Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[Ender]

I did reject it for being wrong. Executing people for being a disturber of a peace is wrong, whether you are a saint or Pol Pot.

I wonder how you can interpret his comment to be so foolish. Do you really believe he would advocate the execution of “uncharitable internet posters” because they are disturbing the peace? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to try to understand what he means rather than come up with something no rational person would utter?

The issue he was addressing was the appropriateness of using capital punishment and he was defending its use against the heretical arguments of the Trinitarians and Anabaptists to the contrary. The phrase he used (disturbers of the peace) was generic in that he was not specifying the situations where its use would be appropriate.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I wonder how you can interpret his comment to be so foolish.

I myself consider it foolish to ignore context. We have no idea what St. Bellarmine would say today in our society. If he had seen capital punishment used as it has by totalitarian governments of the Twentieth Century, and the current state of the penal system, he might well say something quite different. This is precisely* why* we have a dynamic authority within the Church.

 

[Ender]

We have no idea what St. Bellarmine would say today in our society.

If what he said in his century was doctrine it is equally doctrine today; the differences in our societies is irrelevant. In that regard he would say today exactly what he said 400 years ago. He might agree with JPII and others that its use today is a bad idea, but that is a very different issue. One thought pertains to doctrine and the other to the application of doctrine.

If he had seen capital punishment used as it has by totalitarian governments of the Twentieth Century, and the current state of the penal system, he might well say something quite different.

The fact that capital punishment can be abused says nothing whatever about its validity. That Hitler and Stalin abused their rights as leaders does not call into question the institution of governments.

This is precisely* why* we have a dynamic authority within the Church.

Dynamic authority (whatever you mean by that) is one thing, but it surely does not include the authority to reverse doctrine.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

That Hitler and Stalin abused their rights as leaders does not call into question the institution of governments.

It does call into question the advisability of dictatorrships.

 

[amrin]

There’s a saying here in Portugal, it goes something like God gives (life), God takes (life).

Our maximum sentence is 25 years which is a long time if you think about it. But then again, I don’t think our country is nearly as violent as others that have life imprisonment and death penalty.

The countries that have death penalty are acting like God, taking other people’s life for their sense of Justice. But people are not God. Who are they to take someone else’s life? Who knows how many innocents they’ve killed? Are they any better than the guy in the tv show Dexter, but hiding behind the law of the land? Don’t think so

 

[Ender]

The countries that have death penalty are acting like God, taking other people’s life for their sense of Justice.

The state has a duty to punish the criminal, and has the further duty to impose a punishment whose severity is proportional to the severity of the crime. That is an obligation of justice. The church has always recognized the right of states to use capital punishment and based it on the fact that this punishment is proportional to (at least) the crime of murder.

But people are not God. Who are they to take someone else’s life?

*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)
Ender

 

[graciew]

The state has a duty to punish the criminal, and has the further duty to impose a punishment whose severity is proportional to the severity of the crime. That is an obligation of justice. The church has always recognized the right of states to use capital punishment and based it on the fact that this punishment is proportional to (at least) the crime of murder.
*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. *(Catechism of St. Thomas)
Ender

Ender,I understand what you are saying and not questioning your perspective ,only that I do not understan the purpose of equal punishment.
Please,do not take it as if I do not understand how terrible a crime can be. What rattles me is the concept of justice .
I just do not know what that proportionality is for or where this proportionality comes from.
Could you help me with that?
Thank you.

 

[graciew]

Here is what has been in my heart so you may not think I am just making a cause out of nothing. My stomach has an answer,but my heart pulls in a different direction.
I have been under gun assault and home assault.One of my friends has been shot down under assault. One of my friend’s brothers also. I cannot take the place of those whose husband and brother have been killed. I can only hug them,pray for them and say nothing.
In the case of my worst circumstance,where my family was under gun assault in a vacation house,husband tied up,gun pointed and well,several months of nightmare,these persons were arrested. Since they had stolen our video camara and it was recovered,I got to see that these masked people had children. For a long time I had nightmares That they would come for us again. After several years,for some unknown reason,maybe the face of their very small children, I would feel more peace if I knew they could be reunited,father and kids, and that they had completely yielded to God,and live a healthy and reformed life. Not that I want to see them again.Yet.
I can’t be more honest when I say this. I know it may sound very illogical. Just opening my heart here.

 

[Ender]

Ender,I understand what you are saying and not questioning your perspective ,only that I do not understand the purpose of equal punishment.
Please,do not take it as if I do not understand how terrible a crime can be. What rattles me is the concept of justice .
I just do not know what that proportionality is for or where this proportionality comes from.

Basically it is a question of justice. This is why retribution is the primary objective of punishment. Here are some of Aquinas’ thoughts on the matter (Summa Theologica).
*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 (I-II 87,6)

Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,” (II-II 58,1)*

We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. (I-II 21,3)

God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them. (I-II 87,3)

Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. (I-II 87,3)
Does this help?

Ender

 

[graciew]

Basically it is a question of justice. This is why retribution is the primary objective of punishment.
[/INDENT]Does this help?

Ender

Yes,thank you. I need to think about this.
I will also go through the thread again in the light of the notion of " retribution" so as not to make you write again what may have been explained.
Thank you,Ender. I will come back to ask if I need to.

 

[pnewton]

Dynamic authority (whatever you mean by that) is one thing, but it surely does not include the authority to reverse doctrine.

Ender

No one is reversing doctrine. The use of any punishment is a matter prudence, as you have often pointed out. Making the value of life a greater priority than retribution, is an application of doctrine, not a reversal, as is in doctrinal development. The Church is not stagnant.

 

[Ender]

Making the value of life a greater priority than retribution, is an application of doctrine, not a reversal, as is in doctrinal development.

If the church was to make “the value of life a greater priority than retribution” she would have to reverse the doctrine that now allows capital punishment as a means of just retribution.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles)
*Overthrowing a tradition built up over two millennia of teaching cannot be considered development.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

If the church was to make “the value of life a greater priority than retribution” she would have to reverse the doctrine that now allows capital punishment as a means of just retribution.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles)
*Overthrowing a tradition built up over two millennia of teaching cannot be considered development.

Ender

Many 2000 year old traditions have already been overthrown since Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

Many 2000 year old traditions have already been overthrown since Vatican II.

I do not think so.

 

[LongingSoul]

If the church was to make “the value of life a greater priority than retribution” she would have to reverse the doctrine that now allows capital punishment as a means of just retribution.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles)
*Overthrowing a tradition built up over two millennia of teaching cannot be considered development.

Ender

Cardinal Dulles also said… *"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. 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…

Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt."*

Aquinas said… "Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, wherefore it is written (Proverbs 13:24): “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.” But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances".

 

[Ender]

Many 2000 year old traditions have already been overthrown since Vatican II.

The teaching on capital punishment has not been reversed, and never will be.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. *(Fr. John Hardon)
Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

If the church was to make “the value of life a greater priority than retribution” she would have to reverse the doctrine that now allows capital punishment as a means of just retribution.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles)
*Overthrowing a tradition built up over two millennia of teaching cannot be considered development.

Ender

But the value of life IS a greater priority than retribution. The whole purpose of retribution is to show the value of human life. There is no development there because that’s how it’s always been. For proof of that we can go back to Gen. 9:6 and the story of Abel and Cain.

 

[Ender]

Cardinal Dulles also said… *
Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt."*

I don’t think you understood the point being made, because it wasn’t about whether there could be prudential justification for avoiding the death penalty. It was about the relative value of competing objectives: life and justice. pnewton suggested that making life a higher objective than justice was not a change in doctrine. I disagreed. Given that the church has always acknowledged a State’s right to apply capital punishment it would seem that to elevate life above justice would also eliminate that right…which would be a reversal of doctrine.

Aquinas said… But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances".

Yes, and this pertains to prudential considerations, which is a valid topic…just not this topic.

Ender

 

[Ender]

But the value of life IS a greater priority than retribution.

If that was so then how could the church ever support capital punishment? She has always accepted the death penalty as a just punishment for severe crimes. She couldn’t have done that if mere existence was the higher good. Clearly there are three cases where life may be taken.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)

The whole purpose of retribution is to show the value of human life.

The purpose of retribution is “to repair the disorder caused by the offense.” (CCC 2266) The disorder caused by a murder is of rather significant magnitude.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) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (1) Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)

There is no development there because that’s how it’s always been. For proof of that we can go back as far ago as Gen. 9:6 and the story of Abel and Cain.

The story of Cain is in Genesis 4. What is in Gn 9:6 is the directive from God himself as to what the just punishment is for murder along with an explanation for why this is so. The fact that God protected Cain from being killed by others has never been used by the church to form her position on capital punishment. That position belongs to Gn 9:6 (and Rm 13:1-4).

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

If that was so then how could the church ever support capital punishment? She has always accepted the death penalty as a just punishment for severe crimes. She couldn’t have done that if mere existence was the higher good. Clearly there are three cases where life may be taken.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)
The purpose of retribution is “to repair the disorder caused by the offense.” (CCC 2266) The disorder caused by a murder is of rather significant magnitude.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) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (1) Gn 9:5-6 (Catechism of Trent)
The story of Cain is in Genesis 4. What is in Gn 9:6 is the directive from God himself as to what the just punishment is for murder along with an explanation for why this is so. The fact that God protected Cain from being killed by others has never been used by the church to form her position on capital punishment. That position belongs to Gn 9:6 (and Rm 13:1-4).

Ender

Ok, And this completely misses what I was addressing in my post.