P
pnewton
Guest
This is a parable, not a really story. God’s “capital punishment” in such parables has always been eternal punishment.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think your post above was the first I have responded to and liked. For this post, I can answer for myself that I could not serve if the jury also had to determine punishment. Or to put in more accurately, I would not be able to vote for the death penalty. I could in good conscience serve and vote “guilty” even in a capital case, which here is not automatically a death penalty case.Would I be violating the Gospel by serving on a jury and declaring “guilty” if a crime was so proved? I don’t think so. But some might get the idea that Catholics can’t serve on such juries now … or must declare “not guilty” in contradiction to the facts … if the case were a capital one.
I do try and follow my Pope’s teaching, or in this case Popes’ as this has been the teaching since St. John Paul.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Forgiveness does not eliminate the need for punishment, and the distinction between public and private duties is a distinction the church has clearly made.Ender: The individual is commanded to forgive; the State is commanded to punish. OneSheep: As you may recall, there is actually no distinction.
Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death… (Catechism of St. Bellarmine)
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities… (Catechism of Trent)
And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers… The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)
How many citations are required to make this point clear?
Provide a citation showing where anyone believes rehabilitation is the primary objective of punishment, or that the primary end is not retribution. The catechism provides no support for your claim:The purpose of punishment, as defined in the CCC, is to redress the disorder. Punishment exacted is to be done by the Christian for the purpose of converting the sinner, not for retribution.
… as far as possible [punishment] should contribute to the correction of the offender. (CCC 2266)
“As far as possible” describes a secondary object, not the primary one.
Forgive perhaps, but offer mercy, not so much.A Christian person in a state position could indeed be involved with the punishment of a person, but he is stilled called to forgive before punishing.
There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. (Aquinas ST II-II 67, 4 ad 1)
And thus are the teachings of all the Doctors and Fathers of the church dismissed: “that’s not official”.While the words of Aquinas are to be respected as guidance, they do not in themselves represent Church doctrine.
My position is completely described here:For the sake of being totally open with readers, please state your position on the death penalty:
The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ed 1, 1992)
E
exnihilo
Guest
No. God’s justice is something that we can understand incompletely by way of understanding human justice.If God is like justice in the human sense, then that is an anthropomorphism, right?
Justice has a Divine purpose too. It is something of God.This might make sense if you could define the purpose of justice. Justice has a human purpose. God is love, and mercy is a manifestation of His love. All we can say about God flows from His love.
Vengeance isnt something that legitimate authorities can’t seek.Punishment is for the guilty party, not for the benefit of the recipient of a “price”. If we talk about punishment for the benefit of the victim, we are talking about the human desire for vengeance, which is a matter of the flesh.
Jesus invites us to forgive rather than want a piece of people who have wronged us.
E
Ender
Guest
Just to reinforce your comments about the two previous popes and their position on capital punishment, here are comments Cardinal Ratzinger made on the subject after Evangelium Vitae was published. I assume the catechism he referred to was the 1992 edition, and not the Catechism of Trent. It seems clear their opposition to capital punishment was prudential, not doctrinal. They disapproved of its use for practical reasons. They did not alter the doctrines.
“You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear. Such a development, occurring within society and leading to the foregoing of this type of punishment, is something good and ought to be hoped for.
“In my statements during the presentation of the encyclical to the press, I sought to elucidate these elements, and noted the importance of taking such circumstantial considerations into account. It is in this sense that the Catechism may be rewritten, naturally without any modification of the relevant doctrinal principles." (Cardinal Ratzinger, 1995)
“You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear. Such a development, occurring within society and leading to the foregoing of this type of punishment, is something good and ought to be hoped for.
“In my statements during the presentation of the encyclical to the press, I sought to elucidate these elements, and noted the importance of taking such circumstantial considerations into account. It is in this sense that the Catechism may be rewritten, naturally without any modification of the relevant doctrinal principles." (Cardinal Ratzinger, 1995)
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
I think you may be forgetting the commandments from Jesus, to love God with all we have, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are called to always use mercy as our guide. For example, it is merciful to protect people from a murderer, so we incarcerate the aggressors. However, the treatment of the murderer, everything we do for him, is done with mercy in mind. If punishment itself is not merciful, (enhancing conversion) then its application is unwarranted.Forgive perhaps, but offer mercy, not so much.
Forgiveness has been called the most important act of mercy. Forgiveness is for the person who forgives, it changes the sense of debt, the sense of trespass, that colors the way we see those who have wronged us. Forgiveness is a call to holiness.
That edition is no longer valid as catechesis, Ender, without including CCC 2267.The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ed 1, 1992)
One has to ask the writer(s) of the first edition, “have you forgiven murderers?”. Every Catholic should ask of every person commenting on the death penalty the same question.“Tradition is a living reality and only a partial vision can think of ‘the deposit of faith’ as something static. The Word of God cannot be conserved in mothballs as if it were an old blanket to be preserved from parasites. No. The Word of God is a dynamic reality, always alive, that progresses and grows because it tends towards a fulfillment that men cannot stop.”
Pope Francis
A Catholic who holds something against a person who refuses to forgive is called to forgive such person.
Catholics should listen to people who forgive as the truthful guides. We trust the hierarchy to select leaders who follow Jesus’ commandments to love and forgive. When the dissenting voice comes from a place of non-forgiveness, we are not following Christ in abiding the dissenting voice.
Ender, if there were a bishop today voicing your opinion, he would be all over the news as a dissenting voice. Catholics would be wise to call to question his commitment to mercy and forgiveness.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Retributive JusticeProvide a citation showing where anyone believes rehabilitation is the primary objective of punishment, or that the primary end is not retribution.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...use-of-the-death-penalty-group-discussion.cfmWhoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death. A life for a life! Anyone who inflicts an injury on his neighbor shall receive the same in return. Limb for limb, eye for eye, tooth for tooth! The same injury that a man gives another shall be inflicted on him in return. ( Lv 24:17-20; See also similar language in Ex 21:23-25 and Dt 19:21)
A correct interpretation of these passages indicates, however, that the principal intent of such laws was to limit the retribution that could be exacted for an offense, not to require a minimum punishment. Furthermore, it is important to read individual passages in the context of Sacred Scripture as a whole. While the Old Testament includes some passages about taking the life of one who kills, the Old Testament and the teaching of Christ in the New Testament call us to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance.10
E
Ender
Guest
The difference in our approaches is that you take general statements about morality and put your own interpretation on them in regard to this topic while I cite specific comments the church has made through the centuries that explicitly address each specific question.I think you may be forgetting the commandments from Jesus…
Look what your position requires you to do: you have to find a way to dismiss everything the church has ever said on the topic if you don’t think it accords with 2267. It is as if 2267 trumps everything the church has ever said, no matter who said it or how many times it was confirmed. I’ll just point out that the statement in the 1992 edition was given as a statement of fact. Do facts themselves become immaterial if they don’t accord with 2267?That edition is no longer valid as catechesis, Ender, without including CCC 2267.
We’re not discussing forgiveness; the topic is punishment, and forgiveness does not obviate the need for punishment.One has to ask the writer(s) of the first edition, “have you forgiven murderers?”.
At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. (JPII, General Audience, 1999)
Right, because we all know the Christian way to rebut an argument is to “question his commitment to mercy and forgiveness.”Ender, if there were a bishop today voicing your opinion, he would be all over the news as a dissenting voice. Catholics would be wise to call to question his commitment to mercy and forgiveness.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning exnihilo,
The state is not a religious or spiritual authority, correct?
Is your opinion from a position of forgiveness?
Please answer the question from my last post. What is the purpose of justice?Justice has a Divine purpose too. It is something of God.
This is a legitimacy in state law. The Christian is called to forgive, which erases the desire for vengeance. A legitimate authority who forgives will not act out of vengeance.Vengeance isnt something that legitimate authorities can’t seek.
The state is not a religious or spiritual authority, correct?
Is your opinion from a position of forgiveness?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Here are more citations:Do facts themselves become immaterial if they don’t accord with 2267?
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...paign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm
Well, it certainly is not an un-Christian way. People in Church hierarchy long ago were involved in some very evil behaviors. If they were to present an argument rationalizing their behavior, then it would be a valid approach to question their commitment to mercy and forgiveness in a non-accusation way. Chances are the commitment is there, but there may be some difficulties.Right, because we all know the Christian way to rebut an argument is to “question his commitment to mercy and forgiveness.”
John 34-35
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
It is logical, then, to see that to the degree that a person does not speak/act with love, which manifests in mercy and forgiveness, then to that degree we cannot see that the person is a disciple of Christ. I am not promoting a questioning that accuses, that is not the tone here. Some Christians are not ready to forgive, and that is very understandable and to be respected, but the position of not-forgiving should never be the basis of doctrine or policy.
The voice that speaks against the Death Penalty is the voice of forgiveness.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I challenged you to find a citation suggesting either that retribution was not the primary objective of punishment, or that rehabilitation was. Your citation said nothing about this.Retributive Justice…
I’ll first note that your citation is from the USCCB, which I would be right in dismissing inasmuch as:Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death. A life for a life! Anyone who inflicts an injury on his neighbor shall receive the same in return. Limb for limb, eye for eye, tooth for tooth! The same injury that a man gives another shall be inflicted on him in return. ( Lv 24:17-20; See also similar language in Ex 21:23-25 and Dt 19:21)
“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” (Cardinal Ratzinger)
That said, I’ll address their criticisms anyway. The first thing to note is that they did not include Gn 9:5-6 in their litany of OT citations (which it is their intention to demolish). The difficulty caused by the passage in Genesis is that it is God himself who is speaking, not Moses, so it cannot be so easily dismissed.
The first part is true, the second not so much. The principle which they ignore is that there is a minimum punishment: its severity must be equivalent to the severity of the crime. Not identical, but commensurate.A correct interpretation of these passages indicates, however, that the principal intent of such laws was to limit the retribution that could be exacted for an offense, not to require a minimum punishment.
Thus they too find ways to reject explicit teachings by granting themselves the right to reinterpret them “in context”, which they of course supply. There is nothing about the need " to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance" that excludes the right to exact capital punishment. They do imply that this right does not exist, but they can only imply it because they know they cannot assert it.Furthermore, it is important to read individual passages in the context of Sacred Scripture as a whole. While the Old Testament includes some passages about taking the life of one who kills, the Old Testament and the teaching of Christ in the New Testament call us to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Actually, it did. Here is is again:I challenged you to find a citation suggesting either that retribution was not the primary objective of punishment, or that rehabilitation was. Your citation said nothing about this.
Ender, are you saying that you speak for the Church today?Christ in the New Testament call us to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance.10
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
I again refer to the quotes from Pope Francis I posted earlier.Thus they too find ways to reject explicit teachings by granting themselves the right to reinterpret them “in context”, which they of course supply. There is nothing about the need " to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance" that excludes the right to exact capital punishment. They do imply that this right does not exist, but they can only imply it because they know they cannot assert it
Since Capital punishment does nothing the convert the sinner or rehabilitate him, and since incarceration protects society and individuals, what is left of the DP except to serve vengeance?
So yes, the Christian value to reject vengeance means that the DP is rejected.
E
Ender
Guest
What part of this passage indicates that retribution is not the primary purpose of punishment, or that the primary purpose is rehabilitation?Christ in the New Testament call us to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance.
A better question would be: what part of anything I have said doesn’t accord with what the church has always taught? If you find a contradiction between what I have said and what you believe 2267 teaches, then I think the problem is yours, not mine. Since I accompany all of my assertions with citations to support them, the contest is between what the church unarguably has taught, and your understanding of 2267.Ender, are you saying that you speak for the Church today?
E
Ender
Guest
You have simply assumed this, and, again, you have nothing to support this contention beyond your personal opinion. Here is what the church says on the matter:Since Capital punishment does nothing the convert the sinner or rehabilitate him…
2266 Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)
And here is endnote (67): Lk 23:40-43
But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into[a] your kingdom.” 43 He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
That is, in giving an example of a punishment that “contribute(s) to the correction of the offender.” the church used an example of…capital punishment.
Given that you have rejected retribution not only as the primary end of punishment, but apparently as any valid end at all, capital punishment is indeed pointless. On the other hand, now that you have separated punishment from justice why should we not throw people in jail simply for being dangerous whether or not they have committed a crime. If incarceration justifies punishment, how can you object? You have already said that people don’t deserve to be punished for their sins so where’s the objection?…since incarceration protects society and individuals, what is left of the DP except to serve vengeance?
If your claim was true then not only would the death penalty be rejected, but all punishment would be invalid. If vengeance is unacceptable then how can we justify punishing people? What distinguishes punishment from vengeance?So yes, the Christian value to reject vengeance means that the DP is rejected.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
So yes, the Christian value to reject vengeance means that the DP is rejected.
Yes, all punishment that has the aim of vengeance is invalid. A revisit of 2266:If your claim was true then not only would the death penalty be rejected, but all punishment would be invalid. If vengeance is unacceptable then how can we justify punishing people? What distinguishes punishment from vengeance?
"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."
Therefore, punishment that serves those purposes indeed has its place. However, death does not contribute to the correction of the guilty party or serve such a “medicinal” purpose. Incarceration can indeed have a “medicinal” purpose for the guilty person.
My question was "are you saying that you speak for the Church today? Are you going to answer that question?A better question would be: what part of anything I have said doesn’t accord with what the church has always taught?
Are you agreeing with this:
If not, then what you are saying is not in accord with what the Church always taught, because “always” includes now, today.“however grave the crime that may be committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”
"And [the death penalty] is, of itself, contrary to the Gospel, because it is freely decided to suppress a human life that is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator, and of which, in the final analysis, God alone is the true judge and guarantor,”
Pope Francis
So, in saying that punishment has vengeance as a purpose, and the death penalty is admissible for a subdued person, are you also saying that you are speaking for the Catholic Church today?
V
Vadne
Guest
Pope Francis can’t simply erase what the Church has taught and consistently taught from time immemorial. The death penalty may be applied in exceedingly rare cases, but the PRINCIPLE cannot be contrary to the Gospel. Or else all the Fathers and every pope before Francis was wrong.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, this is another good point. A person who is mentally ill may be considered dangerous without ever actually having committed a prosecutable crime. Such people, in the past have been institutionalized, but this action has its limits as you probably know.why should we not throw people in jail simply for being dangerous whether or not they have committed a crime
I agree that the traditional sense of the word “punishment” is associated with vengeance, Ender. What is coming to light for the Church (yes, it is a long learning curve!) is that vengeance goes away when we follow Christ. When we forgive, we no longer hold a debt against people; so the next action is not about collecting debts but about “medicinal” approaches.
The state (US) is doing a lousy job with its medicinal approaches, but is doing a fair job protecting people from dangerous criminals.
O
OneSheep
Guest
No, the Pope by himself cannot erase what the Church has taught, but the Holy Spirit, having inspired Bishops and all modern popes to take a stand against the DP, can indeed do what He/She wills.
“wrong” is probably too strong a word. “Working under an underdeveloped model of mercy” would be more appropriate.
“wrong” is probably too strong a word. “Working under an underdeveloped model of mercy” would be more appropriate.
V
Vadne
Guest
“She”? That is heretical. Plain and simple. And that says all there needs to be said about your comment.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.