Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[Ender]

The state is answerable to us, if we would forgive, the state must forgive.

No, the state and the individual have very different obligations. What is forbidden the individual is the duty of the state. This is a crucial distinction.*…when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. *(St. Bellarmine, De Laicis)

Do you have a source for that [the primary objective of punishment is retribution]? It doesn’t sound consistent with Our Lord’s words:

CCC 2266 - *The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

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. *(USCCB)
Ender

 

[anthonymarie]

Church teaching, including the catechism, cannot be understood by believing that one teaching trumps another; they all have to be incorporated into a coherent whole that allows for all of them to be satisfied. The church does not teach contradictory values.

2267 can not and does not rescind what was just said in 2266.

Ender

And vice-versa, so what ever is meant by “commensurate” by the writer, it is in the context of "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”"

2266 and 2267 can’t be looked at separately, they have to be seen together, 2267 clarifies, if not what is meant by, then at least what is not meant by, “commensurate”.

 

[simpleas]

I understand your position, but it clearly conflicts with what the church has always taught as shown by that citation from the Baltimore Catechism. Is the church wrong in what she taught?

Ender

I don’t know, but the church changed it’s position on life imprisonment.

The Vatican, a short while ago, changed its Penal Code, removing life imprisonment, which is a concealed form of death sentence."

All I know is I would not vote for a person to be executed, I don’t think our church calls for it either, in fact I thought it was the governments elected by the people who decided on these type of laws. I never knew our church thought people should be executed in this day and age.
I’m amazed at what I’ve learnt on CAF, and I accept I’m ignorant of some catholic teaches, that sometimes don’t even seem to be catholic to me.

Thanks

 

[anthonymarie]

No, the state and the individual have very different obligations. What is forbidden the individual is the duty of the state. This is a crucial distinction.*…when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. *(St. Bellarmine, De Laicis)
CCC 2266 - *The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

*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. (USCCB)
Ender

The first sentence of 2266 is:

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.

Standard practice in any formal writing is that the first sentence of the paragraph is the “topic sentence”. So the paragraph has to be seen in this context: “harmful behaviour”. When looked at that way “restoration of order” could be a very practical thing. If the state did not punish then maybe the family would seek justice themselves.

It concludes:

Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

“Punishment then” suggests a summary, and it gives two reasons: public order and utilitarian. The writer clearly never meant it to be interpreted the way you are interpreting it.

 

[DaveBj]

This is a well thought out post but I disagree with number 4. Do any of really want justice? I’m not just being a hippy, Jesus told us to do unto we would have done unto us. I would be forgiven.

Of course if you just forgave criminals they would continue to commit offenses and others would follow. This where prevention and deterrence come in but they don’t require killing in a wealthy country.

In order to be forgiven, one has to be repentant. Not only are career criminals not repentant for what they have done, they seek opportunities to do more of the same; therefore, they cannot just be forgiven and allowed to go on their merry, lawbreaking ways.

Jesus taught, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What I want done unto me is to be protected from violent sociopaths. If I am to do unto others as I want done unto me, then I want others (society at large) to be protected from violent sociopaths as well. If that means locking some of them up permanently, and executing some others, then so be it; it still falls under the Golden Rule.

In Bible terminology, the same Greek and Hebrew word translated “justice” is translated “righteousness.” Do I really want justice/righteousness? You bet I do! Was it in vain that Jesus said in the Beatitudes, “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.” There is no righteousness without justice, and there is no justice without appropriate punishment for offenders.

 

[Ender]

2266 and 2267 can’t be looked at separately, they have to be seen together, 2267 clarifies, if not what is meant by, then at least what is not meant by, “commensurate”.

2267 did not address the question of justice, which is why the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, it only addressed security. The severity of the crime is not changed in the slightest degree by what prison facilities are available and therefore the severity of the punishment is not altered in the slightest by that consideration.

It is the nature of the crime that determines the nature of the punishment, not the need for protection. Murder is equally heinous today as 2000 years ago, just as the punishment commensurate with the severity of that crime is the same today as it ever was.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Anyhow, given that, while the Church’s position that the death penalty is a proper penalty under some circumstances, finds it self in an era when those circumstances virtually never arise…

Your posts are always the epitome of quote mining. Reading the section in full with regards to Aquinas’ words gives much more clarity… In answer to the question Whether vengeance should be wrought by means of punishments customary among men? He responds…

"These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, 105, 2).

I answer that, Vengeance is lawful and virtuous so far as it tends to the prevention of evil. Now some who are not influenced by motive of virtue are prevented from committing sin, through fear of losing those things which they love more than those they obtain by sinning, else fear would be no restraint to sin. Consequently vengeance for sin should be taken by depriving a man of what he loves most. Now the things which man loves most are life, bodily safety, his own freedom, and external goods such as riches, his country and his good name. Wherefore, according to Augustine’s reckoning (De Civ. Dei xxi), “Tully writes that the laws recognize eight kinds of punishment”: namely, “death,” whereby man is deprived of life; “stripes,” “retaliation,” or the loss of eye for eye, whereby man forfeits his bodily safety; “slavery,” and “imprisonment,” whereby he is deprived of freedom; “exile” whereby he is banished from his country; “fines,” whereby he is mulcted in his riches; “ignominy,” whereby he loses his good name.

Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners.

All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others.

The very fact that the punishment, whether of death or of any kind that is fearsome to man, is made known at the same time as the sin, makes man’s will avers to sin: because the fear of punishment is greater than the enticement of the example of sin."

So while clearly we are aware that “all sin deserves punishment” according to divine justice… the punishments of this life must conform to our human capacity to wrought justice. Through Christ we know that to love God we must love each other. Human justice conforms to the requirements of the common good.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
The taking of human life which is soundly prohibited by the fifth commandment is not made an exception to that by the obligation to punish crime…

This happily demonstrates the development of doctrine through time. In Augustines 5th century the new Christian Church had no formal concept of legitimate defense. By the time of Aquinas in the 13th century we see reasoning on the death penalty in this light…

“But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good,as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.”

To how we understand capital punishment in the light of todays circumstances…

CCC 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

 

[LongingSoul]

… there are claims that it is an intrinsic moral good.

Well of course there is. As Christians we hold loving God through loving our neighbour… the Common Good… The Golden Rule… as intrinsically good concepts.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by anthonymarie View Post
2266 and 2267 can’t be looked at separately, they have to be seen together, 2267 clarifies, if not what is meant by, then at least what is not meant by, “commensurate”.

The severity of punishments has been altered through time in response to mans greater knowledge and humanism. We are now able to distinguish first degree murder from manslaughter and self defense killing in administering justice. 2267 demonstrates the development in mans understanding of justice in relation to the common good.

 

[Bklynguy]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Pope Francis called for abolition of the death penalty as well as life imprisonment,

:bigyikes:

 

[anthonymarie]

In order to be forgiven, one has to be repentant. Not only are career criminals not repentant for what they have done, they seek opportunities to do more of the same; therefore, they cannot just be forgiven and allowed to go on their merry, lawbreaking ways.

Jesus taught, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What I want done unto me is to be protected from violent sociopaths. If I am to do unto others as I want done unto me, then I want others (society at large) to be protected from violent sociopaths as well. If that means locking some of them up permanently, and executing some others, then so be it; it still falls under the Golden Rule.

In Bible terminology, the same Greek and Hebrew word translated “justice” is translated “righteousness.” Do I really want justice/righteousness? You bet I do! Was it in vain that Jesus said in the Beatitudes, “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.” There is no righteousness without justice, and there is no justice without appropriate punishment for offenders.

OK but it’s:

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
NOT
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us if and only if they repent.

Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.
NOT
Father, forgive them, if and only if they repent.

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
NOT
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you if and only if they repent.

As for desiring authentic justice, I can only speak personally, but I find the idea terrifying:

“Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”

I could also add here the innumerable quotes from saints banging on about how evil they are and how they deserve death and hell but they rely on God’s mercy.

Authentic justice isn’t just about crime, it’s about sin. All sin is against God and in that sense the only just judge is God. We judge men for practical reasons. Practically speaking, rich countries no longer need to kill prisoners.

 

[on_the_hill]

What I can’t resolve is how the death penalty may be “wrong,” but we don’t seem to consider the injustice life imprisonment does to the victims’ loved ones. For the rest of their lives, the victims’ loved ones will be required to pay a portion of the killers’ living expenses thru taxes. It might be an infinitesmally small portion, but nonerveless they pay for food, shelter, clothing, and medical care.

Is that just?

Is the victim’s family morally obligated to do this? I sure hope not.

 

[anthonymarie]

Is that just?

It’s certainly Christian anyway.

 

[DaveBj]

OK but it’s:

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
NOT
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us if and only if they repent.
Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.
NOT
Father, forgive them, if and only if they repent.

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
NOT
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you if and only if they repent.

As for desiring authentic justice, I can only speak personally, but I find the idea terrifying:

“Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”

I could also add here the innumerable quotes from saints banging on about how evil they are and how they deserve death and hell but they rely on God’s mercy.

Authentic justice isn’t just about crime, it’s about sin. All sin is against God and in that sense the only just judge is God. We judge men for practical reasons. Practically speaking, rich countries no longer need to kill prisoners.

Do you believe that we must repent of and confess our sins before God will forgive us? Or have you completely done away with the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation? And do you believe that God requires us to do for others (forgive without repentance and confession) what He will not do for us?

We’re not talking about people who have trespassed/sinned against us on a personal level. We are talking about people who have committed heinous crimes against society and from whom society needs to be protected, even if that means eliminating them.

Ultimately, however, people who argue against the death penalty, whatever their ecclesiastical status, are arguing against Sacred Scripture (Gen. 9:5-6, John 19:11, and the whole 13th chapter of Romans).

 

[CrossofChrist]

The belief that capital punishment is unnecessary for the defense of society is certainly open to doubt but, as it is a prudential judgment, we are free to make that determination for ourselves.

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. (Donum Veritatis 25)

Just clarifying so there isn’t confusion, as if one could say, “It’s a prudential judgment, so I’ll just totally ignore what the Bishops and Pope are saying.” That would be disrespectful to the Church, which perhaps this quote from the CCC could shed light on why that would be so: “It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.” (CCC 1806)

And Cardinal Ratzinger’s internet-made-famous quote:

For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

 

[anthonymarie]

Do you believe that we must repent of and confess our sins before God will forgive us? Or have you completely done away with the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation? And do you believe that God requires us to do for others (forgive without repentance and confession) what He will not do for us?

We’re not talking about people who have trespassed/sinned against us on a personal level. We are talking about people who have committed heinous crimes against society and from whom society needs to be protected, even if that means eliminating them.

Ultimately, however, people who argue against the death penalty, whatever their ecclesiastical status, are arguing against Sacred Scripture (Gen. 9:5-6, John 19:11, and the whole 13th chapter of Romans).

The example of the saints is extremely clear. We forgive. If God still holds them to account that is between the soul and God. We are not worthy judges.

It IS:
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
NOT
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us if and only if they repent.

We don’t know if a person has truly repented, ever. If they say it, they might not mean. If they don’t say it, they may still repent in their heart. We cannot judge repentance, and yet we are called to forgive them.

We judge in this world for practical reasons, only God judges for authentic justice. Jesus gave us a clear commandment which He modeled Himself:

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

An insistence on retribution is clearly incompatible with this commandment.

EDIT:

John 19 and Romans 13 offer no argument for members of a democracy to insist on the death penalty.

The quote from Genesis sounds a lot like “an eye for an eye”, Our Lord had something to say about this:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

 

[Path_Finder]

The example of the saints is extremely clear. We forgive. If God still holds them to account that is between the soul and God. We are not worthy judges.

It IS:
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
NOT
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us if and only if they repent.

We don’t know if a person has truly repented, ever. If they say it, they might not mean. If they don’t say it, they may still repent in their heart. We cannot judge repentance, and yet we are called to forgive them.

We judge in this world for practical reasons, only God judges for authentic justice. Jesus gave us a clear commandment which He modeled Himself:

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

An insistence on retribution is clearly incompatible with this commandment.

But doesn’t it seem like you are taking it as an absolute?

If we took it to the extreme, we might not even be imprisoning murderers or robbers.

So I think there is needed a bit of perspective.

Yes, we forgive people. Now the death penalty as well, may be going to an extreme as well.

 

[CrossofChrist]

2267 did not address the question of justice, which is why the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, it only addressed security.

The protection of the common good of society that 2267 talks about implies justice, which was already discussed in 2266.

The severity of the crime is not changed in the slightest degree by what prison facilities are available and therefore the severity of the punishment is not altered in the slightest by that consideration.

True, but those may make a better case for the reasoning it seems Pope St. John Paul II used. If not using the death penalty was to better show the Gospel of Life and the Church’s mercy for the sinner in our times, then better prison facilities only helps show that.

It is the nature of the crime that determines the nature of the punishment, not the need for protection.

Also true. But we must always look at the historical context for what punishment best promotes the common good, or IOW best protects the human lives (it’s the individual humans that make up the society) of members of society.

Murder is equally heinous today as 2000 years ago, just as the punishment commensurate with the severity of that crime is the same today as it ever was.

True, but the application of a punishment can vary with the historical context, using prudential judgment.

 

[anthonymarie]

But doesn’t it seem like you are taking it as an absolute?

If we took it to the extreme, we might not even be imprisoning murderers or robbers.

So I think there is needed a bit of perspective.

Yes, we forgive people. Now the death penalty as well, may be going to an extreme as well.

No, I made in very clear in my earlier posts that a judicial system is necessary for practical reasons. This is also what the catechism implies.

We can do good to our enemies and to the public by removing dangerous people from society but also helping to rehabilitate criminals.

EDIT:

Otherwise, yes, it is an absolute, we must forgive our enemies, all of them, all the time, period.