Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[Tomdstone]

So, could we not equally make the point St. Bellarmine would support the execution of uncharitable internet posters here, as defined as those that disturb the peace?

To execute uncharitable internet posters seems to be overly harsh to me. It would depend on how uncharitable the poster was.

 

[LongingSoul]

So, could we not equally make the point St. Bellarmine would support the execution of uncharitable internet posters here, as defined as those that disturb the peace? Herein lies the problem with using a saint from the past to override Church authorities of today.

Which is why it is so critically important to take into account the conditions of the times in which the Church Fathers and theologians expressed the doctrines of the Church. During Bellarmines life, the 16th century, the papacy had significant temporal powers and were directly responsible for civil order. Bellarmine in his capacity as chief Inquisitor, was not only responsible for the souls of the faithful but their temporal wellbeing as citizens of the Papal States. The ‘common good’ in that context was markedly different to the ‘common good’ in today’s secular environment. It’s unacademic to juxtapose Church teachings from age to age in the way that Ender attempts.

 

[Fred_E]

The ‘demands of justice’ aren’t just about punishing crime. They about the equitable distribution of wealth and striving for social equality and equal freedoms and determining individuals rights and a wide range of humanistic concerns in society. They all feed into and impact on each other to achieve the common good.

As the English word “justice” is used in the context of criminal justice - the punishment of crimes - it is about making the punishment fit the crime in the exercise of the State’s natural law duty to make and administer laws.

Aquinas reports “Tully says (De Officiis i, 7) that “the object of justice is to keep men together in society and mutual intercourse.””

That is, by creating a just society in which men forego their personal vendettas and revenge, relying on the State to achieve justice. When the State fails to do that, we see lynch mobs, vigilantes, and civil war. Man’s inherent need for justice cannot be stilled by flowery phrases from well-meaning people.

CCC2267 is a reflection of the overall scope of justice to determine that the death penalty is not a fair reflection of just punishments today.

CCC 2267 is an excerpt from an encyclical of St John Paul II in which, almost as an aside, he shared his personal impression of the use of the death penalty insofar as protecting society. It is an observation, a personal judgment, an opinion, not a teaching.

Many things men do are immoral and illicit in the eyes of God, but it is only those things that cause harm in the relationship of one person and another that human justice is concerned with.

That is not true. Possession of certain materials or weapons, for example, is a criminal act which can be done in solitary without harming any relationship. Human justice is concerned with making and enforcing just laws.

If society is such that its harder to distinguish the good from the evil for whatever reason, we are forbidden to use the death penalty. It doesn’t reflect justice. It is immoral… apart from the cases where non lethal punishments are insufficient to protect society. That is the one legitimate use of the death penalty under those conditions. That is exactly what 2267 says.

It cannot overrule and eliminate the other three reasons for levying a punishment. What it says is that relative to one of the four reasons for levying a punishment - protecting society - it may well be that in today’s world it is unnecessary. Since St John Paul II wrote that, however, numerous cases have presented which make it clear that is not true everywhere. That’s how it is with prudential judgments, they’re judgments, not teachings.

Let me find a common ground for discussing this point further. Give me an example of what sort of conditions would prevail that made the death penalty an immoral law requiring abolition.

There is no example which requires the permanent abolition of the death penalty. Its morality rests upon the gravity of the crime, certainty of guilt, and other factors present contingent upon place, time, and particulars.

In fact, this is what the Church says… “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Which deals with one of the four reasons for levying a penalty - the protection of society.

It does not oppose, nor can it, the first requirement which is retributive justice. There can be circumstances where nothing less than the death penalty fulfills the requirement for justice. In those cases that is the penalty which should be assessed.

 

[Fred_E]

That’s what (the first part of) 2267 is saying! Assuming the party in question is guilty (here is where justice is covered so not any crime will merit capital punishment. IOW, “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined”), then the death penalty can be applied (the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty) if it promotes/defends the common good (IOW, “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”).

You read it as either trumping or excluding the other three moral justifications for inflicting a punishment - retributive justice being the primary, as the Catechism itself states.

That cannot be correct because it would be a change in the Church’s constant teaching, a constant teaching which has always and everywhere taught that the PRIMARY reason for punishment is retributive justice.

Simply put, first we meet the criterion for retributive justice, then we consider the other three reasons.

I would also point out that “promotes/defends the common good” is not the same content as “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”. Establishing a State with just laws in accordance with the moral laws that administers those laws fairly promotes the common good, the cornerstone of which is retributive justice.

 

[Fred_E]

USCCB: The use of torture must be rejected as fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism (No. 88).

That appears in a document “Torture Is a Moral Issue: A Catholic Study Guide”, put out by the USCCB.

It cites no authority and was not the product of a 2/3 vote by the bishops of the USCCB, which is what is required to be a teaching document by an episcopal conference.

One the major problems is that the word “torture” is undefined. There are those who think solitary confinement is torture. Is sleep deprivation torture?

The document in question was a work of USCCB staff.

Again, there is no there is no body of teaching on torture per se.

 

[Fred_E]

How is this relevant? I’m not arguing that. All I’m saying is that the Catechism accurately presents Church teaching.

If you stopped there you would be fine. But you excerpt one part of the Catechism to oppose another, effectively constructing a utilitarian argument whether you understand that you did.

The first requirement of any punishment is that it meet the standard of retributive justice. Doing so fulfills the “common good” per se.

 

[Fred_E]

The only reason they don’t contradict one another is that 2266 is a doctrine and 2267 is a prudential judgment.

And also, of course, they must be read together in harmony with the Church’s constant teaching. CCC 2267 taken by itself would be a reversal of the Church’s constant teaching, and I have read comments even by bishops who apparently think it did.

It has created a terrible confusion and an unfortunate tendency to use 2267 as some sort of “proof text”, which was never its intended purpose.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If you stopped there you would be fine. But you excerpt one part of the Catechism to oppose another, effectively constructing a utilitarian argument whether you understand that you did.

The first requirement of any punishment is that it meet the standard of retributive justice. Doing so fulfills the “common good” per se.

I didn’t make one section of the catechism oppose another. The only reason I’m in this thread is to show that they can be reconciled.

 

[CrossofChrist]

You read it as either trumping or excluding the other three moral justifications for inflicting a punishment - retributive justice being the primary, as the Catechism itself states.

That cannot be correct because it would be a change in the Church’s constant teaching, a constant teaching which has always and everywhere taught that the PRIMARY reason for punishment is retributive justice.

Simply put, first we meet the criterion for retributive justice, then we consider the other three reasons.

The common good limits how we apply a punishment. Ender agrees.

I would also point out that “promotes/defends the common good” is not the same content as “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”.

This is what the discussion is about. What the Catechism means by the phrase it uses is the same as defend the common good.

I’m going to be out of town in a few days so I’m tempted to bail out of this discussion, especially since I just had a whole conversation with Ender about this.

 

[CaptFun]

Hopefully ***Christian nations ***will listen to him.

He’s the titular head of the Vatican.

What is the other one?

Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. 18*** If possible,*** on your part, live at peace with all. 19 Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written,

"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

20 Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” 21*** Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.***

Hebrews 9:27 Just as*** it is appointed that human beings die once,*** and after this the judgment, 28 so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.

Emphases per boldings etc. above are mine. Based on how I read these scriptures (THIS time). There are many other scriptures and teachings of the Church that apply to these questions of course. Some seem rather to recommend capital punishment under special circumstances (e.g. like God commanding it to be done … or that his servants be ready to do it). But these came to mind first to me considering what Pope Francis was recommending.

One final thought for now. We are all under a death sentence of sorts - and …

Matthew 5:6 Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.** 7 ** Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

In some texts “righteousness” is rendered “justice”. And this is not easy to figure out.

Is it*** just ***(for example) that thousands … and millions … are spent on incarceration (albeit in clean, warm (or cool enough) dwellings with adequate food, sanitation, and clothing for convicted criminals in a society) - while a government does much LESS for the needy, homeless, otherwise non-criminal person (who has scarcely more than “freedom” and sometimes significantly less of the necessities of life) than his or her criminal counterpart?

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/00...iles.wordpress.com/2013/07/images-4.jpg?w=266

That’s something I haven’t heard addressed much by anyone actually.

good heavens, did I just fall for a “class warfare” temptation?

As with the problems of who to help re: abortion … the just and merciful answer would seem to be … as much as we can for BOTH within our power to do so. Who FIRST? < Can be decided on a case by case basis - and never with wrath or revenge as the driving force (but a sincere effort to help all if possible).

 

[Tomdstone]

He’s the titular head of the Vatican.

What is the other one?

Emphases per boldings etc. above are mine. Based on how I read these scriptures (THIS time). There are many other scriptures and teachings of the Church that apply to these questions of course. Some seem rather to recommend capital punishment under special circumstances (e.g. like God commanding it to be done … or that his servants be ready to do it). But these came to mind first to me considering what Pope Francis was recommending.

One final thought for now. We are all under a death sentence of sorts - and …

In some texts “righteousness” is rendered “justice”. And this is not easy to figure out.

Is it*** just ***(for example) that thousands … and millions … are spent on incarceration (albeit in clean, warm (or cool enough) dwellings with adequate food, sanitation, and clothing for convicted criminals in a society) - while a government does much LESS for the needy, homeless, otherwise non-criminal person (who has scarcely more than “freedom” and sometimes significantly less of the necessities of life) than his or her criminal counterpart?

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/00...iles.wordpress.com/2013/07/images-4.jpg?w=266

That’s something I haven’t heard addressed much by anyone actually.

good heavens, did I just fall for a “class warfare” temptation?

As with the problems of who to help re: abortion … the just and merciful answer would seem to be … as much as we can for BOTH within our power to do so. Who FIRST? < Can be decided on a case by case basis - and never with wrath or revenge as the driving force (but a sincere effort to help all if possible).Add to that all the trillions of dollars spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[CaptFun]

Add to that all the trillions of dollars spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hmm. Maybe especially NOW when the initial “good things” (liberation, elections, tyrants deposed) have been abandoned only to maybe again soon be undertaken again. On THAT score Pope Francis has called for people to help stop the persecution of Christians in Iraq.

jpost.com/Christian-News/Pope-Francis-calls-on-Christian-communities-to-stand-in-solidarity-with-those-being-persecuted-379303

The Vatican also requested that all humanitarian aid in the Middle East continue, and that all other Christian communities remain in solidarity with Christians in the region during this trying time.

“This unjust situation requires, aside from our constant prayer, an adequate response on the part of the international community," Francis said. "I am sure that, with the Lord’s help, today’s meeting will produce valid reflections and suggestions to enable us to help our brothers who suffer and also to face the crisis of the reduction of the Christian presence in the land where Christianity was born and from where it spread”.

Now what that ***“adequate response” ***might be against armed and hostile persecutors of Christians is another question. Haven’t heard the Pope scold Obama yet for the bombing that is being done in Iraq for instance. Then too, the mainstream media might not find such scolding (or shall we say counsel) as newsworthy as it did when Pope John Paul II seemed to be warning against the possible consequences of moving against Saddam.

Justice is to be desired. Mercy to be preferred.

The best blend of both even more to be preferred IMO. -* for what that IS … God’s counsel should be sought - as the FIRST resort. It seems to me.
*

 

[pnewton]

I didn’t make one section of the catechism oppose another. The only reason I’m in this thread is to show that they can be reconciled.

One reason I did not repeat the way they* can* be reconciled is that the fact that they can be reconciled should be obvious to anyone with an open mind. We have had two popes that reconciled them. They appear next to each other in the catechism. The USCCB has supported both points. Can they be reconciled in the mind of everyone, or to everyone’s satisfaction? No.

 

[Ender]

how do you expect to understand why two paragraphs can both be held at the same level of instruction when they appear in the same chapter?

“Same level of instruction”? If they are the same level then how are we to interpret them when they appear contradictory? 2260 effectively says “If A, then B” while 2267 says “If C, then B.” These are very different instructions. “If a man commits murder (A), then he is to be executed (B)” is nothing at all like "If we need it for protection (C), then a person may be executed (B).

The first passage says what we should do to restore the disorder caused by an act in the past. The second passage says what we may do if necessary to prevent an act in the future. These are completely different concepts that fundamentally conflict with one another in that they have different rationales controlling the application of the same act (using capital punishment).

Ender

 

[Ender]

You can’t quote Bellarmine out of the context of his day and claim “this is what the church teaches”. He observes an aspect of the doctrine as it pertained to the conditions of his day.

Doctrines do not change with the times. If what Bellarmine said was true when he spoke it it is equally true today. There is no “context” that alters the doctrine.

The concept of ‘public peace’ or ‘common good’ are relevant to each age according to the conditions of the time. We don’t call this doctrine… we call it an interpretation of doctrine as the needs of the society will vary from age to age.

Yes, the application of doctrine requires prudential judgment. In this case, the doctrine is that states have the moral right to use capital punishment. It is the prudential judgment of the last three popes that modern states ought not use it. These are judgments, not doctrines.

Isn’t it you who is adamantly rejecting the position of the Catechism?

Not a bit. First, if the catechism contains prudential judgments, I may reject them, but this in no way constitutes dissent from church teaching. Second, my position is nothing more than what the church has in fact taught for her entire history. What I am actually rejecting is your interpretation of that teaching.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So, could we not equally make the point St. Bellarmine would support the execution of uncharitable internet posters here, as defined as those that disturb the peace? Herein lies the problem with using a saint from the past to override Church authorities of today.

Your interpretation of what Bellarmine said is more than a little silly. Nor, if you understood the nature of church doctrine, should there be any conflict with what the church taught in the past and what she teaches today. Your assertion that Bellarmine should not “override church authorities of today” seems based on the assumption that doctrines have no permanence, that they may blow in the wind and change directions with time. In fact what Bellarmine taught is the same thing taught by Augustine, Aquinas, virtually all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and every pope who addressed the issue prior to JPII.

You should recognize the tenuousness of your position if it requires the repudiation of a Doctor of the Church.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Doctrines do not change with the times. If what Bellarmine said was true when he spoke it it is equally true today. There is no “context” that alters the doctrine.

And if what he says was not true, or not doctrine, it remains not true, or not doctrine. Begging the question.

 

[Ender]

Which is why it is so critically important to take into account the conditions of the times in which the Church Fathers and theologians expressed the doctrines of the Church.

Not really.*Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2). *(Fr. John Hardon)

The ‘common good’ in that context was markedly different to the ‘common good’ in today’s secular environment.

Is the nature of murder different today than in the past? Is the severity of that crime worse now than before? Is justice a greater benefit to the common good in the 21st century than it was in the 17th?

It’s unacademic to juxtapose Church teachings from age to age in the way that Ender attempts.

If it is “unacademic” to refer to teachings throughout church history then how do you explain the catechism, which can hardly go a paragraph without citing some historical source? How is it wrong for me to do exactly what the catechism does?

Ender

 

[Ender]

And if what he says was not true, or not doctrine, it remains not true, or not doctrine. Begging the question.

If Bellarmine’s comment was wrong it is clearly not doctrine, but you didn’t reject it because it was wrong. Rather you dismissed it because you felt it conflicted with what you believe is taught today. That you see a conflict is not an argument that it was wrong, and in fact what he said was in no significant way different from everything else the church has ever said on the subject (at least prior to JPII).

I cited Bellarmine only because his particular comment most closely applied to the particular point being discussed. It was the most germane, but I can cite any of a dozen other sources saying essentially the same thing. This should not be surprising as the teaching of the church on this topic goes back to St. Paul and has remained unchanged all that time.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

If Bellarmine’s comment was wrong it is clearly not doctrine, but you didn’t reject it because it was wrong.

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.

This part is not Church doctrine.

Oh, and I also disagree that context can be disregarded in understanding doctrinal statements. Context is critical in all communication.