Well this is another important distinction: prudential judgments, even of popes, are not doctrines. The “church” has not changed her teaching on life imprisonment even though Pope Francis personally disapproves of it.I don’t know, but the church changed it’s position on life imprisonment.
I think that we are the only ones that have a “for profit” prison industry. When we privatized prison, we had to guarantee that they have prisoners,. That hasn’t been working out for anyone except the prison contractors.Or maybe that he is not an American. We have the world’s highest incarceration rate, higher than that of Russia or China. We have about 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners. Clearly we have a different view on when prison is appropriate and how long internment should be when compared to the rest of the world; especially the rest of the western world.
We are not talking about the restoration of order, as in quelling unrest, but the restoration of the order of justice which has been upset by the crime. As the citation from the USCCB showed, the restoration of order in that sense means retribution.*The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” (Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Ave Maria Law School) *When looked at that way “restoration of order” could be a very practical thing.
Punishment has four purposes. Retribution is primary, the others are secondary.*The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles)“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.
Yes, I agree we should seek to rehabilitate criminals but this is tricky and a number of them are “recidivists”, their condition can not really be cured.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.
If my final sentence in a paragraph begins " … then", it is clear I am informing the reader of a summary. This is standard. Do you except that?We are not talking about the restoration of order, as in quelling unrest, but the restoration of the order of justice which has been upset by the crime. As the citation from the USCCB showed, the restoration of order in that sense means retribution.*The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” (Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Ave Maria Law School) * Punishment has four purposes. Retribution is primary, the others are secondary.*The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender
Your petulant insults are tiresome. Perhaps if your arguments were stronger you would be less inclined to attack me personally.Your posts are always the epitome of quote mining.
Actually, what Aquinas was responding to were three objections to the use of capital punishment, all three of which raise the specific question of whether sinners should be put to death. He answers all three with this:On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by the divine law… (ST II-II 108,3)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…
I’m pretty sure most people can understand this sentence."These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above (I-II, 105, 2).
Yes it does, and justice requires that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with that of the crime. Since the church has for 2000 recognized the validity of capital punishment it should be obvious that she considers such a punishment just.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.
This too is true, and one of the basic requirements of the common good is justice, and we have it on divine authority what constitutes a just punishment for murder.Through Christ we know that to love God we must love each other. Human justice conforms to the requirements of the common good.
The morality of any act is determined by three factors, one of which is the intrinsic nature of the act. The second major determinant is the intent behind the act, therefore, regardless of how good the act may be in and of itself, if the intent behind it is immoral then the action is immoral. An intrinsically immoral act is wrong regardless of the intent behind it, but there cannot be an intrinsically moral act since, if the intent is immoral, so is the action.Well of course there is [an intrinsically good action]. As Christians we hold loving God through loving our neighbour… the Common Good… The Golden Rule… as intrinsically good concepts.
Do priests absolve us of our sins without requiring us to repent of them? Was JPII mistaken when he wrote this?There can be no reconciliation unless these attitudes of conversion come first… (Reconciliatio et paenitentia)OK but it’s:Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. NOTForgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us if and only if they repent.
I don’t dispute this. We are obligated to take their opinions seriously and give them due consideration, but in the end we are not obligated to assent to them.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.”
We are talking about punishment, not reconciliation. They are not the same. Of course Saint John Paul II is correct but that is off topic.Do priests absolve us of our sins without requiring us to repent of them? Was JPII mistaken when he wrote this?There can be no reconciliation unless these attitudes of conversion come first… (Reconciliatio et paenitentia)
Did he misunderstand Jesus’ instructions to us?The two meanings of metanoia appear in the significant instruction given by Jesus: "If your brother repents (returns to you), forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him." (Ibid)
Mercy is actually conditional. Not on whether it is offered but on whether it can be received, and it requires repentance.*On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth, especially in the face of the witness of the cross and resurrection of Christ. *(JPII, Dives in misericordia)
Ender
Sex crimes are not the only crime we need concern ourselves with. The oldest I know of that have committed assaults were in the lower eighties, with several in the seventies.I’d be curious to know what age was the oldest person to have committed a sex crime against another person?
It is alsoOK 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.
.
Not sure what you mean?It is also
NOT
…as we forgive them and remove all consequences of their trespasses.
Forgiveness is not relevant to the punishment one receives for commission of a crime. Therefore, the quote from the Lord’s prayer is not relevant to the length of sentence one receives.Not sure what you mean?
Hmm, I don’t think you read all the posts. The quote from the Lord’s prayer was in the context of a discussion around whether we are bound to forgive “unconditionally” or only if the person has “repented”.Forgiveness is not relevant to the punishment one receives for commission of a crime. Therefore, the quote from the Lord’s prayer is not relevant to the length of sentence one receives.
I’m not talking about a person’s repentance to God; I’m talking about the person’s coming to the individual thatThe 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."
You are right. I did not realize the topic had strays so far off the point.Hmm, I don’t think you read all the posts. The quote from the Lord’s prayer was in the context of a discussion around whether we are bound to forgive “unconditionally” or only if the person has “repented”.
I was saying the Lord’s prayer suggests we must forgive unconditionally.
True but I bring them up as they represent a threat to the safety and innocence of our children. My view is that if you are old enough to do the crime, you can do the time. Now if an 80 year old is doing sex crimes you might want to lock him/her up in a minimum versus maximum.Sex crimes are not the only crime we need concern ourselves with. The oldest I know of that have committed assaults were in the lower eighties, with several in the seventies.
I’m not talking about a person’s repentance to God; I’m talking about the person’s coming to the individual thathe offended and asking for forgiveness. Putting the verses on forgiveness in perspective with other verses (rather than just mining one verse that agrees with what you think), Jesus made it obvious that He was referring to the latter. It is a good thing for our own mental health to put offenses behind us, but*** forgiveness, in the Gospel sense, in not required until the offender asks for it.***
Or I’m saying we don’t have the competency to judge and God does . . . which is what I’m saying.Otherwise, you’re saying either that God requires us to do for others what He will not do for us, or that He is just going to give blanket forgiveness to everyone who has ever offended Him and let everyone into Heaven.
No, that’s a false distinction. As a members of a democratic society, we make up society. If someone wrongs me, it’s no use saying “well, personally I forgive them like, but it’s also a crime against society so flay them alive.”Again, you’re talking about personal offenses. I’m talking about offenses against society. Apples and oranges.
Que? Jesus “confirmed . . . in his conversation with Pilate that government officials are God’s ministers to exercise His wrath on evil-doers”?Neither do they or any other scripture mitigate against society’s imposition of the death penalty. Romans 13 makes it clear (and Jesus confirmed it in his conversation with Pilate) that government officials are God’s ministers to exercise His wrath on evil-doers.
Re-reading the chapter from Genesis I’m struck by this: “I will demand an accounting”No, “eye for an eye” was Hammurabi. The quote from Genesis is straight from God. If you’re going to argue with Him, you’ve got more chutzpah than I have. And yet again, the passage you cite deals with interpersonal relations and has nothing to do with society’s punishing an offender.