and the New Covenant. We interpret Gods words through Jesus alone. To take the verse literally as it stands in administering justice we would be obliged to have courts and death penalties for animals also.

When 2267 says “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.”… it recognises a Christians view of Gn 9:6 and Christian doctrine at work for the common good. There is no contradiction if you recognise that as Christians, we behold the Old Testament through the teachings of Christ rather than as literal interpretations required by our pre Christian ancestors.

2266 defines retribution as the primary objective of punishment. 2267 ignores that objective and bases the use of capital punishment on whether it is necessary to achieve a secondary objective. The only reason they don’t contradict one another is that 2266 is a doctrine and 2267 is a prudential judgment.

When we say ‘nutrition’ is the primary aim of eating we are making a true statement about the primary aim of eating. We would not however say that the primary aim of eating chocolate is nutrition. Chocolate serves a purpose in our diet but it isn’t nutrition. That fact does not negate that the primary aim of eating is ‘nutrition’. Do you see how one statement applies to the wide scope of the subject but within that scope there are different aspects? They seem contradictory but they aren’t.

 

[Tomdstone]

Chocolate serves a purpose in our diet but it isn’t nutrition. .

That is not true: “There have been many studies linking cocoa and dark chocolate with health benefits. Cocoa and chocolate contain a large amount of antioxidants (flavinoids). Cocoa and dark chocolate may keep high blood pressure down and reduce the blood’s ability to clot, thus the risk of stroke and heart attacks may be reduced.”
cacaoweb.net/nutrition.html

 

[Ender]

You’ve started with your own biased interpretation of 2260 and Gn 9:6 which essentials describes Gn 9 as the ‘institution of the death penalty’ and then calling this the doctrine…

I call it that because the church calls it that.It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept.(St. Bellarmine)

a general reading of the section reveals an emphasis on the high value of man as made in the image of God.

An accurate reading of the section reveals that it is because life is sacred that a murderer’s life is forfeit for his crime.

God says He will demand accounting for the lifeblood of man. He also says “I will demand an accounting from every animal.”… by that we know this is not a specific instruction in regards to human justice/civil law since the law does not apply to animals in that way.

This is breathtakingly disingenuous. What you describe is in Gn 9:5 yet what we have been discussing is Gn 9:6, and in that verse there is nothing about animals. It is God himself explaining what the penalty for murder is and why. That is, it is the very sacredness of the life of the victim that makes the crime so heinous, and that requires the life of the murderer as punishment.

It is a comment on how highly God values human beings and can’t abide the spilling of their blood.

Words have lost their meanings if you can distort the plain sense of “by man shall his blood be shed” to mean man’s blood shall not be shed.

The verse can not stand as a divine command because unlike Noah the recipient of the Words, our relationship to the Father in through Jesus and the New Covenant.

Again, you know this is false as I have several times cited the catechism on this point.The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel. (CCC 58)
How do you continue to cling to positions you know to be directly refuted by the catechism?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Really? Then how do you balance both 2260, which cites Gn 9:6 - God’s instruction that murderers should be executed (and declares it a teaching that is “necessary for all time”) - with 2267 which says they should not?

I have done this multiple times. I will not repeat ad infinitum.

And name calling is not debating. Hold yourself to a higher standard.

Ender

I called no one any name, either personally or anonymously. If you do not understand the difference between the use of an analogy and name-calling, then how do you expect to understand why two paragraphs can both be held at the same level of instruction when they appear in the same chapter? I could have used any other analogy, where one selects one thing, and not another. A grocery story, channel surfing, etc.

 

[CrossofChrist]

What you’ve written is not what 2267 says, and I think the fact that you felt the need to rephrase that section indicates that you too see its inadequacies.

I only rephrased it to show that it in fact says nothing different than the traditional teaching.

I will also point out that you are defining the common good as “defending human lives” when in fact it is a good deal more than that.

CCC 1905:

In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:

Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25

And part of 1906:

By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all.

“Defending human lives” means much more than physical protection, since humans are much more than merely physical beings–we are spiritual beings ordered to God.

This is what LongingSoul got so upset about when I suggested that “redressing the disorder” meant a lot more than simply maintaining law and order in the streets, but this is just how you have interpreted it.

In fact, I have interpreted it in a totally different way.

The phrase “common good” is used in 2267 in such a way as to be virtually meaningless as there is no context to help understand it.

We have what the Church tells us the common good means.

It is vague to the point of irrelevancy.

The Catechism is written for the whole world and for many years to come. It’s hard to get too specific.

We can be sure, however, that the common good is much more than mere protection.

100% agree.

Justice, for example, is necessary for the common good but that entire concept is not even addressed by 2267; it is not even raised as an afterthought.

Except it is.

The problem with that is we have just been told in 2266 that retribution - retributive justice - is the primary objective of punishment, so how can it justifiably be ignored in 2267?

Ender

2267 addresses it. Only a “guilty party” can receive the death penalty, and the use of capital punishment must “defend human lives”, and only if justice is served can human lives be defended not exploited.

 

[LongingSoul]

I call it that because the church calls it that.It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept.(St. Bellarmine)

In fact, this is what the Church says… “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 can’t quote Bellarmine out of the context of his day and claim “this is what the church teaches”. He observes an aspect of the doctrine as it pertained to the conditions of his day. The death penalty had been introduced in 1529 for the heresy of the new Christian sects of Anabaptists and Trinitarians. These two sects of course argued against the ethics of the death penalty in the light of their increasingly executed numbers. Bellarmine in turn was speaking of its legitimacy against “disturbers of the public peace” which these sects were deemed to be in his eyes.

The concept of ‘public peace’ or ‘common good’ are relevant to each age according to the conditions of the time. We don’t call this doctrine… we call it an interpretation of doctrine as the needs of the society will vary from age to age.

How do you continue to cling to positions you know to be directly refuted by the catechism?

Ender

Huh? Isn’t it you who is adamantly rejecting the position of the Catechism?

Think I need a break from this twilight zone!

 

[pnewton]

Bellarmine in turn was speaking of its legitimacy against “disturbers of the public peace” which these sects were deemed to be in his eyes.

So, could we not equally make the point St. Bellarmine would support the execution of uncharitable internet posters here, as defined as those that disturb the peace? Herein lies the problem with using a saint from the past to override Church authorities of today.