Of course there is hell. But you aren’t suggesting that humans are called to imitate Gods eternal condemnation by the death penalty are you?
Both Augustine and Aquinas make that parallel.
“… 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.” - CCC2267
That is true. The CCC quotes St John Paul II. He points out that moral self-defense, even for the State, requires that only sufficient force be used against the aggressor. You can’t morally shoot someone to death for spitting upon you. This doesn’t speak at all to retributive justice.
The Church has always been a prominent voice for moral and humane policies and sentences of the State. Always.
From which we can conclude that it if morality, in this case justice, demands the death penalty, the Church is foursquare for it.
I’ll ask a question I’ve asked before because there is a blindspot in the view of justice you espouse. From what source do we know this pure justice that ensures it is impartial and objective?
Natural Law. From the Code of Hammurabi through the Greeks, the Old Testament, the Church Fathers such as Augustine, the Scholastics, and to today it has been recognized that the core of justice involves graded punishments impartially assessed.
Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.
Philosopher Immanuel Kant stated in “Metaphysics of Morals: “Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime.”
You said before that people have a sense of justice, but I demonstrated that peoples sense of justice is innately biased.
All human endeavors are imperfect.
I simply don’t understand what source we would draw on outside of the needs of the common good, to have a truly impartial and objective schema of justice.
You’re beginning the argument that all laws, courts, and punishments should be abolished. The general accord with minor exceptions on what constitutes a crime and the gradations of punishments are good evidence of an innate law written in the hearts of men, as St Paul wrote. The only question is the specific punishments and the slope of the gradations.
So that is my first and foremost question of you. What is the source of the model of justice that reigns above all other factors, mercy included?
Mercy is not part of any model or method of justice, so we can dispense with that.
We cannot even begin to consider mercy unless and until we accomplish justice.
The foundation of retributive justice is found in Deuteronomy 19:17-21 and Exodus 21:23-21:27: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
This is reflected in the entry in the Catechism: 2266 “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.”
That entry in the Catechism cites Luke 23:40-43:
40 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 your kingdom.’ 43 He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’
This would have been the perfect opportunity for Christ to make a pithy comment deriding capital punishment, but He did not. He forgave only one. Why He forgave only one illustrates how justice and mercy correctly operate.
.
