Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[anthonymarie]

You are right. I did not realize the topic had strays so far off the point.

my bad

 

[Ender]

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

2267 uses the words “common good”, but the context is “*to defend the lives of human beings” *and “*to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons”. The concept of justice is not included.
*

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.

Here you conflate the common good with the protection of life, again with no thought given to the concept of justice. The problem here is that it is only justice that limits the severity of the punishment that may be given, and if that concept is lost there is no argument against any punishment that is thought to provide additional protection.

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

I accept the validity of opposing capital punishment for prudential reasons; I think this explains JPII’s opposition to it. What I reject are moral arguments against its use.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

my bad

I forgive your trespass

 

[Ender]

i.e. it summarises two reasons, “defending public order” and a “medicinal” reason. Retribution falls under neither of these categories.

These are the questions:

1. What are the objectives of punishment?
2. What is the primary objective of punishment?

Regarding #1: (note: deterrence and defense are often included in one objective)*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)

*The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are **retribution, deterrence, **and reform. *(USCCB)

*Traditionally, punishment had been justified by three purposes: (i)**Retribution **of damaged juridic order. Punishment aims to redress the disorder introduced by the offense; (ii) **Reformation **of the offender; (iii) **Deterrence *for future offenses. (Fr. Jim Achacoso)
Regarding #2: We know from 2266 that the primary objective of punishment is “*is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *The issue here is what does that phrase actually mean? My assertion is that it means retribution.*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. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment. *(USCCB)

*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)

The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. The section on punishment in general reaffirms the traditional formulation of the triple purpose of punishment, and it describes retribution as the first of these purposes. (R. Michael Dunnigan J.D., J.C.L.)
If we understand the three (or four) purposes of punishment it should be apparent that there is only one - retribution - that is directed at what was done in the past. The others are not directed at repairing the damage of the past but at preventing future damage or healing the criminal. Only retribution aims at restoring the order of justice.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The example of Jesus from the cross and the example of the saints say otherwise.

Did Jesus forgive both criminals who were crucified with him or only the one who repented?

Que? Jesus “confirmed . . . in his conversation with Pilate that government officials are God’s ministers to exercise His wrath on evil-doers”?

All I can say is that you understand that passage differently than I do. Did you read that interpretation in a commentary somewhere or is that your own?

*Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God, who is supreme lord of life and death. In so holding they can properly appeal to Scripture. Paul holds that the ruler is God’s minister in executing God’s wrath against the evildoer (Romans 13:4). Peter admonishes Christians to be subject to emperors and governors, who have been sent by God to punish those who do wrong (1 Peter 2:13). Jesus, as already noted, apparently recognized that Pilate’s authority over his life came from God (John 19:11). *(Cardinal Dulles)

As you said, it’s God speaking, but isn’t the state, you or me. So why is this transferable to the state, it’s not God. It seems like what your saying is that a government can kill because that’s what God has said He will do. But I don’t think that’s a valid argument.

And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. (Catechism of St. Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[DaveBj]

The example of Jesus from the cross and the example of the saints say otherwise.

Or I’m saying we don’t have the competency to judge and God does . . . which is what I’m saying.

On that we agree, but you apparently do not agree with St. Paul that God has delegated the authority for judgment to government officials – Romans 13. I’ll go with the words of the Apostle; they’re pretty clear.

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.”

It’s fine if you want to forgive someone who wrongs you, but you do not have the authority to forgive someone who wrongs someone else, and you DEFINITELY do not have the authority to demand that society abrogate its own laws to set violent felons free. Those laws were enacted democratically, and you cannot overrule the will of a democratic society on your own.

Que? Jesus “confirmed . . . in his conversation with Pilate that government officials are God’s ministers to exercise His wrath on evil-doers”?

All I can say is that you understand that passage differently than I do. Did you read that interpretation in a commentary somewhere or is that your own?

Pilate: Don’t you realize that I have the authority to put you to death?

Jesus: The authority that you have has been given to you from above.

Pretty clear to me; it’s not like we’re having to decipher the Greek.

Re-reading the chapter from Genesis I’m struck by this: “I will demand an accounting”

As you said, it’s God speaking, but isn’t the state, you or me. So why is this transferable to the state, it’s not God. It seems like what your saying is that a government can kill because that’s what God has said He will do. But I don’t think that’s a valid argument. God is a just judge, the only truly just judge.

Once again, Romans 13. Government officials are God’s ministers to execute his wrath on the evildoers. Your argument is with St. Paul, not with me.

I have two questions for you. 1. On the subject of unconditional forgiveness, is it your position that God requires us to do something (forgive without repentance and confession on the part of the offender) that He Himself does not do? Yes or no.

1. A man kidnaps a 6-year-old girl from her bedroom, rapes her, and kills her. He is caught, and it is determined that he is sane. He acknowledges that what he did was wrong, but he is not sorry at all, and he says that he will do it again if he has the chance. What should society do with this man?

 

[CrossofChrist]

2267 uses the words “common good”, but the context is “*to defend the lives of human beings” *and “*to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons”. The concept of justice is not included.
*

But “defending the lives of human beings” is synonymous with the common good.

Here you conflate the common good with the protection of life, again with no thought given to the concept of justice.

The death penalty doesn’t exist or exists to serve the common good.

The problem here is that it is only justice that limits the severity of the punishment that may be given, and if that concept is lost there is no argument against any punishment that is thought to provide additional protection.

Justice limits the severity of the punishment, but the context in which a punishment is applied varies based on the historical circumstance.

I accept the validity of opposing capital punishment for prudential reasons; I think this explains JPII’s opposition to it. What I reject are moral arguments against its use.

Understood, and I agree about JPII. My opposition is to pitting 2267 against 2266.

 

[Path_Finder]

** Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment **

I agree with the Holy Pontiff, abolish the death penalty, give people life imprisonment for the most heinous of crimes and let’s remember, in the US, to get the death penalty, your crime has to be pretty awful.

 

[Ender]

But “defending the lives of human beings” is synonymous with the common good.

Defending lives is just one aspect of the common good, like apples are just one example of fruits. Justice, rehabilitation, and deterrence are also aspects of the common good (along with many others) so it is not accurate to suggest that defense is synonymous with the common good. We need to at least recognize that as defense is only a secondary objective of punishment it cannot be the most important objective of the common good.

The death penalty doesn’t exist or exists to serve the common good.

Does justice not serve the common good? Is not punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime just? Do we not know, since the church has always recognized the validity of its use, that death is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder?If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas ST II-II 58,12)

Justice limits the severity of the punishment, but the context in which a punishment is applied varies based on the historical circumstance.

No, this is a misunderstanding of why punishment is justified. It is the severity of the crime alone that determines the severity of the punishment (absent extenuating circumstances). Historical context cannot change the severity of the crime of murder; it is just as heinous today as in the past, so if the severity of the crime cannot change neither can the severity of the punishment.

My opposition is to pitting 2267 against 2266.

It is not just 2267 vs 2266 but 2267 against 2260 as well (not to mention 2000 years of church teaching). How do we accommodate the objection to capital punishment in 2267 with the recognition in 2260 not only that it is divinely specified but that “This teaching remains necessary for all time”?

The only way I see to rationalize all of these passages is by accepting that 2267 is prudential and not doctrinal. The church has always accepted as valid arguments that capital punishment not be used if there was an overriding practical reason for not employing it. I think that is what 2267 is: a practical objection to its use, not a moral one.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

Defending lives is just one aspect of the common good, like apples are just one example of fruits. Justice, rehabilitation, and deterrence are also aspects of the common good (along with many others) so it is not accurate to suggest that defense is synonymous with the common good. We need to at least recognize that as defense is only a secondary objective of punishment it cannot be the most important objective of the common good.

This I agree with in principle, but is this what 2267 means by “defense”? Or is something more meant?

Does justice not serve the common good? Is not punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime just? Do we not know, since the church has always recognized the validity of its use, that death is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder?If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas ST II-II 58,12)

Ok, I agree, and this has nothing to do with how the death penalty is applied in a specific historical context.

No, this is a misunderstanding of why punishment is justified. It is the severity of the crime alone that determines the severity of the punishment (absent extenuating circumstances). Historical context cannot change the severity of the crime of murder; it is just as heinous today as in the past

I agree, but the historical context determines whether or not applying punishment x is prudent or beneficial to the common good.

It is not just 2267 vs 2266 but 2267 against 2260 as well (not to mention 2000 years of church teaching). How do we accommodate the objection to capital punishment in 2267 with the recognition in 2260 not only that it is divinely specified but that “This teaching remains necessary for all time”?

IMO, it comes down to what 2267 means by “defense”. It seems what is being meant is more than mere physical defense, or else 2267 does seem irreconcilable with Tradition.

The only way I see to rationalize all of these passages is by accepting that 2267 is prudential and not doctrinal.

The first sentence explains the traditional teaching of the Church, so its explanation can’t be prudential. One can claim that its an error in historical understanding, but IMO its a pretty weak argument to claim the Church doesn’t know her own history–and this Catechism coming from the hands of some extremely intelligent members of the hierarchy.

The church has always accepted as valid arguments that capital punishment not be used if there was an overriding practical reason for not employing it. I think that is what 2267 is: a practical objection to its use, not a moral one.

I would think it becomes a moral issue if deliberately used imprudently.

 

[Ender]

IMO, it comes down to what 2267 means by “defense”. It seems what is being meant is more than mere physical defense, or else 2267 does seem irreconcilable with Tradition.

Reading most of the comments on what people think 2267 means it seems that it is generally assumed to be physical defense. That is certainly the context for most comments.

The first sentence explains the traditional teaching of the Church, so its explanation can’t be prudential. One can claim that its an error in historical understanding, but IMO its a pretty weak argument to claim the Church doesn’t know her own history–and this Catechism coming from the hands of some extremely intelligent members of the hierarchy.

There are a number of comments in church history that acknowledge that security is a desirable effect of capital punishment, but I am unaware of a single statement in all that has been written that directly supports what 2267 claims. Not only that, but the 1997 version of the traditional teaching differs from what was defined as the traditional teaching in the 1992 version. That caveat simply did not exist in the 1992 version. I’ll also point out that the only citation in 2267 is to Evangelium Vitae…and that Evangelium Vitae references the catechism. That is, each uses the other to support the position both have taken.

I would think it becomes a moral issue if deliberately used imprudently.

Of course, but no one is arguing that point.

Ender

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I agree. Life-imprisonment still gives the criminal a chance to achieve contrition and forgiveness for his sins. It also gives the criminal continued life, so he can serve others, even from prison. The alternative to life imprisonment would be to release the criminal back into society where he might hurt innocent people. I mean, he received the sentence of life imprisonment for a reason! So I, too, don’t get the part about life imprisonment. I also agree that the death penalty should be abolished.

There could be middle grounds like house arrest or other technological solutions instead of life imprisonment.

 

[Path_Finder]

I am against the death penalty however it is stories like this one in why some states retain the death penalty, horrible.

abc11.com/society/papa-johns-ceo-attends-funeral-of-employee-who-was-murdered-in-a-store-robbery/369646/#gallery-2

 

[Tomdstone]

How are you going to protect society from serial killers? People should have a right to protect their children from harm. BTW, the idea of doing away with capital punishment is a serious change in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which had approved such in the past.

 

[Ender]

BTW, the idea of doing away with capital punishment is a serious change in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which had approved such in the past.

The church has not banned capital punishment because she can not ban it. *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)

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The church has not banned capital punishment because she can not ban it. *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)

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput)
Ender

In relation to Tombstones question, why do you think the Church has not spoken up in the past condemning countries for abolishing the death penalty?

 

[One_point]

In relation to Tombstones question, why do you think the Church has not spoken up in the past condemning countries for abolishing the death penalty?

Why should she condemn countries abolishing death penalty? The church has taught capital punishment is moral. She has NOT taught that countries MUST do it. Anyone who makes that claim is telling a lie.

 

[pnewton]

How are you going to protect society from serial killers? People should have a right to protect their children from harm.

These are two separate issues. We have the right to legitimate self-defense, that is protecting ourselves and others from eminent threat, as opposed to pre-emptive killing of a potential or even proven threat. The point that Pope Francis and his predecessors make is that we can, in their understanding, protect our children from harm by means short of the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

In relation to Tombstones question, why do you think the Church has not spoken up in the past condemning countries for abolishing the death penalty?

I have made it quiet clear that I interpret the remarks of the last few popes to be their personal opinions about the advisability of using capital punishment. Therefore it is inaccurate to suggest that “the church” has spoken out in a doctrinal sense. The church has, for example, always condemned abortion even as she has always recognized a states right to use capital punishment.*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

The point that Pope Francis and his predecessors make is that we can, in their understanding, protect our children from harm by means short of the death penalty.

It is undeniable that this assertion, that society is fully protected from harm by imprisoning criminals, is a judgment, and not one that not everyone shares. That it is opinion is shown in an obvious way by the fact that we don’t even know what the word “protect” actually means in this context. We do know that other prisoners and guards are killed within prisons, we know that prisoners escape or are released and kill outside of prison, and we even know that prisoners arrange for murders to be committed outside of prisons by their accomplices. So it is reasonable to ask: how many extra killings a year does it take before one would have to say society is inadequately protected?

Beyond that, however, is the problem that the concept of justice is simply lost in this approach to capital punishment. The concern is never even raised and when it is it is justice itself that is questioned and diminished. This has been a very unfortunate consequence of the popes’ comments on the matter.

Ender