Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[CrossofChrist]

That’s all for this thread! God bless!

Because I think there might be a potential breakthrough I’m going to hold off on this.

I agreed with most of your comments, just not this one. As you say, both mercy and justice are virtues, but one does not trump the other…and if it is true that one is higher than the other I think the better case can be made that that position belongs to justice.

Not to get sidetracked from the conversation, but just thought I’d bring this up:

In this way, mercy is in a certain sense contrasted with God’s justice, and in many cases is shown to be not only more powerful than that justice but also more profound. Even the Old Testament teaches that, although justice is an authentic virtue in man, and in God signifies transcendent perfection nevertheless love is “greater” than justice: greater in the sense that it is primary and fundamental. Love, so to speak, conditions justice and, in the final analysis, justice serves love. The primacy and superiority of love vis-a-vis justice - this is a mark of the whole of revelation - are revealed precisely through mercy. (Dives in Misericordia 4)

 

[CrossofChrist]

I was trying to deal with Ambrose’s comment by something more than dismissing it as irrelevant. It is clear from both your citation and mine that he opposed using capital punishment. I wanted it to be equally clear that his opposition was prudential, not doctrinal. If that is acceptable then there is no conflict with what the church taught since one is doctrine and the other is the application of doctrine.

That’s fair.

Regarding his belief that executing someone cuts him off from the possibility of repentance, that seems more problematic.

Not really problematic, since even this is more an area of prudential judgment. Obviously God can do anything so it is clearly possible that repentance could happen, but I think Ambrose was talking about the apparent likelihood of outward repentance happening. Certainly something we are able to disagree about.

 

[LongingSoul]

In this way, mercy is in a certain sense contrasted with God’s justice, and in many cases is shown to be not only more powerful than that justice but also more profound. Even the Old Testament teaches that, although justice is an authentic virtue in man, and in God signifies transcendent perfection nevertheless love is “greater” than justice: greater in the sense that it is primary and fundamental. Love, so to speak, conditions justice and, in the final analysis, justice serves love. The primacy and superiority of love vis-a-vis justice - this is a mark of the whole of revelation - are revealed precisely through mercy. (Dives in Misericordia 4)

“…love is “greater” than justice: greater in the sense that it is primary and fundamental.”

That is how I’ve always understood the fifth commandment that was given without any conditions or exceptions to Moses. The Church’s teachings regarding the conditions and ‘exceptions’ in that light make judgements to apply principles of self defense and capital punishment, prudential. To forsake those options ie. to turn the other cheek or to spare the life of a murderer, are actually the default. They reflect the fundamental doctrine of human life.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Does sincere repentance and the amendment of ones life cancel out the debt owed for sin? I don’t think it does. If someone commits a murder, fully repents of it, and goes on to lead an exemplary life, is his debt erased? No. His life may be turned around but that does not expiate his sin. Punishment is still required.

I agree with this, but can someone be undergoing their punishment while they are living an exemplary life? I would imagine they would be living their whole life in atonement for the act committed.

True, but as this question has not been addressed before I have no ready response.

Fair enough. My own thoughts on the matter are that so long as there is a life-long punishment in some form, even if it doesn’t necessarily mean a life sentence, it would be expiatory.

I can accept the IOW explanation if by it you mean this is the way it is generally perceived. I cannot accept it if you interpret it to mean that using capital punishment actually conflicts with human dignity.

It doesn’t actually conflict with human dignity per se, but its application in some instances would make it contrary to human dignity.

If country A uses CP in a way that incites feelings of revenge and violence, even if otherwise it would be an ok use of CP, then it would be contrary to human dignity to use it. Or if country B wants to not apply capital punishment because, using their prudential judgment, it would be more effective in promoting the Gospel of Life, to do otherwise would conflict with human dignity (why would they go contrary to what they think is best for the common good?).

Those examples are both based on prudence, but its use would still be wrong and conflict with human dignity in those examples

 

[Ender]

Not to get sidetracked from the conversation, but just thought I’d bring this up:

In this way, mercy is in a certain sense contrasted with God’s justice, and in many cases is shown to be not only more powerful than that justice but also more profound. Even the Old Testament teaches that, although justice is an authentic virtue in man, and in God signifies transcendent perfection nevertheless love is “greater” than justice: greater in the sense that it is primary and fundamental. Love, so to speak, conditions justice and, in the final analysis, justice serves love. The primacy and superiority of love vis-a-vis justice - this is a mark of the whole of revelation - are revealed precisely through mercy. (Dives in Misericordia 4)

I’m willing to accept that love is greater than justice, although I don’t equate mercy with love. In any event one of the points I wanted to make was that mercy is not always and everywhere appropriate.Blessed Isaac of Stella in one of his talks emphasizes the full communion of Christ with the church in the forgiveness of sins: “… The church can forgive nothing except to a penitent, that is to say, to a person whom Christ has touched with his grace: Christ does not wish to consider anything forgiven in a person who despises the church”: Sermo 11 (In Dominica II Post Epiphaniam, 1): PL 194, 1729. (JPII - Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)
JPII also said in Dives in Misericordia that: “*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it.” *

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

Justice is not conditional on the acceptance of his punishment by the criminal. Justice and rehabilitation are both valid objectives but they are also distinct and separate. It is certainly true that expiation requires repentance, but justice does not.

Pope Francis: It is necessary to do justice, but true justice is not satisfied by simply punishing criminals. It is essential to go further and do everything possible to reform, improve and educate the person, so that he matures from every point of view, does not become discouraged, addresses the damage he caused, and can reestablish his life without being crushed under the weight of his hardships.

I guess what I mean is not giving the criminal a chance to reform or doing our best to persuade him (again, a matter of prudential judgment) is an injustice to the criminal, since every person–regardless of their sin–is called to eternal life. A punishment might be served, but there is still an element that is incomplete; if the criminal doesn’t repent, he commits an injustice both to God and to himself, and really to the human family by not converting.

I don’t think the primary purpose of reforming someone is to reintegrate him back into the community. I should think it would be for his eternal salvation. The question of expiation is worth exploring further.

That wouldn’t be the primary purpose of reforming someone, but it would be an objective.

 

[CaptFun]

I agreed with most of your comments, just not this one. As you say, both mercy and justice are virtues, but one does not trump the other…and if it is true that one is higher than the other I think the better case can be made that that position belongs to justice.Since justice is a cardinal virtue, other secondary virtues, such as mercy, liberality and the like are connected with it (Aquinas)
Ender

I did say **"the Church" ** - which may have been a little broad in its application (as you pointed out with the gravitas of a quote from SAINT Thomas Aquinas) - while I was extrapolating beyond (not yet a saint) Pope Francis’ seeming priorities toward the mercy side here.

Justice and Mercy ***seem ***sometimes to be oppositional - though maybe oppositional like hot and cold water - where we must sometimes morally seek and find the best possible temperature for the problem at hand. Jesus being confronted with the woman “caught in adultery” ended with a merciful result … yet justice was not slighted as he had ruled conditionally that it COULD have been executed (by one without sin) AND cautioned the woman to go and “sin no more”.

When judging others (myself) … shooting for “as much mercy as is appropriate” would be the “as ye judge so shall ye be judged” standard I might opt for. Because I hope more for a merciful, than a just, judgement re: my past sins.

That said, I am not so convinced that abolishing the death penalty is “as much justice as is appropriate”. The state requiring the life of a serial killer administers substantially less justice than “an eye for an eye” for example. And should the state not take such measures as to teach the rest of its society about what NEVER ought to be done … by levying such penalties?

Capital punishment for some crimes was recommended by God to Moses in the Bible. < I can’t remember anyone NAMED in the Bible who was so executed though. Maybe the severe laws kept much nonsense from happening?

The death penalty and life imprisonment are extreme. But the punishments do fit some extreme crimes. I like that a Pope reminds us to be merciful. If voting on the issue, I’m not sure at all that I’d vote to abolish the death penalty though. Or life imprisonment.

The Pope has given me something to think about though. As has Thomas Aquinas.

And while I hope never to be put in the spot Jesus was (per judging the woman “caught”) - I do trust that the Holy Spirit can guide me towards the right temperature if I ever serve jury duty again. Also - when people sincerely want to do the right thing, and are open the the Holy Spirit’s counsel :angel1: - their chances of doing the best thing in a tough situation is much better. IMO.

And mistakes made with the best of intentions (but incomplete information) are not necessarily even a sin. However important the issue may have been.

I*** DO go ON sometimes … other times I keep such thoughts all in my mind***. … 'til I’m done sorting them out! :juggle:

 

[Cider]

It would help if he were to suggest another means.

Yes, really.

Come talk to me when he can prove the pedophiles can be successfully rehabilitated and guarantee that releasing them from prison won’t put children at risk. Until then, I’m fine with life imprisonment for select crimes

 

[CrossofChrist]

I’m willing to accept that love is greater than justice, although I don’t equate mercy with love. In any event one of the points I wanted to make was that mercy is not always and everywhere appropriate.Blessed Isaac of Stella in one of his talks emphasizes the full communion of Christ with the church in the forgiveness of sins: “… The church can forgive nothing except to a penitent, that is to say, to a person whom Christ has touched with his grace: Christ does not wish to consider anything forgiven in a person who despises the church”: Sermo 11 (In Dominica II Post Epiphaniam, 1): PL 194, 1729. (JPII - Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)
JPII also said in Dives in Misericordia that: “*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it.” *

Ender

I understand your point, that it isn’t always best to spare the life of someone guilty of a great crime. But at the same time we should always do what we think is in the best way to show mercy, and therefore the best way to show justice.

Anyway, on this particular topic I think it’s all semantics. I think it might be on other issues as well, even though I certainly disagree with you on the application of CP.

The big point I am ultimately trying to show is that 2267 doesn’t have to be read in opposition to Tradition.

 

[LongingSoul]

To the objection…

“Objection 2. Further, mercy is a relaxation of justice. But God cannot remit what appertains to His justice. For it is said (2 Timothy 2:13): “If we believe not, He continueth faithful: He cannot deny Himself.” But He would deny Himself, as a gloss says, if He should deny His words. Therefore mercy is not becoming to God.”

Aquinas replies…

“God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: “Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness thereof. And thus it is said: “Mercy exalteth itself above judgment” (James 2:13).”

 

[Ender]

I agree with this, but can someone be undergoing their punishment while they are living an exemplary life? I would imagine they would be living their whole life in atonement for the act committed.

I think there is little doubt that regret is a form of punishment. In the first place a man’s nature is subject to the order of his own reason; secondly, it is subjected to the order of another man who governs him either in spiritual or in temporal matters . . . . thirdly, it is subject to the universal order of the Divine government. Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience; another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God. (Aquinas)

If country A uses CP in a way that incites feelings of revenge and violence, even if otherwise it would be an ok use of CP, then it would be contrary to human dignity to use it).

Those examples are both based on prudence, but its use would still be wrong and conflict with human dignity in those examples

If country A uses capital punishment, believing it is appropriate to do so, yet it incites feelings of revenge and violence, is that contrary to human dignity (and a sin?) or is that an error in judgment (and probably not a sin)? In reaching different prudential judgments people may validly make mistakes.

It cannot be that inciting harsh feelings in others constitutes a conflict with human dignity that makes an action wrong any more than stirring a feeling of justice in others makes it right. The moral nature of an act is not determined by the opinions of others.

Ender

 

[graciew]

KLet s say we have a status quo and countries leave things as they are.
It is an apparent order where we are not considering our share in universal order. Or mayne it is where God allows us to be.
But it is static for me still.
Once people are in prison the gates are closed and that is it. All the theory seems to operate as spray from Heaven. God can do everything of course. Is it what he wants ?
A person in prison may not even know God exists , may not even be sane ,may have.undergone hell as a child. Do we drop a person there , claim death and that is ok with us ?
Though not directly related to a particular sin , indirectly we may have.sinned by omission , indifference , and who knows.Somewhwere along the way . A child is not born to go to prison.
Ok that one is responsible for ones own actions , but , who lives in a bubble ?

 

[CrossofChrist]

If country A uses capital punishment, believing it is appropriate to do so, yet it incites feelings of revenge and violence, is that contrary to human dignity (and a sin?) or is that an error in judgment (and probably not a sin)?

I would say that its application would objectively be contrary to human dignity, but subjectively there would be no guilt.

In reaching different prudential judgments people may validly make mistakes.

Of course.

It cannot be that inciting harsh feelings in others constitutes a conflict with human dignity that makes an action wrong any more than stirring a feeling of justice in others makes it right. The moral nature of an act is not determined by the opinions of others.

I used that as a possible example for how using the death penalty could negatively affect the common good.

The conflict with human dignity would start by not doing what is perceived to be the best route for society to take.

It’s not capital punishment in and of itself that is wrong. The Church has said it is ok. The application in concrete historical circumstances is the determining factor for what makes its use in conflict with human dignity.

 

[graciew]

Pope Francis: It is necessary to do justice, but true justice is not satisfied by simply punishing criminals. It is essential to go further and do everything possible to reform, improve and educate the person, so that he matures from every point of view, does not become discouraged, addresses the damage he caused, and can reestablish his life without being crushed under the weight of his hardships.

I guess what I mean is not giving the criminal a chance to reform or doing our best to persuade him (again, a matter of prudential judgment) is an injustice to the criminal, since every person–regardless of their sin–is called to eternal life. A punishment might be served, but there is still an element that is incomplete; if the criminal doesn’t repent, he commits an injustice both to God and to himself, and really to the human family by not converting.

That wouldn’t be the primary purpose of reforming someone, but it would be an objective.

I guess I was thinking along these lines and did not remember your specific post.
I read all and think about it.
It is also our indirect share that is missing for me for order to be re established. True,I am not very good at pulling quotes,not that I do not read them. Everything kind of blends in me.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Joran Van Der Sloot was convicted of murdering a young Peruvian woman for her money. Likely he killed Natalee Holloway for reasons we don’t know. He was sentenced to 28 years in prison. I don’t know if Peruvian sentences of 28 years really mean 28 years, or whether (as in the U.S.) they mean far less.

I realize the Pope is the Pope. But still, I wonder when it will be safe for young women for Joran Van Der Sloot to emerge from prison?

When will it be safe to free Charles Manson?

Thank you Ridgerunner for discussing what I think are the most newsworthy aspects of the Pope’s speech. What concerns me is how his comments for life imprisonment were said so generally. The danger when you make a “general” comment is how it can apply to almost every case. Are there cases where life imprisonment would be wrong? Sure. But there are a lot of cases where its morally imperative. This is something that needs much greater explanation.

 

[esieffe]

I can see what he is getting at as well. For someone who has experienced true repentence and conversion after being imprisoned and has served a decent sentence… it seems that to not consider his re entry to society a possibility is to deny the power of conversion and redemption. If a heinous criminal genuinely repents and goes to confession, we are asked to have faith that his sin is completely expunged from his soul. He is a new person with a new start. I can see that that should also be reflected by our human justice in some way.

 

[esieffe]

Thank you Ridgerunner for discussing what I think are the most newsworthy aspects of the Pope’s speech. What concerns me is how his comments for life imprisonment were said so generally. The danger when you make a “general” comment is how it can apply to almost every case. Are there cases where life imprisonment would be wrong? Sure. But there are a lot of cases where its morally imperative. This is something that needs much greater explanation.

I doubt anyone, including the Pope, believes that all can be safely released back into society. Don’t expect him to be visiting Charlie Manson anytime soon. The the same may go for Vandersloot. But there might be people who at some point deserve parole. This is why they have review boards. This is why Charlie has never been release despite the fact that he and his followers have never been release despite their eligibility.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton:

This is a very strange comment.

I find the idea that the Church is going backwards as prejudicial. It would be like stated absolute destruction of a village, every man, woman, child and beast, was the acme, and everything else is a step backward. Sure, it can be seen that any act of mercy since the destruction of Ai is backward, but only if one defines “forward” with a callous disregard for life.

Catholic theologian do not proof-text quotes out of the past to push forward an agenda that they believe in. That is backward thinking. Any advocate for the death penalty, or any other issue, can dig through the history and find reams of quotes that can be made to support the particular agenda. This is like the scientist that chooses only data to prove what he wants proven, as opposed to questing for truth without bias.

Our leaders are for the most part well-educated theologians. The theologian extrapolates from the data of the past and goes from that. The Catholic theologian, does this within the context of collegiality, relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit speaking through the whole of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

It should be clear that a statement does not lose its authority with time. Morality does not change with time, and the development of doctrine does not include a reversal of what was believed earlier.

Of course moral teaching never loses its authority. Do you think for one moment that you and Dudley are more educated on Church Tradition and the teachings of the Doctors of the Church than all the great minds that have spoken on this issue in the last fifty years? They also understand the limits to statements from the past, both in the context which limits the information the speaker has, and in the limits to authority that individuals have. That is why no one has said that the death penalty is inherently evil or that it *was *always wrong to resort to the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

I understand your point, that it isn’t always best to spare the life of someone guilty of a great crime. But at the same time we should always do what we think is in the best way to show mercy, and therefore the best way to show justice.

Understand that I am not suggesting there is no proper role for mercy, only that it can also be inappropriately used as well. It is not something that should be automatically applied in every situation. Now, given that mercy is not universally applicable, what does that say about those cases where it is not proper? If the merciful sentence is LWOP then does that not mean that the just sentence is death? If LWOP is the just sentence then one does not have to argue for mercy to oppose the death penalty, justice will equally serve that purpose.

The argument that all murderers should be treated mercifully and not executed contains within it the admission that death is the just punishment…so what is the argument for not using it in those cases where mercy should not be granted?

Ender